how can we stop terrorism essay

Ethics and Morality

Terrorism: what, why, and how to stop it, we will need a flexible integration of force and engagement..

Posted October 13, 2023 | Reviewed by Monica Vilhauer

The daily news seems to highlight an upsurge in terrorism, with each incident more violent than the last, leading us to ask: Why do they do this? And what is the best way for the world to respond?

Although it never really left, recent world events have thrust terrorism back into the consciousness of people around the globe. Dealing with it effectively requires understanding its tactics, ideology, and psychology.

The Nature and Purposes of Terrorism

The word terrorism derives from the Latin, terrere, which means “to frighten,” and the first modern use of the term derives from the 18th-century “Reign of Terror” associated with the French Revolution. Terrorism is as old as civilization, and as timeless as human conflict. It has existed ever since some factions discovered that they could intimidate the many by targeting the few. However, terrorism has achieved special prominence in the modern technological era, beginning in the 1970s as international terrorism, continuing through the 1980s and 1990s as domestic terrorism in the U.S. and elsewhere, and apparently coming full circle in the 21st century with mass terror attacks in nations including the United States, France, and, most recently, Israel.

Psychologically, terrorism can be viewed from several perspectives. On the one hand, almost all conventional armed conflict contains an element of terror. Why threaten war at all unless the goal is to intimidate your enemy into complying with your demands? And if they resist, your strategy is to instill as much fear as possible in order to increase the likelihood of their capitulation. Additionally, where one side’s conventional combat forces are numerically or technologically deficient, terrorism puts disproportionate psychological power into the hands of a small group of ideologues or opportunists.

Terrorist Typologies

Historically, a terrorist act is rarely an end in itself but is rather designed to stoke fear in whole populations by targeting a small, representative group. However, this may be changing with acts of mass terrorism, and the tactics may relate to the different aims of various terrorist groups. Instrumental terrorism describes acts carried out to coerce the target group into taking some action or complying with a demand. Theoretically, at least, the terror will end if and when the demands are met or a compromise is forged.

By contrast, there is little that may be done to appease the perpetrators of retributive terrorism, who are primarily interested not in influencing, but in destroying their enemies. Here, the target is hated not because of what they do, but for the very fact that they exist, so nothing less than their complete expungement will suffice. Often, instrumental- and retributive-type terrorist groups are admixed and ill-defined even amongst themselves, which further complicates effective responses to them.

Terrorist Goals and Strategies

Yet, several elements appear to be almost universal in modern terrorist activities. The first is obviously the use of extreme violence as a primary instrument of coercion or intimidation. In this sense, the true targets of the terrorist act extend far beyond those directly affected. The goal of these activities is to use threats, harassment, and violence to create an atmosphere of fear that will eventually lead to some desired behavior on the part of the larger target population or government.

Second, victims are selected for their maximum propaganda value, usually ensuring a high degree of media coverage. A great deal of thought may go into the symbolic value of the attacks, or the victims may simply be targets of opportunity. This aggressive approach may backfire if the goal is to garner wider world sympathy, especially if noninvolved innocents, including children, are killed along with the direct targets. But in a malevolent twist, if the aim is actually to inflict as much pain and panic as possible, then indiscriminate slaughter may serve only too well: The target population had better comply because these terrorists will “do anything.”

Third, unconventional military tactics are used, especially secrecy and surprise, as well as deliberately targeting noncombatants; this is the commonly cited distinction between a terrorist and a soldier. Again, if the goal is to inflict maximum horror, then it makes sense to choose locations that contain the largest number of victims from all walks of life. Everyone is a target. No one is safe. These types of glaring acts are also the most likely to keep the terrorist group and their perceived grievances in the news cycle.

Fourth, intense and absolutist loyalty to the ideologies and aims of the organization characterizes most terrorist groups. Although there are exceptions, the bulk of hard-core terrorist members are typically not part-timers or mercenaries. The willingness to commit unspeakable acts — not to mention giving one’s own life — necessitates an unshakable belief that these acts are somehow for some transcendent and worthy purpose.

Are Terrorists Mentally Ill?

It is tempting to brand atrocious behavior as "crazy," because doing so helps take some of the willfully malevolent sting out of it. For example, such explanations are routinely proffered for the etiology of serial killings and school shootings, because reducing such an outrage to an anomalous scientific curiosity — as we do with a frightening disease — inserts a psychological barrier between our knowledge of the act and the terrifying and hopeless feelings that knowledge provokes. If only we can determine the “causes” of these behavioral pathologies, maybe we can discover a “cure.” Finally, pathologizing a violent act against us delegitimizes any traces of justification we may reluctantly suspect underlies the act: Nope, we didn’t do anything wrong; they’re just a bunch of malevolent psychos.

In fact, the few studies that have directly examined the mental status of captured terrorists have failed to disclose significant signs of intellectual impairment or serious mental disorder. What these individuals do show is a heightened ability to rationalize and compartmentalize their violent motives and activities, believing that these are necessary actions in fighting for their cause: Evil transformed into nobility. But ideology is not psychopathology, so these individuals fully know what they’re doing and willfully, indeed enthusiastically, do it.

Stopping Terrorism

The standard response of antiterrorism units throughout the world has consisted of a surgical version of “shock and awe .” After a terrorist act occurs, find out who and where the perpetrators are, hit them soon, hit them hard, and thereby teach a lesson to any other miscreants who may be thinking of hatching and executing similar plots. However, systematic analysis shows that this unitary retaliatory approach to terrorism frequently not only fails to deter and discourage it but may in fact only perpetuate endless cycles of retribution.

This seeming paradox can actually be explained by an elemental principle of psychophysiology: habituation. Application of a novel, aversive stimulus typically elicits a marked response from the nervous system the first few times it occurs. Repeated application of the stimulus results in a lessening of the response: In essence, the nervous system adaptively “tones down” the impact of the event so that the individual can go about their business. An exception may occur with especially painful or damaging stimuli that threaten the life and safety of the organism; then, the nervous system may actually become more, not less, responsive to repeated application of the painful intrusion, or ones like it, a phenomenon called sensitization.

The problem with most counterterrorist tactical responses by otherwise civilized nations is that they rarely are the final suppressive measures the retaliatory forces intend them to be. In fact, such response doctrines of escalating proportionality may completely defeat the whole purpose of deterrence: What better way to bake in habituation than to administer carefully titrated doses of punishment , progressively inoculating your enemy to further retaliation, and thus emboldening him through your perceived impotence? Reluctant to be seen as barbarians themselves, the stronger side fails to wage a war of total destruction, thereby diluting the effect of whatever half-hearted efforts it applies and ends up achieving not pacification, but further rebellion.

This is the conundrum of fighting terror: demonstrating resolve without descending into the same depraved depths as your adversary. The many types of terrorists and reasons for terrorism virtually guarantee the failure of one-size-fits-all approaches. Many authorities advocate a forceful but flexible approach: an unwavering commitment to eliminating the extant threat and protecting one’s citizens, combined, where possible, with a willingness to diplomatically engage the majority nonviolent portion of the aggrieved population, wielding some measure of hope as a psychological counterforce to the sense of militant desperation fueling or speciously justifying atrocities carried out to entrench and expand the power of an evil few. The alternative is a Hobbesian “war of all against all,” which 21st-century technology must render untenable.

Note: Information provided herein is for educational purposes, and is not intended to provide individual clinical or forensic advice or opinions. For such cases, always consult with a qualified legal, medical, or mental health professional.

Miller, L. (2006). The terrorist mind: I. A psychological and political analysis. International Journal of Offender Rehabilitation and Comparative Criminology, 50, 121-138 . [Reprint available upon request]

Miller, L. (2006). The terrorist mind: II. Typologies, psychopathologies, and practical guidelines for investigation. International Journal of Offender Rehabilitation and Comparative Criminology, 50, 255-268 . [Reprint available upon request]

Miller, L. (2011). Psychological interventions for terroristic trauma: Prevention, crisis management, and clinical treatment strategies. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 13, 95-120.

Laurence Miller, Ph.D. , is a clinical and forensic psychologist, neuropsychologist, university professor, author, lecturer, expert witness, and frequent consultant and media commentator on the topics of neuroscience and criminal justice.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Terrorism Essay for Students and Teacher

500+ words essay on terrorism essay.

Terrorism is an act, which aims to create fear among ordinary people by illegal means. It is a threat to humanity. It includes person or group spreading violence, riots, burglaries, rapes, kidnappings, fighting, bombings, etc. Terrorism is an act of cowardice. Also, terrorism has nothing to do with religion. A terrorist is only a terrorist, not a Hindu or a Muslim.

Types of Terrorism

Terrorism is of two kinds, one is political terrorism which creates panic on a large scale and another one is criminal terrorism which deals in kidnapping to take ransom money. Political terrorism is much more crucial than criminal terrorism because it is done by well-trained persons. It thus becomes difficult for law enforcing agencies to arrest them in time.

Terrorism spread at the national level as well as at international level.  Regional terrorism is the most violent among all. Because the terrorists think that dying as a terrorist is sacred and holy, and thus they are willing to do anything. All these terrorist groups are made with different purposes.

Causes of Terrorism

There are some main causes of terrorism development  or production of large quantities of machine guns, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, nuclear weapons, missiles, etc. rapid population growth,  Politics, Social, Economic  problems, dissatisfaction of people with the country’s system, lack of education, corruption, racism, economic inequality, linguistic differences, all these are the major  elements of terrorism, and terrorism flourishes after them. People use terrorism as a weapon to prove and justify their point of view.  The riots among Hindus and Muslims are the most famous but there is a difference between caste and terrorism.

The Effects Of Terrorism

Terrorism spreads fear in people, people living in the country feel insecure because of terrorism. Due to terrorist attacks, millions of goods are destroyed, the lives of thousands of innocent people are lost, animals are also killed. Disbelief in humanity raises after seeing a terrorist activity, this gives birth to another terrorist. There exist different types of terrorism in different parts of the country and abroad.

Today, terrorism is not only the problem of India, but in our neighboring country also, and governments across the world are making a lot of effort to deal with it. Attack on world trade center on September 11, 2001, is considered the largest terrorist attack in the world. Osama bin Laden attacked the tallest building in the world’s most powerful country, causing millions of casualties and death of thousands of people.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Terrorist Attacks in India

India has suffered several terrorist attacks which created fear among the public and caused huge destruction. Here are some of the major terrorist attacks that hit India in the last few years: 1991 – Punjab Killings, 1993 – Bombay Bomb Blasts, RSS Bombing in Chennai, 2000 – Church Bombing, Red Fort Terrorist Attack,2001- Indian Parliament Attack, 2002 – Mumbai Bus Bombing, Attack on Akshardham Temple, 2003 – Mumbai Bombing, 2004 – Dhemaji School Bombing in Assam,2005 – Delhi Bombings, Indian Institute of Science Shooting, 2006 – Varanasi Bombings, Mumbai Train Bombings, Malegaon Bombings, 2007 – Samjhauta Express Bombings, Mecca Masjid Bombing, Hyderabad Bombing, Ajmer Dargah Bombing, 2008 – Jaipur Bombings, Bangalore Serial Blasts, Ahmedabad Bombings, Delhi Bombings, Mumbai Attacks, 2010 – Pune Bombing, Varanasi Bombing.

The recent ones include 2011 – Mumbai Bombing, Delhi Bombing, 2012 – Pune Bombing, 2013 – Hyderabad Blasts, Srinagar Attack, Bodh Gaya Bombings, Patna Bombings, 2014 – Chhattisgarh Attack, Jharkhand Blast, Chennai Train Bombing, Assam Violence, Church Street Bomb Blast, Bangalore, 2015 –  Jammu Attack, Gurdaspur Attack, Pathankot Attack, 2016 – Uri Attack, Baramulla Attack, 2017 – Bhopal Ujjain Passenger Train Bombing, Amarnath Yatra Attack, 2018 Sukma Attack, 2019- Pulwama attack.

Agencies fighting Terrorism in India

Many police, intelligence and military organizations in India have formed special agencies to fight terrorism in the country. Major agencies which fight against terrorism in India are Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Terrorism has become a global threat which needs to be controlled from the initial level. Terrorism cannot be controlled by the law enforcing agencies alone. The people in the world will also have to unite in order to face this growing threat of terrorism.

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

16.4 Preventing War and Stopping Terrorism

Learning objectives.

• Outline approaches that show promise for preventing war.
• Understand the differences between the law enforcement and structural-reform approaches to preventing terrorism.

War has existed since prehistoric times, and terrorism goes back at least to the days of the Old Testament (e.g., when Samson brought down the temple of the Philistines in an act of suicide that also killed scores of Philistines). Given their long histories, war and terrorism are not easy to prevent. However, theory and research by sociologists and other social scientists point to several avenues that may ultimately help make the world more peaceful.

Preventing War

The usual strategies suggested by political scientists and international relations experts to prevent war include arms control and diplomacy. Approaches to arms control and diplomacy vary in their actual and potential effectiveness. The historical and research literatures on these approaches are vast (Daase & Meier, 2012; Garcia, 2012) and beyond the scope of this chapter. Regardless of the specific approaches taken, suffice it here to say that arms control and diplomacy will always remain essential strategies to prevent war, especially in the nuclear age when humanity is only minutes away from possible destruction.

Beyond these two essential strategies, the roots of war must also be addressed. As discussed earlier, war is a social, not biological, phenomenon and arises from decisions by political and military leaders to go to war. There is ample evidence that deceit accompanies many of these decisions, as leaders go to many wars for less than noble purposes. To the extent this is true, citizens must always be ready to question any rationales given for war, and a free press in a democracy must exercise eternal vigilance in reporting on these rationales. According to critics, the press and the public were far too acquiescent in the decision to go to war in Iraq in 2003, just as they had been acquiescent a generation earlier when the Vietnam War began being waged (Solomon, 2006). To prevent war, then, the press and the public must always be ready to question assumptions about the necessity of war. The same readiness should occur in regard to militarism and the size of the military budget.

In this regard, history shows that social movements can help prevent or end armament and war and limit the unchecked use of military power once war has begun (Breyman, 2001; Staggenborg, 2010). While activism is no guarantee of success, responsible nonviolent protest against war and militarism provides an important vehicle for preventing war or for more quickly ending a war once it has begun.

People Making a Difference

Speaking Truth to Power

The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) is a Quaker organization that has long worked for peace and social justice. Its national office is in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and it has local offices in more than thirty other US cities and also in more than a dozen other nations.

AFSC was established in 1917 to help conscientious objectors serve their country in nonmilitary ways during World War I. After that war ended with the defeat of Germany and Austria, AFSC provided food to thousands of German and Austrian children. It helped Jewish refugees after Hitler came to power, and sent various forms of aid to Japan after World War II ended. During the 1960s, it provided nonviolence training for civil rights activists and took a leading role in the movement to end the Vietnam War. Since the 1960s, AFSC has provided various types of help to immigrants, migrant workers, prisoners, and other “have-not” groups in need of social justice. It also works to achieve nonviolent conflict resolution in urban communities and spoke out against plans to begin war in Iraq in 2003.

In 1947, AFSC and its British counterpart won the Nobel Peace Prize for their aid to hungry children and other Europeans during and after World Wars I and II. The Nobel committee proclaimed in part, “The Quakers have shown us that it is possible to carry into action something which is deeply rooted in the minds of many: sympathy with others; the desire to help others…without regard to nationality or race; feelings which, when carried into deeds, must provide the foundations of a lasting peace.”

For almost a century, the American Friends Service Committee has been active in many ways to achieve a more just, peaceable world. It deserves the world’s thanks for helping to make a difference. For further information, visit http://www.afsc.org .

As we think about how to prevent war, we must not forget two important types of changes that create pressures for war: population change and environmental change. Effective efforts to reduce population growth in the areas of the world where it is far too rapid will yield many benefits, but one of these is a lower likelihood that certain societies will go to war. Effective efforts to address climate change will also yield many benefits, and one of these is also a lower likelihood of war and ethnic conflict in certain parts of the world.

Finally, efforts to prevent war must keep in mind the fact that ideological differences and prejudice sometimes motivate decisions to go to war. It might sound rather idealistic to say that governments and their citizenries should respect ideological differences and not be prejudiced toward people who hold different religious or other ideologies or have different ethnic backgrounds. However, any efforts by international bodies, such as the United Nations, to achieve greater understanding along these lines will limit the potential for war and other armed conflict. The same potential holds true for efforts to increase educational attainment within the United States and other industrial nations but especially within poor nations. Because prejudice generally declines as education increases, measures that raise educational attainment promise to reduce the potential for armed conflict in addition to the other benefits of increased education.

In addition to these various strategies to prevent war, it is also vital to reduce the size of the US military budget. Defense analysts who think this budget is too high have proposed specific cuts in weapons systems that are not needed and in military personnel at home and abroad who are not needed (Arquilla & Fogelson-Lubliner, 2011; Knight, 2011; Sustainable Defense Task Force, 2010). Making these cuts would save the nation from $100 billion to $150 billion annually without at all endangering national security. This large sum could then be spent to help meet the nation’s many unmet domestic needs.

Stopping Terrorism

Because of 9/11 and other transnational terrorism, most analyses of “stopping terrorism” focus on this specific type. Traditional efforts to stop transnational terrorism take two forms (White, 2012). The first strategy involves attempts to capture known terrorists and to destroy their camps and facilities and is commonly called a law enforcement or military approach. The second strategy stems from the recognition of the structural roots of terrorism just described and is often called a structural-reform approach. Each approach has many advocates among terrorism experts, and each approach has many critics.

Law enforcement and military efforts have been known to weaken terrorist forces, but terrorist groups have persisted despite these measures. Worse yet, these measures may ironically inspire terrorists to commit further terrorism and increase public support for their cause. Critics also worry that the military approach endangers civil liberties, as the debate over the US response to terrorism since 9/11 so vividly illustrates (Cole & Lobel, 2007). This debate took an interesting turn in late 2010 amid the increasing use of airport scanners that generate body images. Many people criticized the scanning as an invasion of privacy, and they also criticized the invasiveness of the “pat-down” searches that were used for people who chose not to be scanned (Reinberg, 2010).

In view of all these problems, many terrorism experts instead favor the structural-reform approach, which they say can reduce terrorism by improving or eliminating the conditions that give rise to the discontent that leads individuals to commit terrorism. Here again the assessment of the heads of the 9/11 Commission illustrates this view: “We must use all the tools of U.S. power—including foreign aid, educational assistance and vigorous public diplomacy that emphasizes scholarship, libraries and exchange programs—to shape a Middle East and a Muslim world that are less hostile to our interests and values. America’s long-term security relies on being viewed not as a threat but as a source of opportunity and hope” (Kean & Hamilton, 2007, p. B1).

Although there are no easy solutions to transnational terrorism, then, efforts to stop this form of terrorism must not neglect its structural roots. As long as these roots persist, new terrorists will come along to replace any terrorists who are captured or killed. Such recognition of the ultimate causes of transnational terrorism is thus essential for the creation of a more peaceable world.

Key Takeaways

• Arms control and diplomacy remain essential strategies for stopping war, but the roots of war must also be addressed.
• The law enforcement/military approach to countering terrorism may weaken terrorist groups, but it also may increase their will to fight and popular support for their cause and endanger civil liberties.

For Your Review

• Do you think deceit was involved in the decision of the United States to go to war against Iraq in 2003? Why or why not?
• Which means of countering terrorism do you prefer more, the law enforcement/military approach or the structural-reform approach? Explain your answer.

Arquilla, J., & Fogelson-Lubliner. (2011, March 13). The Pentagon’s biggest boondoggles. New York Times , p. WK12.

Breyman, S. (2001). Why movements matter: The west German peace movement and US arms control policy . Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Cole, D., & Lobel, J. (2007). Less safe, less free: Why America is losing the war on terror . New York, NY: New Press.

Daase, C., & Meier, O. (Eds.). (2012). Arms control in the 21st century: Between coercion and cooperation . New York, NY: Routledge.

Garcia, D. (2012). Disarmament diplomacy and human security: Regimes, norms, and moral progress in international relations . New York, NY: Routledge.

Kean, T. H., & Hamilton, L. H. (2007, September 9). Are we safer today? The Washington Post , p. B1.

Knight, C. (2011). Strategic adjustment to sustain the force: A survey of current proposals . Cambridge, MA: Project on Defense Alternatives.

Reinberg, S. (2010, November 23). Airport body scanners safe, experts say. Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com .

Solomon, N. (2006). War made easy: How presidents and pundits keep spinning us to death Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Staggenborg, S. (2010). Social movements . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sustainable Defense Task Force. (2010). Debt, deficits, & defense: A way forward . Cambridge, MA: Project on Defense Alternatives.

White, J. R. (2012). Terrorism and homeland security: An introduction (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Social Problems Copyright © 2015 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

7 Ways to Stop Terrorism

January 16, 2015 1:30am by

How to Stop Terrorism: 7 Ways to Drain the Swamp

In the wake of the barbaric Paris terror attack, everyone is debating how to stop further terrorism.

Some say we need more war against Islamic countries … or more spying … or more crackdowns on our liberties.

But – despite what the talking heads may say – the methods for stopping future attacks are well known …

We’ve got to drain the swamp.

I. Stop Supporting the Dictators Who Fund Terrorists

Saudi Arabia is the world’s largest sponsor of radical Islamic terrorists.

The Saudis have backed ISIS and many other brutal terrorist groups.  According to sworn declarations from a 9/11 Commissioner and the Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry Into 9/11, the Saudi government backed the 9/11 hijackers (see section VII for details).

Saudi Arabia is the hotbed of the most radical Muslim terrorists in the world: the Salafis (both ISIS and Al Qaeda are Salafis ).

And the Saudis – with U.S. support – back the radical “madrassas” in which Islamic radicalism was spread.

And yet the U.S. has been supporting the Saudis militarily, with NSA intelligence and in every other way possible for 70 years.

In addition, top American terrorism experts say that U.S. support for brutal and tyrannical countries in the Middle east – like Saudi Arabia – is one of the top motivators for Arab terrorists .

So if we stop supporting the House of Saud and other Arab tyrannies, we’ll get a two-fold reduction in terror:

(1) We’ll undermine the main terrorism supporters And … (2) We’ll take away one of the main motivations driving terrorists: our support for the most repressive, brutal Arab tyrannies

II. Stop Arming Terrorists

We’re arming the most violent terrorists in the Middle East , as part of a geopolitical strategy to overthrow leaders we don’t like (see section III for more details).   And see this , this , this , this and this .

Previously-leaked documents showed that the CIA warned Obama that funding extremist rebels doesn’t work … but Obama decided to fund the Syrian rebels anyway for cynical political gain.

Indeed, the French terrorists who just murdered the cartoonists in Paris apparently just returned from waging war against the Syrian government, where they may – directly or indirectly – have obtained U.S. weapons and training.

And – strangely – we’re overthrowing the more moderate Arabs who stabilized the region and denied jihadis a foothold.

If we want to stop terrorism, we need to stop supporting the terrorists .

III. Stop Imperial Conquests for Arab Oil

The U.S. has undertaken regime change against Arab leaders we don’t like for six decades. We overthrew the leader of Syria in 1949, Iran in 1953, Iraq twice , Afghanistan twice , Turkey, Libya … and other oil-rich countries.

Neoconservatives planned regime change throughout the Middle East and North Africa yet again in 1991 .

Top American politicians admit that the Iraq oil was about oil, not stopping terrorism (documents from Britain show the same thing ).    Much of the war on terror is really a fight for natural gas .  Or to force the last few hold-outs  into dollars and private central banking .

And the U.S. military described terror attacks on the U.S. as a “ small price to pay for being a superpower “:

A senior officer on the Joint Staff told State Department counter-terrorism director Sheehan he had heard terrorist strikes characterized more than once by colleagues as a “small price to pay for being a superpower”.

Security experts – including both conservatives and liberals – agree that waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. See this , this , this , this , this , this , this and this .

For example, James K. Feldman – former professor of decision analysis and economics at the Air Force Institute of Technology and the School of Advanced Airpower Studies – and other experts say that foreign occupation is the main cause of terrorism. University of Chicago professor Robert A. Pape – who specializes in international security affairs – agrees .

We’ve fought the longest and most expensive wars in American history … but we’re less secure than before , and there are more terror attacks than ever .

Remember, Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until the U.S. invaded that country.

If we want to stop terrorism, we have to stop overthrowing Arab leaders and invading Arab countries to grab their oil.

IV. Stop Mass Surveillance

Top security experts agree that mass surveillance makes us MORE vulnerable to terrorists.

V.  Stop Torture

Top terrorism and interrogation experts agree that torture creates more terrorists .

Indeed, the leaders of ISIS were motivated by U.S. torture .

Once again, we have a very current example:  Paris terrorist Cherif Kouchi told a court in 2005 that he wasn’t radical until he learned about U.S. torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

If we want to stop creating new terrorists, we have to stop torturing … permanently.

VI.  Stop Drone Assassinations of Innocent Civilians

Top CIA officers say that drone strikes increase terrorism (and see this ).

The CIA – the agency in charge of drone strikes – even told Obama that drone kills can increase terrorism.

If we want to stop creating new terrorists, we have to stop the drone strikes.

VII. Stop Covering Up 9/11

Government officials agree that 9/11 was state-sponsored terrorism … they just disagree on which state was responsible .

Because 9/11 was the largest terror attack on the U.S. in history – and all of our national security strategies are based on 9/11 – we can’t stop terror until we get to the bottom of what really happened, and which state was behind it.

Many high-level American officials – including military leaders , intelligence officials and 9/11 commissioners – are dissatisfied with the 9/11 investigations to date.

The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “ permanent 9/11 commission ” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it.

The Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 and former Head of the Senate Intelligence Committee (Bob Graham) said that the Paris terror attack, ISIS, and other terrorist developments are a result of failing to stand up to Saudi Arabia and declassify the 9/11 investigation’s report about Saudi involvement in 9/11:

The 9/11 chairs, Ron Paul, and numerous other American politicians have called for declassification, as well.

Again, others have different ideas about who was behind 9/11. But until we get to the bottom of it, terror attacks will continue.

Stop Throwing Bodies In the River

Defenders of current government policy say: “we have to do something to stop terrorists!”

Yes, we do …

But we must also stop doing the 7 things above which increase terrorism.  We have to stop “throwing new bodies in the river .”

But the powers-that-be don’t want to change course … they gain tremendous power and influence through our current war on terror strategies.

For example, the military-complex grows rich through war … so endless war is a feature – not a bug – of our foreign policy.

Torture was about building a false justification for war .

Mass surveillance is about economic and diplomatic advantage and crushing dissent .

Supporting the most radical Muslim leaders is about oil and power … “a small price to pay” to try to dominate the world.

A leading advisor to the U.S. military – the Rand Corporation – released a study in 2008 called “ How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida “.  The report confirms what experts have been saying for years: the war on terror is actually weakening national security (see this , this and this ).

As a press release about the study states:

“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism .”

We, the People, have to stand up and demand that our power-hungry leaders stop doing the things which give them more power … but are guaranteed to increase terrorism against us, the civilian population.

This content, which contains security-related opinions and/or information, is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in any manner as professional advice, or an endorsement of any practices, products or services. There can be no guarantees or assurances that the views expressed here will be applicable for any particular facts or circumstances, and should not be relied upon in any manner. You should consult your own advisers as to legal, business, tax, and other related matters concerning any investment. The commentary in this “post” (including any related blog, podcasts, videos, and social media) reflects the personal opinions, viewpoints, and analyses of the Ritholtz Wealth Management employees providing such comments, and should not be regarded the views of Ritholtz Wealth Management LLC. or its respective affiliates or as a description of advisory services provided by Ritholtz Wealth Management or performance returns of any Ritholtz Wealth Management Investments client. References to any securities or digital assets, or performance data, are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The content speaks only as of the date indicated. Any projections, estimates, forecasts, targets, prospects, and/or opinions expressed in these materials are subject to change without notice and may differ or be contrary to opinions expressed by others. The Compound Media, Inc., an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here: https://www.ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers Please see disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/blog-disclosures/

What's been said:

Changing policies with regard to Palestine should have been number 1 or 2. Not a mention? Wow.

I have a problem with premise #1. If you weaken the monarchy, don’t you effectually facilitate the people of that country to weaken or topple a fragile monarchy? Saudi’s are being challenged internally by a populace that is paid for compliance. Getting Saudi Arabia to change is pretty ethnocentric, especially as it relates to their belief that God and state are inextricably bound. Both countries have hegemonic features, ours is through global governance and hyperpower , while Saudi Arabia’s is a regional one. Islamic countries have more in group members and less out group members as compared with the Western world. As Saudi’s look around at the Arab regime changes, don’t expect the monarchy to be dragged kicking and screaming into our Western 21st century so willingly. Allowing women to drive alone is like medieval dental extraction to them. Some countries “cultural lag” move differently. Islamic countries have embraced the technological mechanisms of material culture, but not the non material social part. China functions this way as well. Tom Friedman’s million muslim march seems a plea more than a reach, but George Friedman’s article “War Between Two Worlds” helps frame how cultures evolved to present day state. To Intlacct’s point, Palestine and the settlements and the great land grab in Israel are other issues that cannot go unaddressed when discussing mitigating terrorism. The most unsolvable issue is finding meaningful work and a mondialist sense of purpose for such a large part of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries.

I can only recommend all to read “What Terrorists Want” by Louise Richardson (Random House,239 pp.) She offers a curiously bloodless account of terrorists and terrorism, stripping away the particularities of each unique case of terrorism and finding the fundamental commonalities across all cases of terrorism. So what do terrorists want? While each terrorist group has its own specific policy agenda–the establishment of a national homeland, say, or an Islamic caliphate–each also seeks fundamentally the Three Rs: revenge, renown, and reaction. The second half of Richardson’s book focuses on counterterrorism. She bleakly asserts that the U.S. “war on terror,” as currently configured, is unwinnable and that U.S. policy since September 11, 2001, has only made things worse. In her view, our profound fear of another attack–possibly a biological, chemical, or nuclear one–led directly, and illogically, to the ill-considered war in Iraq. And by casting the overall conflict as a good-versus-evil showdown, the Bush administration has not only given the terrorists the recognition and status they seek, but has also set for itself an entirely impossible task. How exactly do you rid the world of evil? You can’t, of course. Therefore, you lose. Richardson’s policy recommendations are cogent and sophisticated and turn on a key lesson learned by other states that have faced terrorist threats of their own: deny the terrorists what they want–namely, renown and reaction from us–and treat them simply as if they were criminals. Forget all the talk of war and evil. Infiltrate the terrorists’ ranks, get to know what they are really about, try to separate them from their supportive communities, and get all the help from our allies that we can. In short, beef up our on-the-ground intelligence dramatically so that we can know our enemies better–and, ultimately, defeat them, or at least contain them, far more effectively.

Herman nails it; +1

Ditto intlacct. If disaffected youths have decent jobs with promising futures, they won’t be inclined to blow up themselves and others. Jobs.

There are millions and millions of disaffected youths everywhere in the world, in Europe, South America, Africa, Asia and even North America with no jobs and no promising futures and none of them are blowing themselves up, there’s much more to it then just lack of jobs.

I agree with all the generalizations. I think most can be lumped into a military isolationism. Some associate isolationism with weakness without considering benefits, primarily the miles between “us” and “them”. I don’t think “their” worldview is broad enough to care much about “us” if we stop reminding them “we’re” here.

“They” don’t attack Canada . Why bother attacking Canada? That’s my point. “They” don’t attack Japan. World’s third largest economy. If “we” weren’t policing, “they” would expand by violence? IMO “they’ve” demonstrated inability to stop destroying “themselves first. Israel? Much less “our” problem than their own and nearer neighbors.

Also, you’ve got Afganistan lumped in with oil conquests. if I googled right, their economy generates more export revenue from edible nuts.

Would it have been cheaper to supply the citizens of all the countries that have been bombed with iPad or like devices and unlimited wireless so that they could see how rest of the world lives and how life could be better for themselves. Perhaps all the creative energies unleashed would dwarf the tyranny and violence they have endured. We not may see significant change unless it’s generated from the ground up.

Posted Under

• Really, really bad calls
• War/Defense

Previous Post

Sign Up for My Newsletter

Get subscriber-only insights and news delivered by Barry every two weeks.

A global effort to counter extremism through education

Subscribe to the center for middle east policy newsletter, madiha afzal madiha afzal fellow - foreign policy , center for middle east policy , strobe talbott center for security, strategy, and technology , center for asia policy studies.

Monday, January 25, 2021

• 25 min read

This brief is part of the Brookings Blueprints for American Renewal & Prosperity project.

A review of Obama and Trump administration policies

Policy recommendations.

This brief argues that we should productively use the current moment of reckoning with the post-9/11 era to redefine our paradigm for countering extremism and terrorism around the world in a manner that is both comprehensive and cost-effective.

Taking stock 20 years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it is clear that the global position of al-Qaida and the Islamic State group (IS) has weakened, owing to successful (and enormously costly) counterterrorism efforts led by the United States. Yet other groups that are more locally and regionally focused, in many cases splinters of al-Qaida and IS, are resurging or ascendant. Terrorism remains a problem around the world, and the extremism that fuels it remains largely unaddressed.

Efforts undertaken to counter extremism over the last 20 years were belated when they began, and were never as concerted as the effort to counter terrorism.

Efforts undertaken to counter extremism over the last 20 years were belated when they began, and were never as concerted as the effort to counter terrorism. They were also fragmented and focused on a bottom-up approach, when research informs us that extremism is in many ways driven from the top down, via country-level education systems, laws, and politics.

This Blueprint therefore proposes a new paradigm for countering extremism, based on a top-down, country-level approach that focuses on education and equipping citizens with critical thinking skills to counter extremist propaganda. To be specific, I propose a U.S.-led, United Nations-centered, global effort to counter extremism through education and the media. One way to operationalize this would be to have member states sign a U.N. convention on education and extremism, and have them, under that framework, reach an agreement according to which signatory countries would commit to making formal education systems and media compliant with a set of guidelines — including removing hate material from curricula and teaching tolerance, teaching critical thinking, teaching how to counter extremist propaganda, and teaching how to decipher the credibility of information seen or received through both mainstream and social media. The benefits of this approach would extend to countering all forms of extremism.

Back to top ⇑

Nineteen years after the attacks on September 11, 2001 and the declaration of the subsequent U.S.-led “war on terror,” the devastation wrought by the global coronavirus pandemic has forced an American reckoning with the post-9/11 era. This reckoning had already begun in recent years, with the effort to wind down the “forever wars,” especially the war in Afghanistan, and a consideration of the enormous costs — in lives and money — that they have entailed. That the daily domestic death toll of the pandemic has been consistently exceeding that of the 9/11 attacks, puts the concern into sharp relief — as do the events of January 6, with pro-Trump extremists staging an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol — lending an urgency to the desire to turn the page . The underlying argument is that we should focus instead on long-ignored and urgent domestic problems — socioeconomic inequality, persistent racism and the threat of white supremacy, preparing for the next pandemic — and contend with other pressing foreign policy concerns, including the rise of China .

But with this urgency, there is a danger that we will move on without absorbing the lessons learned from the last two decades — and perhaps worse, shelving lessons yet unlearned — and without a concerted approach to tackling the twin problems of terrorism and extremism, which remain significant globally. In 2019, nearly 8,500 terrorist attacks took place around the world, almost the same number as in 2012. What’s more, the extremism and ideologies that fuel these attacks remain intact. This brief argues that we should productively use the current moment of reckoning with the post-9/11 era to redefine our paradigm for countering extremism and terrorism around the world in a manner that is both comprehensive and cost-effective.

Over the past two decades, American efforts have focused disproportionately on countering terror — and have seen success in protecting the U.S. homeland. But the effort at countering violent extremism (CVE), when it finally began during the second Obama administration, was belated, and based on a bottom-up approach that was piecemeal, fragmented, and ultimately insufficient to counter extremism in any comprehensive way. This Blueprint proposes a new paradigm for countering extremism, based on a top-down, state-level approach that focuses on education and equipping citizens with critical thinking skills to counter extremist propaganda. This is based on research across contexts which shows that the most important policies that affect attitudes and can lead to extremism are driven from the top down — via education systems, laws, and politics — and not the bottom up.

I recommend reform of national education policies to counter extremism, but recognize that targeting specific countries, or using bilateral approaches, is a non-starter. Therefore, I propose a U.S.-led, United Nations-centered, global effort to counter extremism through formal education and the media. One proposal to operationalize this would be to have member states sign a U.N. convention on education and extremism, and have them, under that framework, reach an agreement according to which signatory countries would commit to making education systems and media compliant with a set of guidelines. This approach, ambitious though it is, would be analogous to that followed by the Paris agreement to counter climate change. One could use a less transformative model as well, such as subsuming these guidelines and recommendations under the education goal of the Sustainable Development Goals, but that less visible approach could prove less effective. The positive externalities of focusing on education would extend beyond their effect on extremism: This would also counter disinformation campaigns and the phenomenon of fake news, and the effect on attitudes could in turn have far-reaching effects on various forms of violence.

One note — the arguments made here are based on research on jihadist extremism, but the solutions proposed are universal, and apply to other forms of extremism, including right-wing extremism in the United States, as well.

Assessing the jihadist threat around the world

The exact total cost of the post-9/11 wars to date is disputed, but the upper-bound estimate , from the Costs of War project at Brown University, posits that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and money spent on homeland security have cost the United States $6.4 trillion through 2019. If that is an overestimate, it is difficult to argue that the amount spent isn’t at least half that number. If success can be measured in terms of preventing a large-scale terrorist attack on the United States, the huge resources expended on counterterrorism, intelligence and the homeland security architecture after the attacks of September 11 have yielded results: just over 100 people have been killed in jihadist attacks in the United States since then.

Al-Qaida as an organization is far weaker than it once was, owing to U.S. counterterrorism operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan — including as many as 540 targeted drone strikes during the Obama administration. While the ungoverned vacuum left in Iraq led to the rise of the Islamic State group (IS), the concerted fight against it begun by the Obama administration and continued during the Trump presidency largely dismantled its “caliphate.” U.S. and international efforts in response to IS’s recruitment of foreign fighters have severely hindered the ability of foreign fighters to travel and thus of terrorist organizations to recruit them. Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have been killed. A key al-Qaida leader, Abu Muhammad al-Masri, was killed in Iran in an Israeli spy operation in August 2020.

The fiscal costs of all of this to the United States have been extraordinary, and the loss of life significant, but the American homeland is, for now, undeniably safer. With the fall of the IS “caliphate” and the decimation of al-Qaida’s leadership, the major terrorist threat the United States faces domestically is no longer jihadist, but white supremacist . Indeed, those who contend that the war on terror must no longer occupy a central position in our national priorities point to the fact that the direct jihadist threat to the U.S. has abated. (In December, though, the Trump administration dismantled a Pentagon office focused on IS, a worrying action that may have led to gaps in the provision of counterterrorism information to the incoming administration).

Yet jihadist terrorism remains a significant problem globally, including from regional al-Qaida and IS affiliates that have proven lethal to their local populations. Two devastating terrorist attacks on the same day in November 2020 in Vienna and Kabul attest to this. On the morning of November 2, 2020, three gunmen stormed Kabul University, one of the oldest universities in Afghanistan, killing 35 students and professors. Sixteen of the students killed were studying policy and public administration , hoping to help build their country’s future. A local IS affiliate, Islamic State – Khorasan Province (IS-K), claimed responsibility for the attack. In Vienna, Austria that evening, a 20-year old man shot and killed four people in a crowded district; he had been convicted of attempting to join IS in the past. IS claimed responsibility for his attack.

Al-Qaida still survives in Afghanistan, and recent reports have noted its resilience ; a spate of al-Qaida leaders was killed in special operations in Afghanistan and Syria during the last week of October 2020. Regional affiliates, including al-Shabab in Somalia, operate from the Maghreb to East Asia. Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) claimed an attack on the Pensacola naval air base in Florida in December 2019.

The Taliban, which gave haven to al-Qaida in Afghanistan in the run up to 2001, is now a legitimate political actor domestically in that country and internationally, having militarily held off the United States and signed a peace deal with it in February 2020. It is at its most powerful since 2001. Despite the main condition of the U.S.-Taliban deal signed in Doha for the Taliban being counterterrorism commitments in exchange for a complete American withdrawal, the U.N. reports that the Taliban has not cut ties with al-Qaida. It is also worth noting that the Doha deal, seen in the region as a victory for the Taliban and as “ America’s surrender ,” is perceived as a boon to the jihadist movement at large. Al-Qaida said the deal signified the “enemy acknowledging its defeat” and congratulated the Taliban on its “great victory” over America and its allies.

In Nigeria, the terrorist group Boko Haram has waged a deadly insurgency in the country’s northeast since 2009, and in recent years in the Lake Chad region at the meeting point of Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, and Niger. A splinter group, the Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), declared allegiance to IS in 2015. It is Boko Haram’s more brutal faction. Boko Haram and ISWAP have inflicted more violence on state actors in Nigeria since 2018 than at any other point in the insurgency.

The Pakistani Taliban (also known as the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP) killed tens of thousands of Pakistanis between 2007 and 2015, using Pakistan’s alliance with the U.S. in its war in Afghanistan as justification for its insurgency. The TTP was in retreat after an extensive Pakistani military operation that began against it in 2014, but has reconsolidated and reemerged in 2020 in its former strongholds in the country’s northwest. TTP militants killed at least 40 Pakistani soldiers between March and September 2020.

Related Books

Madiha Afzal

January 2, 2018

Vanda Felbab-Brown, Harold Trinkunas, Shadi Hamid

November 28, 2017

Daniel L. Byman

May 2, 2019

Finally, attacks by individual actors who draw inspiration from global jihadist groups — lone wolves — have continued in the U.S. and Europe. In October, an attacker at the Notre Dame church in Nice, France, killed 3, in the aftermath of the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad by the magazine Charlie Hebdo. (The investigation is ongoing, but no credible group has yet claimed responsibility for the attack, leading to speculation that the attack was inspired and not directed.)

Taking stock, the position of core al-Qaida and IS, terrorist groups that focus on a global jihad — and thus pose a direct threat to the United States — has weakened. Other groups that are more locally and regionally focused, in many cases splinters of al-Qaida and IS, are resurging or ascendant. There are factions and differences within the jihadist movement; there is no one leader it looks to, as it did to bin Laden, and later Baghdadi to an extent.

Yet the ideological overlap across various jihadist groups remains, and fighters often cross from one group to the other. In Pakistan, they switched from the Afghan jihad to the Kashmir-focused jihad in the 1990s. Those Talibs who are unhappy with the U.S.-Taliban deal are now being recruited by its rival, IS-K. In assessing threats to the United States, we cannot rule out local and regional terrorist actors that can cross lines to boost groups that may directly target America.

The question of extremism

Extremism and terrorism are twin problems: extremism can lead directly to violence and it also gives terrorist groups oxygen by providing them an environment for survival, in terms of logistical and financial support, potential recruits, and most broadly, ideological space. Yet while significant resources have been spent on countering terrorism, the project of understanding and tackling the root causes of jihadist extremism around the world largely remains incomplete.

There are several questions relevant to understanding extremism: who becomes a terrorist, and what leads people to support terrorist groups? Considerable attention was paid to this topic in the aftermath of 9/11. The initial conventional wisdom — that the poor and uneducated become terrorists and support terrorist groups — was debunked, and replaced with an amalgam of correlates of extremism, often not lending themselves to quick resolution or simple explanation: grievance, alienation, deficiencies in human rights, lack of political representation. Not enough attention was paid to the ideological appeal of jihadism. Neither was there a focus on understanding attitudes on a spectrum of extremism to violent extremism. The Obama administration’s approach to CVE, as the name suggests, only looked at the latter. It thus missed the structure and determinants of non-violent support —logistical, ideological, and financial — for extremist groups.

In interdisciplinary research on views on the Pakistan Taliban and Boko Haram, I have studied what drove support for these groups among the population in Pakistan and Nigeria respectively, and how it relates to education. In my work on Pakistan, I found that extremism in the population is driven by the decisions taken by the Pakistani state. The state’s curricula, its laws, and its politics have fostered in its citizens a worldview that aligns with terrorist group propaganda and thus makes them vulnerable to it. The Pakistani government education system, in particular, is a vehicle used to impart a biased, one-sided view of the world, one that victimizes Pakistan and places the blame for its problems on the rest of the world and fosters an “us-versus-them” mindset. This, I found, is a particular problem in high school history textbooks — in which information is presented without sources, and a one-sided historical narrative with half-truths and errors is presented as fact. Schooling in Pakistan focuses on rote memorization and does not teach critical thinking, which would allow students to recognize and counter propaganda when they see it. As a result, when Pakistanis encounter extremist propaganda, in many ways consistent with the exclusionary view of the world they find in their history textbooks, they buy into it. In interviews I conducted in Pakistani high schools, I met two students with views sympathetic to an extremist group who had been influenced directly by fundamentalist propaganda from that group, and found themselves unable to counter it. Other students had bought wholesale into videos or photos they had seen online which purported to show people being trained in America to attack Pakistan, a conspiracy theory.

Bangladesh, a country similar to Pakistan (and once its eastern half), offers a striking counter to Pakistan in terms of the prevalence of extremism and terrorism in the country. I’d argue it is the decisions taken by the Bangladeshi state that have ensured extremism remains checked in the country, from the structure of the constitution to its politics and education system. In a non-democratic context, Morocco also provides an example of how much the state matters: its monarchy ensures — often heavy-handedly — the espousal of a “tolerant” Islam in the population.

In the Nigerian case, I found that citizens’ support for Boko Haram rests on grievances in Nigeria’s north against the state-imposed Western system of education — one seen as insufficiently representative and responsible for the north’s backwardness (because it was imposed on an unfamiliar population after independence as part of Nigeria’s “federal character”) — and associated with the elite’s corruption.

In each of these contexts, formal education systems and curricula — in particular, those in secondary or high school – play a large role in defining attitudes in the population. (University education, I found, was less of a problem, and also countered the problematic curricula taught in high school.) Education policy, of course, is entirely endogenous, and is determined by any country’s notions of nationalism and identity. The education system can also be a clear venue and indeed the tool to address the roots of extremism and violent extremism, by promoting tolerance and teaching critical thinking.

Both Pakistan and Nigeria have focused on defeating terrorist groups militarily, and have left the roots of extremism in their countries unaddressed . This helps explain the stubborn resilience and resurgence of the TTP and Boko Haram despite military attempts to defeat them — and why those attempts succeeded only temporarily.

Closely connected to identifying the root causes of extremism is the question of the ideological appeal of jihadism: an ideology which typically centers around establishing a stringent Islamic system of governing — whether across countries or more locally — and emphasizes an existential opposition to Western values and policies (though with Donald Trump’s presidency and the rise of China, the focus on targeting America as a superpower to be attacked may have lost some of its ideological appeal). As I mentioned above, in many ways such ideological propaganda was consistent with the worldview presented in Pakistani textbooks. The Obama administration’s CVE approach focused on counter-messaging against extremist propaganda and on making it harder to access it, including by targeting group messaging apps such as Telegram. Yet there is still a preponderance of fake news and conspiracy theories — of all forms, but especially on social media and on messaging platforms such as WhatsApp, etc. — that serve the purposes of extremist propaganda. One way that extremism can be countered is if individuals are able to identify such misinformation when they receive it. This can be accomplished by teaching students the ability to evaluate information based on its sources, and critical thinking skills in schools. The applicability of this approach to countering right-wing extremism in the United States should also be clear.

In a 2016 piece calling for more attention to be paid to efforts to counter extremism, Michael Morell, Sandy Winnefeld, and Samantha Vinograd, senior intelligence, defense, and national security officials in the Obama administration, wrote that countering violent extremism “efforts have paled in comparison to our ‘hard’ counter-terrorism operation”:

“For every 1,000 hours we spent in the Situation Room talking about how to stop existing extremists from attacking us, we spent perhaps one hour talking about how to prevent the creation of terrorists in the first place. And, for every million dollars the U.S. government spent on stopping those trying to attack us, we spent perhaps one dollar on countering radical extremism.”

During the second Obama administration, there was a flurry of activity on CVE on the part of both the State Department and the White House. A White House Summit was held in February 2015, and a Leaders’ Summit was held in New York City in September 2015 with representatives from multilateral institutions and governments and civil society organizations around the world. The key themes around the CVE approach were that it should be centered at the local, community level, identifying communities vulnerable to extremism; that local leaders — and governments and civil society organizations — should be involved in tailored interventions; and that there needed to be a focus on building resilience. Youth engagement was a key component, and there was a call for women to be involved in CVE efforts.

But what did all of this really mean? Behind a well-intentioned effort and sensible-sounding concepts, this approach did not clearly identify the drivers of extremism beyond recognizing that grievance was important. And ultimately, by concentrating on the ground up, it missed the fact that the most important policies that affect attitudes in the broad population are driven from the top down — via education systems, laws, and politics.

Anything else — focusing on local or grassroots or community-level interventions — is missing the forest for the trees, or taking action that is too piecemeal and narrowly targeted, akin to putting out small individual fires.

President Barack Obama recognized the importance of country-level factors during his speech at the White House summit, where he said : “When governments oppress their people, deny human rights, stifle dissent or marginalize ethnic and religious groups, or favor certain religious groups over others, it sows the seeds of extremism and violence.” Despite that recognition, the focus of CVE efforts remained a grassroots one — perhaps partly out of pragmatism and a recognition that this approach would be more palatable than to have governments sign up for a wholesale reconfiguration. The administration’s CVE efforts also lumped thinking about homegrown threats with thinking about international and regional threats.

This approach focused on putting on the brakes on at the cusp of violence (by definition), and not earlier on the extremism spectrum; it also included deradicalization by incorporating reintegration and rehabilitation programs for former extremists. All of this is necessarily costly and fragmented. The focus in many ways was on treatment, rather than prevention. Domestically, the approach also faced criticism that it singled out Muslim communities for surveillance and looked upon them with suspicion.

The Trump administration didn’t fully dismantle the Obama administration’s CVE approach, but it did not follow through on it either. It did away with the term CVE — which it considered too “politically correct” — and replaced it in terms of rhetoric with “radical Islamic terrorism,” and on paper with counterterrorism. The Trump administration’s counterterrorism strategy in 2018, though, did acknowledge the importance of prevention “to thwart terrorist radicalization and recruitment,” adding that “prevention works.” The Trump approach ultimately was characterized more by “a lack of consistent leadership, strategy, coordination, coherence, and prioritization” than a systematic dismantling of the Obama strategy. The Obama CVE policy thus essentially stalled during the Trump presidency.

All in all, the U.S. approach to CVE resulted in an effort in which the whole did not add up to the sum of its parts, which focused on the wrong level, and which ultimately never really took off.

The main recommendation of this paper is a proposal to comprehensively address the root causes of extremism, especially as they relate to the early stages of the extremism spectrum, such that we can effectively block the later stages from developing. Crucially, it is an approach in which the main costs need not be directly borne by America.

Firstly, I propose reform of national education policies — focusing on formal schooling systems, specifically history curricula in elementary and secondary schools — to counter extremism. Country legal systems could be another potential target — say blasphemy laws — but those are all but impossible to change, as the Pakistani case makes clear. Education may be the most practical place to begin reform, but it is still likely to receive pushback. Curriculum reform flies in the face of countries wanting to use their education systems to inculcate their own sense of nationalism, sometimes narrowly defined and exclusionary, which in turn can sow the seeds for extremism. There is a reason those countries choose the curricula they do — it is in service to their own nationalism. This recommendation thus needs to be operationalized not bilaterally, nor by focusing on specific countries — which would receive clear backlash for being a “Western agenda” — but by working through the United Nations with its unique platform to bring countries around the world on board.

The biggest hurdle would be for the states to recognize with urgency that formal education is key to addressing extremism — it can foster it, and conversely, is the key tool to counter it — and that the benefits of ratifying this agreement would accrue to the states themselves.

The best model to follow might be the Paris agreement to counter climate change, which was signed in 2016 within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . The goal would be near universal membership of a parallel U.N. convention on education, and an agreement reached according to which signatory countries would commit to making educational systems compliant with a set of guidelines. The biggest hurdle would be for the states to recognize with urgency that formal education is key to addressing extremism — it can foster it, and conversely, is the key tool to counter it — and that the benefits of ratifying this agreement would accrue to the states themselves (with positive externalities for others).

The way could be led by the developed world, including by the United States, but any bloc of countries could join the U.S. in being initial signatories. Within the U.S. government, the State Department could lead the charge on this work.

This agreement would include countries committing to a full audit of national and subnational curricula (given that curriculum formation may be a subnational responsibility) in elementary and secondary education, to removing hate material and teaching tolerance, to teaching critical thinking, to teaching how to counter extremist propaganda, and to teaching how to determine the credibility of information seen or received through both mainstream and social media. History, social studies, and civics curricula should be a central focus, but intolerance and propaganda can seep in across subjects, including in language curricula. The education component of this should extend beyond formal education to adult education, potentially through the media, with education campaigns on television and in print. A television ad campaign could, for instance, teach citizens what “fake news” looks like and how to recognize it. The externalities would extend beyond countering extremism to being able to recognize and counter all manner of disinformation campaigns.

The U.N. Security Council has put forward a number of resolutions over the past decade to deal with extremism and terrorism, including on CVE (incorporating some of the same bottom-up community-led initiatives the Obama administration had proposed in its CVE strategy), but resolutions limit themselves to “encouraging” or “urging” member states to take action. My proposed approach of an agreement within a U.N. framework would, by definition, go further and would require signatories to commit to taking action.

There would be another element to this agreement, which would require investment in country-level research to understand how each country’s particular education system might foster extremism and might be improved, so that tailored solutions can be employed. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) could also potentially develop a proposed curriculum framework to be adopted by countries. Much as in the Paris agreement, one component would ensure transparency, implementation, and compliance from the signatories.

A less ambitious, less visible version, but perhaps more easily doable, would be to subsume this under the Sustainable Development Goal on education. SDG 4 on quality education has a specific component, 4.7, which already begins to address this:

“By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.”

However, the disadvantage of a less visible approach is that it may be less likely to be implemented.

In addition, to counter regional and local terrorist groups — and to do so in a cost-effective, non-military manner as much as possible, in keeping with reducing the budget allocated to international counterterrorism efforts — I propose a second policy tool. U.S.-led action at the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) — a multilateral body which can place a country on a “grey list” for enhanced monitoring for terrorist financing, that in turn hinders foreign investment into the country — has been effective in recent years in encouraging Pakistan to act against militant groups such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (the FATF listing has worked better to induce Pakistan to take action than using U.S. aid as a carrot). Beyond America being directly involved in counterterrorism (at great cost), this is an effective tool that places the onus and the cost on the countries themselves to take action against militant groups. It can be used far more widely to target local and regional terrorist groups that do not pose a clear threat to America.

Wide, systematic FATF targeting across countries would also counter worries from states like Pakistan who argue that their FATF status changes are politically motivated and perceive them to be unfair. America can take the lead on this front, but would have the cover of a multilateral body as the implementer.

In our current moment of reckoning with the post-9/11 era in the wake of a global pandemic and the threat of domestic right-wing extremism, it would be a mistake to turn away from the lessons of the last two decades on fighting extremism and terrorism around the world. Instead, we have an opportunity to redefine our paradigm for countering extremism and terrorism, and to do so at once comprehensively and cost-effectively: through leading the way on an international shift in education systems and curricula, and doing so as we reengage with the world in the Biden administration. We should take up the challenge.

Related Content

May 7, 2020

Eric Rosand, Khalid Koser, Lilla Schumicky-Logan

April 28, 2020

September 22, 2020

Many thanks to Michael O’Hanlon and Natan Sachs for thoughtful feedback and suggestions, to Jeff Feltman for a helpful discussion, and to Ted Reinert for excellent editing.

Foreign Policy

Center for Middle East Policy

Online Only

2:00 pm - 3:00 pm EDT

Lydia Wilbard

August 29, 2024

Linda Peek Schacht

• Chronicle Conversations
• Article archives
• Issue archives
• Join our mailing list

Securing our Future: A Decade of Counter-terrorism Strategies

About the author.

From No. 2, Vol. XLVIII, “Pursuing Peace: Commemorating Dag Hammarskjöld”, 2011

T errorism did not begin on 11 September 2001, but that terrible day did change the world. The attacks on the United States that claimed the lives of nearly three thousand innocent people showed us that terrorism had morphed into a global phenomenon that could cause massive pain and destruction anywhere. The magnitude of the attacks meant that no one could stand on the sidelines anymore. The fight had become global because the impact of terrorism was being felt everywhere.

The human values we share and work to uphold are derided by terrorists. The promotion of peace, equality, tolerance, and dignity for all are universal values that transcend our national differences. They are the glue that binds us together. United as nations and people of the world, we must come together to protect our common humanity. The global framework against terrorism The United Nations was engaged with the issue of terrorism long before that calamitous September morning ten years ago. For decades, the Organization has brought the international community together to condemn terrorist acts and developed the international legal framework to enable states to fight the threat collectively. Sixteen international treaties have been negotiated at the United Nations and related forums that address issues as diverse as the hijacking of planes, the taking of hostages, the financing of terrorism, the marking of explosives, and the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Additionally, in response to deadly attacks in East Africa and the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the Security Council, in 1999, decided to impose sanctions on the Taliban and, later, on Al-Qaeda. The Council created a list of individuals and entities associated with these organizations that are subject to a travel ban, assets freeze, and arms embargo.

Shortly after 11 September 2001, the Security Council took even more forthright action, based on its realization that terrorism would continue to pose a serious threat to international peace and security in the new millennium. It adopted a far-reaching resolution charting the way forward in the fight against terrorism. That resolution requires all UN Member States, separately and collectively, to deny terrorists safe haven and financial support and to cooperate in bringing them to justice.

Subsequent Security Council resolutions paid increasing attention to taking preventive measures noting, for example, that extremists were using the Internet to recruit people and incite terrorist acts. The Council began to consistently emphasize the need for counter-terrorism measures to be in line with states' international legal obligations, including human rights law. It also considered it vital to ensure that non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, would not have access to weapons of mass destruction. Meanwhile, in 2006, the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, in which it stressed the importance of addressing the issues that can give rise to terrorism. These include unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims, discrimination, violations of human rights, and lack of good governance. A comprehensive response to terrorism In the past decade, we at the United Nations have built on previous experience and are helping states adapt to an evolving threat that often involves new technologies. Although I believe we are heading in the right direction, much progress still needs to be made at the national, regional, and international levels.

Individual countries have made big strides, but success is measured in relative terms and major disparities persist. While some countries can spend billions of dollars on countering terrorism, others struggle to put in place even the basic measures needed to protect their borders and bring terrorists to justice. When a large proportion of a country's population lives in poverty, it is no surprise that they put scarce resources into development rather than counter-terrorism. We understand that, and often suggest approaches that have the dual benefit of protecting the country's economic and developmental interests while enhancing its security.

Frankly, preventing terrorist attacks is a challenge for everyone, even for countries that are richly endowed with resources and skilled personnel. For most nations, realistically, the implementation of the long list of measures envisaged by the Security Council resolutions and the Global Strategy is going to be patchy at best. The task is daunting: securing borders, tightening financial controls, strengthening the role of the police, improving criminal justice systems, and providing mutual legal assistance to other countries trying to convict terrorists in their courts. This is a step-by-step process that might begin with Governments ratifying the relevant conventions and adopting stronger terrorism-related laws. However, they cannot stop there.

The devil is often in the details when dealing with an issue as complex as this one. Take, for example, airport security. In many airports, security is tighter than ever, often to the annoyance of travelers who feel they are subjected to overly intrusive measures. The 9/11 terrorists, the "shoe bomber," and the "underwear bomber" all prompted reviews of security procedures that resulted in new approaches. As we introduce the latest ones and train staff on their use, we must always be aware that Al-Qaeda and other groups are probably working on new methods of evasion. All this relies on information and technology, both often in short supply in parts of the world where it can take weeks to repair a broken X-ray machine.

Countless men and women are on the beat every day all over the world, determined to prevent terrorists and other criminals from carrying out their plans. Think of border guards patrolling long and remote frontiers in inhospitable terrain, police officers following leads that span multiple countries, prosecutors combing through endless piles of evidence. Knowing that proper training, better equipment, and access to more information would help them immeasurably, we work towards bringing these tools to them.

When a country's defences are breached and a terrorist attack succeeds, we are immediately reminded of the real cost of this scourge, notably human pain, loss, and suffering. The images of the latest bombed vehicle or building flickering on our television screens may fade in our memories, but the pain of survivors, families of victims, and affected communities does not go away so easily. These people must not be forgotten, and we in the United Nations should continue to advocate for their interests and dignity. Their stories speak loudly for humanity and justice, and are an important part of countering terrorist propaganda.

It is clear that Governments alone cannot deal with this challenge. Countries with truly effective counter-terrorism strategies recognize the value of involving local communities, the private sector, the media, and other groups in society. They also encourage the exchange of intelligence, information, and expertise between national agencies and across borders. The broader the response, the more effective it is likely to be. The road ahead Over the past ten years, we have seen states try a variety of approaches to reduce the chance of terrorists succeeding. The United Nations has provided guidance and support in their endeavors, focusing on areas where we have a comparative advantage.

As a leader in the global fight against terrorism, our Organization will continue to press Governments to adopt comprehensive national strategies that balance hard-end security measures with social, economic, and community-driven policies that are grounded in the rule of law. The truth is that measures that try to take shortcuts or are not respectful of international human rights norms can actually undermine the collective effort by bolstering resentment in parts of the community and providing grist for terrorist groups' propaganda mills.

In the coming years, we will do more to help countries improve their internal coordination and their cooperation with neighbours. But breaking down institutional barriers and building trust between competing agencies as well as across borders takes time. The regional and global events we organize aim to facilitate those processes, giving professionals an opportunity to meet face to face and brainstorm on good practices. Once back home, they can implement the lessons learned and call on their international network for support.

We work with bilateral and multilateral agencies that can share their expertise with countries in need of technical assistance. Services available include drafting national laws, training prosecutors and judges, and linking national databases to border posts. The United Nations can also offer support with, for example, education programmes aimed at building tolerance in communities and development projects directed at improving governance.

Our bird's eye view has allowed us to follow counter-terrorism developments across the globe, learning along the way what works and what does not. And when I consider what we have already achieved, I am optimistic about what we can accomplish together as nations and people of the world over the next decade. Working as one, we can significantly reduce the number of attacks and victims and, hopefully, one day eliminate the terrorist threat completely.

The UN Chronicle  is not an official record. It is privileged to host senior United Nations officials as well as distinguished contributors from outside the United Nations system whose views are not necessarily those of the United Nations. Similarly, the boundaries and names shown, and the designations used, in maps or articles do not necessarily imply endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Voices for Peace: The Crucial Role of Victims of Terrorism as Peace Advocates and Educators

In the face of unimaginable pain and trauma, victims and survivors of terrorism emerge as strong advocates for community resilience, solidarity and peaceful coexistence.

Sailors for Sustainability: Sailing the Globe to Document Proven Solutions for Sustainable Living

Most of the solutions we have described are tangible examples of sustainability in action. Yet our sailing journey also made us realize that the most important ingredient for a sustainable future is sustainability from within. By that we mean adopting a different way of perceiving the Earth and our role in it.

What if We Could Put an End to Loss of Precious Lives on the Roads?

Road safety is neither confined to public health nor is it restricted to urban planning. It is a core 2030 Agenda matter. Reaching the objective of preventing at least 50 per cent of road traffic deaths and injuries by 2030 would be a significant contribution to every SDG and SDG transition.

Documents and publications

• Yearbook of the United Nations 
• Basic Facts About the United Nations
• Journal of the United Nations
• Meetings Coverage and Press Releases
• United Nations Official Document System (ODS)
• Africa Renewal

Libraries and Archives

• Dag Hammarskjöld Library
• UN Audiovisual Library
• UN Archives and Records Management 
• Audiovisual Library of International Law
• UN iLibrary 

News and media

• UN News Centre 
• UN Chronicle on Twitter
• UN Chronicle on Facebook

The UN at Work

• 17 Goals to Transform Our World
• Official observances
• United Nations Academic Impact (UNAI)
• Protecting Human Rights
• Maintaining International Peace and Security
• The Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Youth
• United Nations Careers

Insight – Charles Sturt University

Big Questions: can we stop terrorism?

Is terrorism now a part of everyday life? Will there always be an al-Qaeda or an Islamic State threatening communities and nations? Are we in a perpetual ‘war on terror’? These are questions that we’re all learning to live with.

What is terrorism?

Associate Professor O’Brien started by defining what we mean when we talk about terrorism.

“There are two different things at play within this particular question: the war on terror and terrorism. The phrase ‘war on terror’ originated with George W Bush after 9/11, so it is regarded as a particular form of fight against a particular form of terrorism, namely Islamist fundamentalist terrorism. The broader question is whether terrorism – and the need to prevent and tackle it – will ever end. And the answer is almost certainly no. It has been with us in one form or another for centuries.

“While the exact legal definition changes from country to country, in broad terms the definition of terrorism is ‘violence or the threat of violence for a political, ideological or religious purpose’. If you accept that definition and look back in history, you can see that there has always been terrorism (even if it wasn’t actually called terrorism, given that the word wasn’t coined until the French Revolution).

“So if we use that definition, terrorism is unlikely to end as there will always be groups with grievances willing to use violence.”

Why does terrorism occur?

The reasons why groups and individuals resort to terrorism have traditionally been, as Associate Professor O’Brien outlined, based on two major impulses.

“A lot of terrorist groups are concerned with territory and oppression. For example, the LTTE [the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] came into existence in Sri Lanka because the government made their language illegal, the group was confined to one part of the island and it is more than likely that the government committed atrocities against the Tamil people. All this made people want to fight those they saw as oppressors.

“The same goes for Catholics in Northern Ireland with the IRA [Irish Republican Army], and the Basques in Spain with ETA [Euskadi Ta Askatasuna]. All were formed by people wanting their own territory and governance.

“The governments of the day can exacerbate the situation, increasing the likelihood of terrorist acts. In Northern Ireland, for instance, there was internment, where people could be imprisoned without a judicial process. The effect that such activities has on communities is to make them very resentful.”

Is terrorism different today?

While the ‘war on terror’ is a recent conception, it is, as Associate Professor O’Brien pointed out, also true that the terrorist threat today is different from that in the past.

“The more dangerous thing we face today is a change in terrorism, particularly with regard to the militant Islamist groups. One of the things that defined most terrorist groups in the past was the willingness to negotiate in order to achieve their goals. So, often political actions were occurring alongside terrorist actions.

“But al-Qaeda or Islamic State don’t want to negotiate. Plus, they have the desire to kill as many people as possible. ETA, the IRA and other groups don’t want to kill large numbers of people. But today we are facing a different situation in the scale of murder.

“And this drive leads to different methods of attack. In the past it was the bomb and the bullet; now it is things like using vehicles to mow people down, as happened recently in France and in the United Kingdom. And that can happen anywhere. The frightening thing about that is all you need is someone with the motivation; if they can drive, they can get the means of mass murder. And al-Qaeda is encouraging this. They produced a magazine called Inspire and in the second issue was an article on just that: instructions on how to get a vehicle and use it as a weapon.”

How does technology aid terrorism?

One of the key drivers of this new form of terrorism is technology, as Associate Professor O’Brien explained.

“Something else significant is the use of the internet by terrorist groups. People can create propaganda materials cheaply anywhere in the world. As long as they have an internet connection they can get it out at almost no cost worldwide within seconds. In the past, terrorist organisations would have to produce leaflets which had their own dangers in terms of printing and distribution. Plus, a terrorist act – such as the Sydney café siege – is worldwide news within seconds of it starting; which is great publicity for the terrorist organisations.

“Add in social media, where terrorist groups can recruit and turn people to their cause across the world. This increases the ‘homegrown phenomena’. Terrorist organisations are sending bomb-making instructions to people, or creating YouTube instructional videos, rather than those people travelling to other countries to train. People are undertaking terrorist activities in their own countries on behalf of organisations abroad without ever having been in contact with the organisation except online.”

How do we tackle the threat of terrorism today?

So if the fight against terrorism will continue indefinitely, how do we make it as effective as possible? Associate Professor O’Brien highlighted some key aspects of contemporary counterterrorism.

“The first thing you need to do is find out why people are doing what they are doing. In some cases it’s that people want to spread Islamism around the world. In others it’s because people don’t want to be oppressed. While the internet is being used by terrorists, we mustn’t forget that it also offers opportunities. That’s in terms of tracing people and using digital evidence, as well as in terms of disseminating counter-narratives to terrorist propaganda, and understanding people’s motivations.

“Once you’ve got an idea of why people are turning to violence then you can start finding out how to stop it. It not really until you understand the ‘why’ that you can bring in useful policies to combat it.

Counterterrorism is an international effort

Associate Professor O’Brien also highlighted the transnational nature of security.

“It is important to work on counterterrorism internationally. This includes having people overseas and good liaison networks and intelligence sharing with other countries (from the Five Eyes network to good relations with Australia’s immediate neighbours, such as Indonesia).

“It would also help to be more forward-thinking when it comes to what to expect from terrorism in the future. A lot of policing professionals have been waiting for the first terrorist drone attack, and it recently happened in Venezuela. You can buy drones cheaply and it’s not difficult to strap a bomb to one. How do you combat that? And do you have the necessary laws in place to combat that?

“Politicians tend to be reactive. There are companies, for instance, that have got technologies that can take down drones. But it is currently illegal to use them in Australia. If we receive intelligence there was going to be a drone attack on a particular venue, it would actually be illegal to use the technology that could prevent it from reaching its target. Politicians tend to wait for something to happen before policy changes.

“I think it is worth saying, though, that while the threat of terrorism is a real one, terrorist attacks, particularly in Australia, are very rare. And it is a very positive thing that the Australian people – like those in France and the United Kingdom, where terrorist acts are more common – are not living in fear of terrorism.”

Do you want to help fight terrorism?

If you want to explore this question further, we have a range of policing, law, security and emergency management courses that give you opportunities to delve into the subject. From the Master of Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorist Financing to the Master of Terrorism and Security Studies , you can gain expertise in the fight against terrorism, learning from the best in the business.

Contact us to find out more.

Ask your big questions

At Charles Sturt University, we’re all about big ideas; and we’re not afraid to explore some thought-provoking questions. Our academics want to get debate out of the comfort zone to address today’s hottest topics.

Got a topic you’d like our experts to tackle? Is there a big question you feel needs to be asked? Submit your big question on our Twitter  or  Facebook feeds and use the hashtag #bigquestions

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Essay on Anti Terrorism

Students are often asked to write an essay on Anti Terrorism in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Anti Terrorism

Understanding terrorism.

Terrorism is a violent act done by people or groups to create fear. They use violence to achieve political, religious, or ideological goals. It is a major global concern because it threatens peace and security.

What is Anti-Terrorism?

Anti-terrorism involves actions taken to prevent terrorism. It includes laws, policies, and actions that governments and organizations use to stop terrorist activities. Anti-terrorism aims to keep people safe and maintain peace in society.

Importance of Anti-Terrorism

Anti-terrorism is important to ensure safety and peace. It helps protect people from harm and fear. Without anti-terrorism measures, terrorists might cause more damage and fear. This could disrupt our lives and society.

Role of Individuals in Anti-Terrorism

Everyone can help fight terrorism. We can report suspicious activities to the authorities. We can also promote peace and understanding among different cultures and religions. By doing these things, we can help prevent terrorism.

250 Words Essay on Anti Terrorism

Terrorism is a scary word. It means acts of violence that aim to create fear and harm innocent people. These acts are often done for political, religious, or ideological reasons.

Anti-terrorism means actions taken to prevent and stop terrorism. It includes laws, policies, and actions that aim to keep people safe from terrorist acts.

Anti-terrorism is important because it helps to keep us safe. It stops harmful acts before they can happen. It also helps to catch those who plan to do harm and bring them to justice.

How Anti-Terrorism Works

Anti-terrorism works in many ways. Intelligence agencies gather information about potential threats. They use this information to stop plans for terrorist acts. Police and security forces also play a big role. They enforce laws and provide security to keep people safe.

The Role of Everyone

We all have a role in anti-terrorism. We can stay alert and report anything suspicious. We can also support laws and policies that aim to prevent terrorism.

500 Words Essay on Anti Terrorism

Terrorism is a big problem in our world today. It is when a person or group tries to scare others by using violence. They often want to change something in their country or the world. Many times, they hurt innocent people.

Anti-terrorism is the opposite of terrorism. It is all the things we do to stop terrorism. Governments, police, and even ordinary people can all work against terrorism. This can include making laws against terrorism, catching people who plan to do terrorist acts, and teaching people about the dangers of terrorism.

Ways to Counter Terrorism

There are many ways to fight against terrorism. One is through laws. Governments can make laws that make it harder for terrorists to plan and carry out attacks. They can also make punishments for terrorism very severe to discourage people from becoming terrorists.

Another way is through security. This can include things like police and soldiers, but also things like cameras and locks. Security can make it harder for terrorists to attack and easier for us to catch them.

Every person can play a part in anti-terrorism. We can all be aware of our surroundings and report anything suspicious. We can also support laws and policies that fight against terrorism. And, perhaps most importantly, we can refuse to be afraid. Terrorists want to make us live in fear. By choosing to live our lives normally, we deny them their victory.

Anti-terrorism is a vital part of keeping our world safe and free. Through laws, security, and education, we can all fight against terrorism. It may seem like a big, scary problem, but remember, every person can make a difference. By standing together, we can defeat terrorism and protect our way of life.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Tip: Use @ to search articles by an author

The role of education in preventing violent extremism

Interview with Tawakkol Karman, human rights activist, journalist, politician, and winner of the 2011 Nobel Peace Prize. Interview by Akriti Mehra, Communications Specialist, UNESCO MGIEP

In commemoration of the International Day of Non-Violence on October 2, 2017,  Ms. Tawakkol Karman delivered the second Ahinsa Lecture at the UNESCO Headquarters, Paris on the theme ‘Working Towards Peace Building and Sustainable Development’. Ahinsa is derived from Sanskrit word ‘hims’, meaning injury and its opposite (a-himsā meaning without any injury) refers to non-violence. This ethical philosophy was popularised by Mahatma Gandhi, the greatest champion of nonviolence in the world. The Ahinsa Lecture brings forth public speakers of the highest calibre active in the field of peace and non-violence to the forum for the benefit of peace builders, policymakers, youth, UNESCO Member states and international community. The Ahinsa Lecture is organised to mark the International Day of Non-Violence celebrated on 2 October to mark the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi.

Post the lecture, we spoke with Ms. Karman and gathered her views on the role of education in preventing violent extremism.

What role does the education system play in preventing violent extremism?

Unquestionably, the educational system plays a large role in both preventing and spreading extremism. In fact, this basically depends on the philosophy of education, and on the school curriculums and the methods used in introducing them to students. I believe that having a coherent, progressive and contemporary education system is a crucial factor in preventing the infiltration of extremist ideas. In the end, the educational system plays a key role in whether the outcomes of the learning process are good or bad, and therefore the quality of education must be constantly monitored.

If this question is about the Arab world, I believe that the current education systems are unable to provide the needed skills for students, as there are obvious deficiencies regarding the curriculum and teacher qualification in addition to the shortage of equipment and laboratories that help increase students’ capacities to absorb the educational content and develop their mental and physical skills. There are good examples of successful schools, but they are few. As for the current education systems, they still suffer from several weaknesses and they are not keeping up with the latest developments related to techniques and laws.

In a peaceful and sustainable society, what does the education system look like?

In my view, the education system will be more developed, and will be a catalyst for the acquisition of different skills, creativity and innovation, as well as critical thinking. Such skills would never be accepted by any tyrannical regime that is based on indoctrination instead of debate and free thinking.

If the goal is to prevent violent extremism, what skills do students need in order to not fall susceptible to extreme ideologies?

As mentioned earlier, in order for students to not be vulnerable to radical ideologies, they must be equipped with the skill of critical thinking. Cognitive skills such as thinking, learning and the ability  to discuss and criticise constructively away from taboos are imperative for students  to be more committed to logical reasoning  and not to be susceptible to any attempts  of polarisation.

What are the major current factors that are inhibiting education systems from shaping compassionate and empathetic students?

There are several factors that make it difficult to shape compassionate students, most notably the absence of the political and moral project at the state level, the inability to deal with emotions and questions of students, in addition to extremist platforms, including media outlets and social media, which could reach them, deal with them the way they like, and provide answers to their questions, even if these questions were not correct (unclear). Therefore, attention should be paid on methodologies to increase the level of rational thinking among students and encourage their questions instead of oppressing them.

What is the connection between education systems and women’s rights?

Family and education contribute significantly to women’s access to their rights and helps prevent their margina-lisation and persecution. Societies with a high education rate are better able to understand women’s demands and are less likely to oppress them. Education is essential in correcting wrong behaviors  and misconceptions towards women.

“The Youth is a positive force that must be maintained and not allowed to turn into a negative force or a burden on society.”

What do you think are the main tools for fighting violent extremism?

There is no doubt that education is one of the tools that can help eliminate the ignorance that leads to violent extremism. Besides education, however, other fundamental factors are required to overcome extremism and terrorism. Freedom, democracy and justice help  create cohesive and non-extremist societies. Tyranny dilutes education  and creates extremism and terrorism.

What social actors should be involved in shaping education systems?

They include states, researchers and institutions concerned with education development, NGOs and students themselves. Students should be consulted and allowed to assess what they are studying.

Follow us at:

UNESCO MGIEP, ICSSR Building, First Floor 35 Ferozshah Road, New Delhi-110001 Phone: +91 11 23072356-60

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. For more information on how we use cookies, read our privacy policy .

Fill in your details to receive updates from us:

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Preventing Terrorism and Targeted Violence

Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is the reason DHS was created, and remains our highest priority.

Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships

The Center for Prevention Programs and Partnerships (CP3) works to build partnerships and provides grant funding, training, technical assistance and increased public awareness of targeted violence and terrorism prevention (TVTP) across every level of government, the private sector, and in local communities. CP3 convenes TVTP providers, curates TVTP research and best practices, and helps states and communities to build TVTP strategies and prevention programs.

Resources for Leaders of Faith-Based Communities, Organizations, and Institutions to Protect Against Targeted Violence

DHS, along with our partners at all levels of government, will continue to help community leaders prepare for and respond to a range of public safety challenges.

Preventing Terrorism Overview

Protecting the American people from terrorist threats is the reason the Department of Homeland Security was created, and remains our highest priority.

Preventing Terrorism Results

Protecting the United States from terrorism is the founding mission of DHS. While America is stronger and more resilient as a result of a strengthened homeland security enterprise, terrorist threats persist and continue to evolve.

National Terrorism Advisory System

National Terrorism Advisory System (NTAS) advisories communicate information about terrorist threats by providing timely, detailed information to the public, government agencies, first responders, public sector organizations, airports and other transportation hubs.

The REAL ID Act establishes minimum security standards for license issuance and production and prohibits Federal agencies from accepting for certain purposes driver’s licenses and identification cards from states not meeting the Act’s minimum standards.

Prevention Resource Finder

The Prevention Resource Finder is your one-stop-shop for federal resources to prevent targeted violence and terrorism.

Weapons of Mass Destruction

The United States faces a rising danger from terrorists and rogue states seeking to use weapons of mass destruction.  A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or other device that is intended to harm a large number of people.  The Department of Homeland Security works every day to prevent terrorists and other threat actors from using these weapons to harm Americans.

Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)

DHS works to enhance the nation’s counter-IED capabilities and reduce the threat of explosive attack against critical infrastructure, the private sector, and federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial entities.

If You See Something, Say Something®

A program to raise public awareness of indicators of terrorism and terrorism-related crime, and to emphasize the importance of reporting suspicious activity to the proper state and local law enforcement authorities.

Latest Preventing Terrorism and Targeted Violence News

Protecting the 2024 u.s. olympic track and field trials in eugene, or from cbrn threats, department of homeland security’s center for prevention programs and partnerships invent2prevent student program winners announced , new cp3 web page.

Terrorism Preventive Measures in the United States Research Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Insecurity has greatly increased in America over the last two decades. There have been attacks by terrorists that are perceived to be foreigners. The most devastating terror attack happened on September 11, 2001, when five airplanes were hijacked and directed towards specific targets. The attack on the World Trade Centre in New York leads to the greatest loss of life witnessed in the recent past. The scenario has been complicated by the numerous gun attacks that are mostly aimed at schools. Between 2010 and 2013 for example, there were 54 such incidents reported in America (Jeehae 3). Disturbed youths take control of learning institutions and cause unimaginable damage before they are apprehended.

The ultimate goal now is to regulate gun usage (Kenny 1). Possession of guns by citizens is allowed under American laws. However, this legislation has not been keen on regulating gun usage. The young people who use guns to attack schools do not have licenses meaning that they access the weapons meant for their parents or other people. This narrows down to the conclusion that the management of guns in the United States is deplorable.

There is a need for the government to act quickly before this whole issue blows out of control. The immediate action should be to recall all guns that have been issued to the citizens. Owning guns should be restricted to those people who prove to be threatened in life. These should include former army and police officers and other high ranking government officials. Those individuals that deal with crime eradication are at risk of retaliatory attacks hence the need to have guns. Ordinary citizens who do not fall in this category need not be considered for gun licenses.

Withdrawal of gun licenses would leave the people vulnerable to attacks by gangsters. This underscores the need to increase the number of security agents and police on patrols. The national budget would definitely be affected but the action would be timely. As the government endears to protect the country from foreign attacks, the enemy from within should not be forgotten.

The gun licenses’ withdrawal may not effectively eliminate the deadly weapons from America. Statistics from the police department indicates that there are so many illegal firearms in the country. Using intelligence to get the people in possession of these weapons should be the order of the day. The police should conduct random searches in homes and on the roads to ensure that these guns are nabbed. Occasional police swoops would also come in handy.

To ensure that there are no more gun-related deaths in America, all public places should be secured. Schools being the ultimate target should be given the first priority. All schools should be equipped with CCTV cameras and kept under twenty-four hours of surveillance. Every school should have a policeman on guard to study the images from the CCTV throughout the day. The importance of this kind of scrutiny is to keep off potential killers that would come to the schools before they are opened to lay their traps.

Churches, mosques and hotels should not be left behind in terms of security. Most of the hotels have taken measures to safeguard their clients from gun attacks but these efforts should be complemented by the government. Some churches and mosques hire security personnel to keep guard during worship times. Police should be posted to churches and mosques to maintain security.

Attackers are known to target transport systems and specifically airports, railway stations and bus stops. Although the American airports are secured, more could be done to avoid a repeat of the September 11 attacks. All the railway stations and bus stops should have CCTV cameras.

Is there a problem with the people who take guns and shoot carelessly at others? The answer to this question is everybody’s guess because in many instances, it is reported that the people that were involved had mental problems. There is need to strengthen counseling in schools and within the communities so as to reach out to this group of people. Sharing information with police about youths suspected to have mental ill health would be good. This would ensure that help and support reaches the group before they turn the guns on innocent lives. The family related hardships are mostly the source of problems pertaining to the youth. The government should make a point of guiding the families through the relevant departments, to ensure that sound upbringing takes place. The issue that break families should be dealt with.

Gun attacks particularly in schools could also be associated with drugs (O’Meara 4). The vigor with which the perpetrators carry out their mission indicates that they are under the influence of drugs. As is the case with drug addicts, the feeling of hopelessness leads one to committing suicide. Before they kill themselves, they make others to suffer. The government should be vibrant in fighting drug trafficking while schools should teach the effects of drugs from early stages.

The schools should also train the children in life saving skills. This will go a long way in helping them to know how to conduct themselves in case there was a gun attack in their schools. The same should also be extended to homes and other public places. The courts should mete out stiffer penalties for offenders who are found guilty of being in possession of illegal firearms. This would discourage other people who might have the intentions of using guns. All in all, these measures will ensure that America becomes a safe place.

Works Cited

JeeHae Helen, Lee. “School Shootings in the U.S. Public Schools: Analysis Through the Eyes of an Educator.” Review of Higher Education & Self-Learning 6.22 (2013): 88. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File . Web.

Kenny, Jack. “Gun control or killer control? After shooting incidents in which multiple victims are killed, calls arise for gun control. But evidence tells us that guns control wanton killers, and without guns, deaths rise.” The New American 2012: 35. Opposing Viewpoints in Context . Web.

O’Meara, Kelly Patricia. Antidepressant Drugs Contributed to the Columbine School

Shooting . n.p.: Gale, Cengage Learning, 2012. Gale Virtual Reference Library . Web.

• Terrorism Prevention on the International Level
• Local Operational Planning for Potential Terrorist Threats
• Comparison of Traditional and Non-Traditional Mosques
• Terrorism Before and After the September 11 Attacks
• Closed-Circuit Television Surveillance and Security
• National Security & Central Intelligence Agencies
• Islamic State Global Terror Threat Countermeasures
• Counter Islamic State Intelligence Campaign
• War on Terror in Saudi Arabia and Arab Gulf States
• US Intelligence to Prevent Terrorist Attacks
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2020, August 23). Terrorism Preventive Measures in the United States. https://ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-preventive-measures-in-the-united-states/

"Terrorism Preventive Measures in the United States." IvyPanda , 23 Aug. 2020, ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-preventive-measures-in-the-united-states/.

IvyPanda . (2020) 'Terrorism Preventive Measures in the United States'. 23 August.

IvyPanda . 2020. "Terrorism Preventive Measures in the United States." August 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-preventive-measures-in-the-united-states/.

1. IvyPanda . "Terrorism Preventive Measures in the United States." August 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-preventive-measures-in-the-united-states/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Terrorism Preventive Measures in the United States." August 23, 2020. https://ivypanda.com/essays/terrorism-preventive-measures-in-the-united-states/.

Essay on Terrorism in English for Children and Students

Table of Contents

An act of violence intended at the unsuspecting civilians or military personnel who are not in a combat, is termed as terrorism. Generally it is carried out for political gain and to destabilize a government. Those who carry out such attacks are called terrorists. World had been suffering from terrorism since long, yet there is no relief. People die and government’s struggle to end terrorism. Terrorism has also become global making its elimination difficult. There is a need to fight together against terrorism and make the world a better place to live.

Fill Out the Form for Expert Academic Guidance!

Please indicate your interest Live Classes Books Test Series Self Learning

Verify OTP Code (required)

I agree to the terms and conditions and privacy policy .

Fill complete details

Target Exam ---

Long and Short Essay on Terrorism in English

Now-a-days people are really afraid of the terrorism and terrorists attack all time. It has become a warm topic as it is a big social issue .

We have provided below long and short essay on terrorism in English for your information and knowledge.

These Terrorism Essays have been written in simple English to make it easily understandable and presentable when required.

You can use following terrorism essay in your school events and occasions like essay writing, debate and speeches.

Terrorism Essay 1 (100 words)

Terrorism is the unlawful act of violence which is used by the terrorists to make people fear. Terrorism has become a common social issue. It is used to threaten common public and government. Terrorism is used by various social organizations, politicians and business industries to achieve their goals in very easy way.

A group of people who take support of terrorism are known as terrorists. Explaining terrorism is not so easy as it has spread its roots very deep. Terrorists have any rule and law; they only use violent acts intending to create and enhance level of terror in the society and country.

Terrorism Essay 2 (150 words)

Terrorism has become a big national and international problem all over the world. It is a global issue which has affected almost all the nations throughout the world directly or indirectly. Opposing terrorism has been tried by many countries however; terrorists are still getting support by someone. Terrorism is a violent act of terrifying the common public anytime in the day or night. Terrorists have many objectives such as spreading threat of violence in the society, fulfilling political purposes, etc. They make civilians of the country their primary target.

Some of the examples of terrorism are bombing of US Embassy, atom bomb attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc. The main goal of the terrorists is fulfillment of their demands by the government of a specific country. They contact online social media or newspaper, magazine, etc to spread their voices to the public and government. Sometimes, terrorists attack is done to fulfill the religious and ideological goal.

Terrorism Essay 3 (200 words)

India is a developing country who has faced many challenges in the past and currently, terrorism which a big national problem. It has faced challenges like hunger death, illiteracy, poverty, inequality, population explosion and terrorism which have affected its growth and development to a great extent.

Terrorism is a big threat fighting with a government and common public for the purpose of religion, motherland, and other unreasonable motives of the terrorists. Terrorists call themselves brave soldiers however, they are not real soldiers. Real soldiers never hurt common public and they fight only to save their country from the enemies. Real soldiers fight to fulfill the purpose of a nation. Whereas terrorists fight to fulfill their own, individual and unfair purposes.

A national soldier is fully responsible for his all the responsibilities however a terrorist never do that. Terrorists got their name from the word terror. Earlier, terrorism was limited to some specific areas like state of Jammu and Kashmir however; now-a-days, it has spread to almost all the areas especially regions of north eastern India. Recently, the terrorist attack in India was in Taj Hotel and Nariman house in Mumbai. In that attack, India had lost lives of many people and suffered financial loss.

Terrorism Essay 4 (250 words)

Terrorism is a big national issue which is using the human mind to get complete victory. Terrorism is terrifying the mind of the human being to make them weak so that they can rule the nation again. It needs to be solved on international level. We all should think about terrorism together to finish it from the root. We should make a strong policy to completely destroy its kingdom as well as removing the striking terror from the human minds. Terrorism uses violent ways to achieve the purpose and get positive result.

Terrorism is the act of violence performed by the group of people called terrorist. They become very common people and somehow they lost their control over the mind because of some unfair natural disasters or unfair activities with them by others which make them unable to fulfil desires in normal and accepted ways. Slowly they are taken under the confidence of some bad people in the society where they are promised to get fulfilled all the desires. They get together and form a group of terrorists to fight with their own nation, society and community. Terrorism has affected all the youths of the country, their growth and development.

It has pulled the nation many years back from the proper development. Terrorism is ruling the country just like Britishers, from which we again need to be free. However, it seems that terrorism would always continue spreading its root to deep because some rich people from our nation are still supporting them to fulfill their unfair purposes.

Terrorism Essay 5 (300 words)

India had faced lots of challenges such as poverty, population growth, hunger, illiteracy, inequality, and many more however, terrorism is highly dangerous till now affecting the mankind and humanity. It is more than dangerous and frightening disease which is affecting the people mentally and intellectually. Whether it exists in the small (Ireland, Israel, etc) or big (USA, Russia, etc) countries; it has challenged both to a same level. Terrorism is act of using international violence by the group of frustrated people means terrorists to achieve some political, religious or individual goals. The spread of terror by the terrorists is increasing day by day.

Terrorism has no any rule and laws, it only attacks on society or colony or crowd of the innocent people living in order to spread terror as well as give pressure to government to complete their demands. The demands of the terrorist become very specific to fulfil only what they want. It is a greatest threat to mankind. They never compromise their friends, family, innocent kids, woman and old people. They only want to explode atom bomb at the place of people crowd. They shoot on crowd, hijack flight and other terror activities.

Terrorist target to spread terror in their preferred areas, region or country within minimum time. Previously, it is supposed that terrorist’s activities were limited to the Kashmir only however, it has spread its roots to all over the country. There are many terrorist groups exists in the nation with their special name depending on their name. Two main types of terrorism are political terrorism and criminal terrorism depends on their works. Terrorists are well-trained group of people prepared to perform some specific purpose. More than one terrorist group are trained to perform different purposes. It is like a disease which is spreading regularly and need some highly effective medicine for permanent removal.

Terrorism Essay 6 (400 words)

Terrorism is the process unfair and violent activities performed by the group of trained people called terrorists. There is only one boss who gives strict orders to the group to perform particular activity in any ways. They want money, power and publicity for the fulfilment of their unfair ideas. In such conditions, it is media which really helps to spread the news about terrorism in the society of any nation. Group of terrorist also take support of the media by especially contacting them to let them know about their plan, ideas and goals.

Various groups of the terrorists are named according to their aims and objectives. Acts of terrorism affects the human mind to a great extent and makes people so fear that they fear to go outside from their own home. They think that there is terror everywhere outside the home in the crowd like railway station, temple, social event, national event and so many. Terrorists want to spread terror within specific area of high population in order to publicize for their act as well as rule on people’s mind. Some recent act of terrorism are 9/11 attacks on the U.S. and 26/11 attack in India. It has affected the financial status and humanity to a great extent.

In order to reduce the terror and effect of terrorism from the nation, a tight security arrangement is done on the order of government. All the places which are crowded because of any reasons like social programmes, national events like Republic day, Independence Day, temple and etc. Each and every person has to follow the rules of security arrangement and has to pass from the automatic machine of full body scanner. Using such machines, security get help in detecting the presence of terrorists. Even after arrangement of such tight security, we are still unable to make it effective against the terrorism.

Our country is spending lots of money every year to fight against the terrorism as well as remove the terrorist group. However, it is still growing like a disease as new terrorists are getting trained on daily basis. They are very common people like us but they are trained to complete some unfair act and forced to fight against their one society, family and country. They are so trained that they never compromise their life, they are always ready to finish their life while fighting. As an Indian citizen, we all are highly responsible to stop the terrorism and it can be stopped only when we never come into the greedy talk of some bad and frustrated people.

Get the most Important Questions of Physics , Chemistry , Maths and Biology

All the above essay on terrorism are written in such a simple way so that students of classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, etc can use very easily without any difficulty in understanding. Terrorism is an important social issue which urgently needs to be solved and ended in order to maintain a peaceful life all over the world. Terrorism essay written above may greatly help students to take part in the essay writing competition or get good marks in the exam. You can also get other related essays and related information such as:

Essay on Terrorism FAQs

What is the terrorism essay.

A terrorism essay is a written work that explains and discusses the topic of terrorism.

What is terrorism in 100 words?

Terrorism is the use of violence or threats to create fear for political, religious, or ideological reasons. It aims to intimidate or harm people to achieve specific goals.

What is the definition of terrorism?

Terrorism is when individuals or groups use violence, fear, or intimidation to pursue political, religious, or ideological objectives.

What are 5 common types of terrorism?

Common types of terrorism include suicide bombings, hijackings, cyberattacks, guerrilla warfare, and chemical attacks.

What are the 8 types of terrorism?

There are various forms of terrorism, but some common types include domestic terrorism, international terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, and cyberterrorism.

What is the most common definition of terrorism?

The most common definition of terrorism is the use of violence or threats to create fear for political, religious, or ideological purposes.

Related content

Get access to free Mock Test and Master Class

Register to Get Free Mock Test and Study Material

Offer Ends in 5:00

Select your Course

Please select class.

• Preventing violent extremism and countering terrorism

In recent years, threats from violent extremism and terrorism have increased, with violent extremism groups exploiting grievances, inequalities, and governance deficits to recruit followers. Crimes committed by terrorist groups sanctioned by the UN have exacerbated existing challenges and eroded progress toward gender equality.

Securitized and militarized responses to violent extremism often take priority over conflict prevention and peacebuilding approaches. Initiatives to promote the rights of women to participate in security sector decision-making platforms remain underfunded and often tokenistic. In addition, human rights’ violations committed under the pretext of counterterrorism, especially gender/sexual-based violence, are largely underreported and perpetrators are rarely held to account. Sometimes, the lack of gender-sensitive approaches leads to harmful practices and/or reinforce gender-based discrimination.

Our solutions

UN Women works with national and international partners to promote women’s rights and gender equality through supporting the implementation of commitments outlined in the women, peace, and security agenda and in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women  in contexts impacted by terrorism, violent extremism and counter-terrorism. UN Women contributes to the UN Counterterrorism agenda by leveraging its normative, coordination, and operational mandates in support of women’s participation in global, regional, and national dialogues. It also works to expand knowledge on the gendered aspects of violent extremism and terrorism through providing advisory services and localized research and through strengthening gender-responsive capacities.

UN Women adopts a people-centred approach to ensure no one is left behind. To do this, UN Women capitalizes on its partnership with independent and women-led civil society organizations to increase the inclusion and representation of girls and women impacted by terrorism and violent extremism. Find out more here .

UN Women also supports national partners to prioritize gender equality and women’s empowerment in their efforts to prevent violent extremism through policy and programmatic support to strengthen social cohesion, peaceful coexistence and community security—ensuring that efforts are human rights-oriented and conflict-sensitive, in line with Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5, SDG 10, and SDG 16 .

UN Women’s approach to countering terrorism and preventing violent extremism is conceived within the framework of the women, peace and security agenda ( UNSCR 1325 and UNSCR 2242 ), Agenda 2030, and the UN Priority Agenda on Preventing and Sustaining Peace.  UN Women’s Strategic Plan 2022–2025 outlines its contribution to the prevention of violent extremism. UN Women is also an integral part of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Compact led by the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism, where it chairs the working group on gender-sensitive approaches.

Latest news

• ‘One Woman’ – The UN Women song
• UN Under-Secretary-General and UN Women Executive Director Sima Bahous
• Kirsi Madi, Deputy Executive Director for Resource Management, Sustainability and Partnerships
• Nyaradzayi Gumbonzvanda, Deputy Executive Director for Normative Support, UN System Coordination and Programme Results
• Guiding documents
• Report wrongdoing
• Programme implementation
• Career opportunities
• Application and recruitment process
• Meet our people
• Internship programme
• Procurement principles
• Gender-responsive procurement
• Doing business with UN Women
• How to become a UN Women vendor
• Contract templates and general conditions of contract
• Vendor protest procedure
• Facts and Figures
• Global norms and standards
• Women’s movements
• Parliaments and local governance
• Constitutions and legal reform
• Preguntas frecuentes
• Global Norms and Standards
• Macroeconomic policies and social protection
• Sustainable Development and Climate Change
• Rural women
• Employment and migration
• Facts and figures
• Creating safe public spaces
• Spotlight Initiative
• Essential services
• Focusing on prevention
• Research and data
• Other areas of work
• UNiTE campaign
• Conflict prevention and resolution
• Building and sustaining peace
• Young women in peace and security
• Rule of law: Justice and security
• Women, peace, and security in the work of the UN Security Council
• Planning and monitoring
• Humanitarian coordination
• Crisis response and recovery
• Disaster risk reduction
• Inclusive National Planning
• Public Sector Reform
• Tracking Investments
• Strengthening young women's leadership
• Economic empowerment and skills development for young women
• Action on ending violence against young women and girls
• Engaging boys and young men in gender equality
• Leadership and Participation
• National Planning
• Violence against Women
• Access to Justice
• Regional and country offices
• Regional and Country Offices
• Liaison offices
• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• UN Women Global Innovation Coalition for Change
• Commission on the Status of Women
• Economic and Social Council
• General Assembly
• Security Council
• High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development
• Human Rights Council
• Climate change and the environment
• Other Intergovernmental Processes
• World Conferences on Women
• Global Coordination
• Regional and country coordination
• Promoting UN accountability
• Gender Mainstreaming
• Coordination resources
• UN Coordination Library
• System-wide strategy
• Focal Point for Women and Gender Focal Points
• Entity-specific implementation plans on gender parity
• Laws and policies
• Strategies and tools
• Reports and monitoring
• Training Centre services
• Publications
• Government partners
• National mechanisms
• Civil Society Advisory Groups
• Benefits of partnering with UN Women
• Business and philanthropic partners
• Goodwill Ambassadors
• National Committees
• UN Women Media Compact
• UN Women Alumni Association
• Editorial series
• Media contacts
• Annual report
• Progress of the world’s women
• SDG monitoring report
• World survey on the role of women in development
• Reprint permissions
• Secretariat
• 2023 sessions and other meetings
• 2022 sessions and other meetings
• 2021 sessions and other meetings
• 2020 sessions and other meetings
• 2019 sessions and other meetings
• 2018 sessions and other meetings
• 2017 sessions and other meetings
• 2016 sessions and other meetings
• 2015 sessions and other meetings
• Compendiums of decisions
• Reports of sessions
• Key Documents
• Brief history
• CSW snapshot
• Preparations
• Official Documents
• Official Meetings
• Side Events
• Session Outcomes
• CSW65 (2021)
• CSW64 / Beijing+25 (2020)
• CSW63 (2019)
• CSW62 (2018)
• CSW61 (2017)
• Member States
• Eligibility
• Registration
• Opportunities for NGOs to address the Commission
• Communications procedure
• Grant making
• Accompaniment and growth
• Results and impact
• Knowledge and learning
• Social innovation
• UN Trust Fund to End Violence against Women
• About Generation Equality
• Generation Equality Forum
• Action packs

Why Protecting Education Would Prevent Terrorism

E ducation is the key that unlocks human potential. For children living in the most disadvantaged and marginalized communities, it provides hope for a better future. But today, in hotspots across the world, education is under threat, with potentially serious consequences for all of us.

In Douma, Syrian civilians continue to live in fear after chemical weapons were dropped on their village in early April, killing at least 42 people . Elsewhere in the eastern Ghouta region, nearly 1,900 children have been killed between February 2014 and January 2015. Barrel bombs have been dropped on schools and hospitals, according to Human Rights Watch, and Syrian boys and girls who are supposed to be doing their homework and studying for tests are struggling to survive.

In February, extremists from Boko Haram stormed into a school in Dapchi , Nigeria, and captured approximately a hundred young girls. The same group captured hundreds of other girls in a raid on the village of Chibok in 2014. Fortunately, most of the Dapchi captives have now been released, but at least a hundred Nigerian girls remain prisoners of Boko Haram. What must be going through the minds of young Nigerian girls as they pack their book bags to go to school? Is it possible to get an education in these conditions?

The international community is failing these children. It is failing the boys and girls of Yemen and Gaza as well. The Charter of the United Nations states that it is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to “ensure international peace and stability.” But there is no peace and stability for these students, and the Security Council appears helpless to intervene on their behalf.

In many parts of the world, young people and children are living lives of hopelessness and despair. A quarter of all school-aged children live in countries devastated by conflict, millions are displaced refugees, and millions more are growing up in communities plagued by poverty . As a result, more than 263 million children and young people are now out of school , 63 million of them of primary school age.

Without an education, they will face a future of thwarted ambitions and broken dreams. They will lack the skills to gain meaningful employment and, out of anger and frustration, some of them will turn to extremism and violence. The sad fact is that terrorism appears to give a twisted sense of purpose and belonging to the desperate and the hopeless. And in communities of the marginalized and disadvantaged, terrorism can spread like a virus.

Education is the world’s vaccine against terrorism.

For more than 20 years I have worked with people and institutions across the world to bring education to children living in favelas in Brazil, refugee camps in Turkey and post-war neighborhoods in Iraq. Through the Education Above All Foundation (EAA), which I created in 2012, my colleagues and I have worked with partner organizations, community groups and government officials to help provide a quality education to boys and girls who might otherwise never see the inside of a classroom. Through EAA’s Educate A Child program, we aim to enroll 10 million of the 63 million primary age out-of-school children and have now received commitments from partner organizations around the world that will allow us to reach this worthy goal.

But this work will never be enough if schools, teachers and students are not shielded from violence. In the past decade, schools in Gaza, Syria, Yemen, Nigeria and elsewhere around the world have been bombed and burned. Teachers have been murdered and students have been recruited as child soldiers. The victims of these terrible tragedies are now coming of age.

What will become of these children when they reach adulthood? What chance do they have of living peaceful and productive lives? How will they resist the dark voices calling them to embrace violence and extremism? Education gives young people the resilience and the critical skills they need to reject hate and violence. It also gives them the most important tool they will need to negotiate their way through a complex and changing world: a rational and prepared mind.

We need to do all we can to ensure that young men and women in the most disadvantaged and marginalized communities are not denied the opportunity to get an education. We must do this for the children, and also for ourselves. If we want to live in a peaceful world, free of the terrorist threat, we need to do more to inoculate our children against extremism.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Breaking Down the 2024 Election Calendar
• How Nayib Bukele’s ‘Iron Fist’ Has Transformed El Salvador
• What if Ultra-Processed Foods Aren’t as Bad as You Think?
• How Ukraine Beat Russia in the Battle of the Black Sea
• Long COVID Looks Different in Kids
• How Project 2025 Would Jeopardize Americans’ Health
• What a $129 Frying Pan Says About America’s Eating Habits
• The 32 Most Anticipated Books of Fall 2024

Contact us at [email protected]

• Between Order and Chaos? The Writing on the Wall
• Conflict in Cyberspace
• Economic Security with Chinese Characteristics
• CBRN weapons
• Perceptions of security

Looking back

Use of ai by terrorist organisations, states and ai, killer drones, online technologies: anonymous fora, 3d printing, public-private partnerships.

• Military Competition in Perspective
• Hybrid Conflict
• In the Eye of the Beholder?
• What World do we Live in?
• The Netherlands in the world

Terrorists are and have always been children of their time - like you and me. We increasingly make use of modern technology, whether it is by ordering groceries through an app or reading articles selected through artificial intelligence (AI). These benefits come with a downside: those with bad intentions might use these technologies as well. This contribution aims to put the threat posed by the use of technology in terrorism to the West, more specifically to The Netherlands, in perspective. It will reflect in particular on the signals to watch in the Global Security Pulse on ‘Terrorism in the Age of Tech’ (further referred to as Global Security Pulse). It will reflect on the probability and evidence-based nature of the threats that are prominent in this publication and highlight some threats that have not been included.

The Global Security Pulse touches upon a fundamental question: ‘How can we strike (and safeguard) a proportional balance between the realistic probability and the impact of the use of these new technologies, without then neglecting other threats?’ Putting the debate on terrorism in the age of technology somewhat in perspective is necessary. The public discourse paints a futuristic picture of a threat that could quite easily spin so far from our understanding that it will become difficult to control and counter. It widely accepts scenarios of weaponisation of AI and killer drones. But how probable are these scenario’s? Are they based on actual evidence or on a fear that terrorists will go as far as our imagination allows us to imagine? Are incentives and motivations also taken into account or is the threat assessment mainly based on assumed technical capacities and unhindered access to new technologies? Fact is that in counter-terrorism (CT) policy, also on the international level, time and money is spent on these scenarios [1] .

Even though this contribution propagates a more proportional discourse on the use of new and innovative technology in terrorism, it does not propose to close one’s eyes for the ‘unknown unknowns’. On the contrary: it is important to not only prepare for the last and known attacks. We need to be able to anticipate new forms of threat, to make sure that we do not suffer from ‘failure of imagination’. But in doing so, we should take care that we do not fall victim to conscious or unconscious fear mongering, by crying wolf over threats that are conceivable but borne largely from speculation instead of indications of probability. We should particularly take heed of this when it comes to innovative technology, a field in which it is relatively difficult for a layperson to assess whether scenarios that are warned for are indeed viable or probable.

Most terrorist attacks in Europe in the past years have been committed not by using new technologies, but by low tech means, varying from more large scale attacks either by bombs or mass-shootings to small-scale attacks committed with easily attainable objects used as weapons, for instance cars, vans, knives and of course guns [2] . Jihadist terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda and IS have, in the recent years, actively called upon their following to ‘keep it simple’ [3] .

Nevertheless, terrorist use of (crude) unconventional weapons has been a worry for decades, with the potential capability of terrorist organisations to acquire or build nuclear weapons as the sum of all fears, even though researchers have contended that this scenario is unlikely [4] . Marianne van Leeuwen, in her study “Crying Wolf? Assessing unconventional terrorism” researched the quality of the public debate on the nuclear terrorist threat in 2000, working with the premise that this debate influences political and policy choices. She concluded that ‘in the United States in particular, the debate has stimulated an atmosphere of ill-defined alarm rather than creating the right conditions for well-considered and effective counterterrorist policies. (...) Opinion-leaders have been concentrating on technical capabilities while sidestepping the equally important issue of incentives and motivations’ [5] .

Confronted with a growing discourse on the threat posed by ‘killer drones’ or ‘AI assassinations’, it is important to assess whether terrorists or terrorist organisations actually need these means for their ends – indeed, as Van Leeuwen stated, investigate incentives and motivation.

Looking at the Global Security Pulse, the top two of the list of ‘novel and important signals to watch’ that could impact the terrorist threat assessment for The Netherlands are indeed the weaponisation of AI and the threat posed by drones. How probable are these scenarios?

The assertion that terrorist organisations will use –and do use- AI for their benefits is a likely one. Just as we all do, terrorists probably benefit from machine learning and other forms of AI, for instance in the preparations for their military operations and for the gathering of information. Particularly when carrying out cyber-attacks, automated tasks executed by using AI can make the scale and impact of these attacks potentially larger [6] . These scenarios are not only possible, but seem to also align with the motives and incentives of terrorist groups.

The scenario that seems to both frighten and fascinate people most seems to be that of AI robots. Scenarios conjure up an image of some sort of sentient, killer robot with capacities that mimic that of the human brain but without the human inhibitions that people –thankfully- still seem to attribute to us ‘real’ people. . We apparently attribute to our fellow human beings an innate sense of decency, or morality, that would keep a human from committing assassinations the way an AI powered robot would commit them. Do terrorist organisations actually need that kind of AI operatives? Do these scenarios align with their needs, incentives and motivations?

One of the most difficult things to counter when it comes to terrorist attacks, is the willingness of terrorist operatives to give their own life for their cause. They do not stop at decency, morality or proportionality and are, in a sense, as unstoppable as a ‘killer robot’. Recent years have shown that suicide operatives are readily available and that their attacks are quite successful. There is added gain for terrorist organisations too: the use of self-sacrificing human operatives sends a strong and empowering message of fanaticism and determination that strengthens their image as victors and increases their impact.

Terrorist groups, then, do not need AI powered operatives to carry out assassinations or attacks. Neither do they need “self-driving vehicles carrying car bombs and conducting ramming attacks”, as mentioned in the Global Security Pulse: they have experience with car bomb factories and plenty of followers who are willing to die whilst committing similar attacks. This reduces the plausibility of these scenarios.

The fear of terrorists using ‘AI killer robots’ runs parallel to the discussion on the use of them in the military. Even though at this point there are no autonomous targeting systems without human decision making employed in the (US) military, there are widespread concerns about this possibility and the ethical questions that are involved [7] . But here too some nuance is in place: the Pentagon is aware of the risks involved, and has put guidelines in place to guard them, one of them being to always have ‘a human in the loop’ [8] . Moreover, their usefulness in the military has been questioned. Just two weeks ago, the Pentagon issued a press release in which it tempered expectations for the use of AI in the military, stating that they “can’t show the rewards [of AI] right now on mission-critical systems” [9]

But concern about the use of AI by states is warranted. AI tools and technology are being deployed and developed by countries that may not use it within proportional frameworks that take individual liberties and fundamental rights into account, as also signalled in the Global Security Pulse. China, for instance uses sophisticated facial recognition software for mass-surveillance. But more countries than we might be generally aware of use AI technologies for surveillance purposes. The 2019 Carnegie AI Global Surveillance Index (AIGS) reports that 75 out of the 176 countries globally do so. These include liberal democracies, also The Netherlands. The Carnegie report furthermore warns that ‘democracies are not taking adequate steps to monitor and control the spread of sophisticated technologies linked to a range of violations’ [10] .

AI technologies are sold to and used by fragile and instable states, according to the AIGS. Even though innovative AI technology is unlikely to be developed by terrorist organisations, and might be too expensive for them to buy, the possession of this technology by fragile states might mean that when these states collapse or when conflict within these states arises or intensifies, chances that these technologies will end up in the hands of terrorist organisations increase.

The Global Security Pulse warns not only for scenarios involving weaponised AI robots, but also scenarios involving ‘swarms of killer drones’. There is a YouTube-video online, called ‘Slaughterbots’, posted in 2017, which has generated over 3 million views [11] . In it, a dystopian scenario is presented in which an unidentified government has produced large swarms of small weaponized drones in order to kill critical civilians in order to assert thought control. Notwithstanding the fact that this video was created and posted by an activist group called ‘Stop Autonomous Weapons’ with the clearly articulated political purpose to stop the military use on unmanned weapons, this video easily made its way into the discourse on the use of technology by terrorists [12] . The scenario of ‘swarms of killer drones’ is linked to evidence of ISIS having used consumer grade, small drones armed with grenades on the Syrian battlefield. These cases then merge into a seemingly all too plausible scenario of terror that we are potentially faced with [13] .

But the technological tool as presented in the video is not readily available. All parts of it separately – the facial recognition, the explosives, the algorithms, the sophisticated drone technology, etcetera- have been developed but in different contexts, and mostly not in consumer goods. It is imaginable that at one point these separate technologies could be assembled as presented. But the Hollywoodesque nature of the video – echoing both a Ted-talk and an episode of the Netflix dystopian series Black Mirror- helps the viewer to ignore the illogical nature of the video. It presumes, for instance, that governments will mass-produce small weaponised drones to openly mass-execute civilians for thinking or behaving in unwanted ways. This does not ring likely. If a government would indeed want to openly assassinate large amounts of citizens, history unfortunately proofs that there are easier ways. Atrocities like the killing fields of Cambodia or Ruanda have shown us this. And even when carrying out historical mass-scale atrocities, governments tried to hide their actions.

The video also ignores the fact that there are countermeasures against drones in place, and they are increasingly sophisticated – and sometimes quite unsophisticated but effective. Swarms of drones, for instance, can be countered by simple measures like chicken wire and nets, asserts for instance Paul Scharre, director of the National Security Program at the Centre for New American Security and author of “Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War” [14] .

When discussing the threat of the use of technology by terrorists, next to AI and drones, one needs to pay attention to the use of Internet. Two prominent and well-researched areas that terrorists use digital and Internet technology for are their propaganda efforts and their communications. This contribution focuses on a use of online space by terrorists that has not received the same attention: the use of anonymous fora, particularly the increase of attacks that have a connection with anonymous fora like 8chan [15] .

On the 9 th of October 2019, a 27-year old man killed two people and injured two others on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur when he tried to enter a synagogue in Halle, Germany [16] . This right-wing terrorist attack is of the sort that we have increasingly seen in the more recent years. The attacker shot his victims while filming his attack with a camera attached to a helmet and live-streaming it on the internet. The man identified himself as an ‘anon’, a user of anonymous and no-rules internet fora like 8chan [17] . The general public have come to know these fora because of their attraction to people with extremist views and the fact that recent mass-shooters were users of these fora, announced their attacks there, and published manifestos or (links to the) livestreams of the attacks on these online spaces. When trying to put the threat posed by use of technology by terrorists into perspective, the use and role of these anonymous fora is a signal to watch.

The difference between a forum like 8chan and other fora, like Reddit, is that it lacks moderation efforts to remove or avert content [18] . Users of such a forum can be completely anonymous: there is no need to register or create an account, as is the case with mainstream fora. This makes them an ideal place for potential terrorists to anonymously express intentions or sentiments that would otherwise be taken offline. Terrorists that use these fora seem to purposefully want to inspire and incite people to commit violence, and a snowball-effect is already visible: recent perpetrators of right-wing inspired mass-shootings that used these fora have openly referred to each other as inspirations.

The Halle-attack points to another potentially dangerous use of innovative technology: the use of 3D printers to fabricate homemade guns that can be used in terrorist attacks.

The Halle-perpetrator used a homemade gun to execute his attack, using freely online available PDF manuals. Parts of the gun used in Halle were allegedly printed by using a 3D printer [19] - the shooter himself posted, right before the attack, a message online stating “All you need is a weekend worth of time and $50 for the materials” [20] . The manifesto the Halle-attacker posted online before his attack stated that his main purpose was to “prove the viability of improvised weapons” [21] . His gun jammed during the attack, and in the video of the attack he can be heard stating “I have certainly managed to prove how absurd improvised weapons are”. The attack has consequently been framed as a ‘failure’ in right-wing extremist circles [22] . This will assumingly undermine the shooters efforts to advocate for the use of homemade weapons in terrorist attacks and decreases chances of copy-cat behaviour. However, researchers have warned that this in turn could lead to an underestimation of the risk posed by the 3D printing techniques [23] . Particularly combined with readily available manufacturing manuals, easy home manufacturing like 3D printing makes it much easier for potential terrorists to acquire guns, also in countries where there is strict gun control in place, like in Germany [24] . Terrorism by mass-shooting in the USA are sometimes seen as a phenomenon reserved for low gun control areas. With these dynamics that might change.

Guns made completely from current, commercially available 3D printed material will not last, probably not more than one round fired [25] . The 3D printed elements in the gun used in the Halle-attack were not essential to the functioning of the gun. But as quality of 3D printing increases, and the technique becomes more known and available, the risk and effectiveness of terrorists making their own guns will likely further increase.

An important recent development in the international order, as also touched upon in the Global Security Pulse, is the intensification of public-private partnerships when it comes to countering terrorist and violent extremist online content.

Technological expertise is not necessarily the core expertise of CT or countering violent extremism (CVE) professionals. In order to keep up with developments in order to counter misuse of them, government organisations need to make an effort to attract the ‘best and brightest’ to their teams. Working together with private technology companies can help governments make use of the expertise of the private industries’ ‘best and brightest’.

Another advantage of working in public-private partnerships is the fact that private communication and social media companies, often have direct access to information and communication that is disseminated through their communication channels- and are in the position to take communication down and identify signals that a threat is manifesting on their channels.

We have seen a particular increase in efforts in public-private cooperation in this field after the Christchurch shooting. The Christchurch Call to Action Summit brought together Heads of State and governments and leaders from the tech sector, like Facebook, Microsoft and Google, to commit to eliminating terrorist and extremist content online, taking into account the fundamental importance of freedom of expression.

Large social media and technology companies, like Facebook and Microsoft, are increasingly taking up their role and responsibility in the countering of terrorism [26] . A question that remains unanswered is how to involve small tech companies in these initiatives. We have seen potential terrorists move away from mainstream Internet and social media, and towards more obscure outlets, like 8chan. These can be very small companies like anonymous sharing portals as justpaste.it that was used by IS to distribute information like names and addresses of military personnel [27] . It seems almost impossible for such a company, run by one person, to get involved in international cooperation –the costs involved alone would likely be too high. The same goes for anonymous fora like 8chan – and it is probable that its owner would not be inclined to work with government authorities in the first place.

It is important to not fall into the trap of failure of imagination when it comes to assessing new threats. In the case of the threat posed by technology used by terrorists, though, it seems that participants in the debate fall into the technology trap, as Marianne van Leeuwen also concluded in her study on the proportionality of the debate on nuclear terrorism. The focus is too much on what the technological possibilities are and it often seems to be assumed that what is possible will therefore happen. There are, as this contribution tries to show, arguments that offer counterbalance to this alarmist discourse, but they are not often taken into account. The most important elements that need a place on the scales are the motives and incentives as to why a terrorist or terrorist organisation would want to use complex technical means for their purpose. They do not always need to do so –they do not require AI suicide bombers because they already have willing human suicide bombers, for instance-, or it is not always economical – guns, vans or knifes are a lot cheaper then small weaponized drones.

Furthermore, it seems that possibilities to counter the use of technology by terrorists, measures already in place, but also potential countermeasures, are not often weighed in either by participants in the debate when assessing the threat.

The debate looks very much into a potential far future, and in doing so seems to run the risk to defeat the purpose: to create a healthy sense of awareness to be able to find solutions today for the likely and feasible threats posed by the use of technology that benefits terrorists. Instead, the dissemination of worst-case and unlikely scenarios could lead to an increase of fear for terrorists and terrorist organisations –and even for the technology itself.

The increase of involvement of private partners in countering threats related to the use of technology by terrorists is a positive development. However, it does make it increasingly difficult to assess whether people who take part in the debate are objective: there are stakes and agendas, it is imaginable that private parties like consultants or advisors have an interest in keeping an alarmist narrative alive around the topics they sell their services for- or to have it downplayed. Particularly on themes that require specialist technical expertise, it is difficult for the non-technical participants or audiences in the debate to distinguish a biased or influenced narrative from an evidence-based and neutral one.

Innovative technology speaks to our imagination. And imagination is good to keep us from preparing only for threats that are already known. But in thinking about which threats we should prepare for, it is adamant that we assess the feasibility and proportionality of scenarios next to their possibility. If we can strike the right balance here, we are most effective in making this digital age a safe one for all.

How US military planning has shifted away from fighting terrorism to readying for tensions and conflict with China and Russia

Senior Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

Disclosure statement

Eric Rosenbach received funding from the United States government to develop executive education programs.

View all partners

President Joe Biden’s recent approval of a major shift in U.S. nuclear weapons strategy highlights the attention the country’s national security officials are paying to Chinese ambitions for influence in the world.

As changes emerge in the types of threats facing the U.S., the American military adjusts its strategic focus, budgets and planning. For instance, after 9/11, the U.S. military refocused away from its Cold War emphasis on preparing for combat against a powerful nation – the Soviet Union – and toward fighting small terrorist and insurgent groups instead.

Over the past decade, the Pentagon’s efforts have shifted back to preparing for what officials call “ great power competition ” among the U.S., Russia and China .

The most important strategic shift that’s evident in planning for great power competition is a focus on deterrence. In classic military strategy, deterrence focuses on making an adversary believe they can never achieve their goals by military force, because the response would be overwhelming and decisive. The National Defense Strategy released in October 2022 – the document that articulates the nation’s goals, objectives and resource allocation for the next two years – explicitly recognizes the potential risk of tensions and open conflict with Russia or China, and it calls for “integrated deterrence” to prevent it. That means combined efforts from the military, intelligence and diplomatic agencies across the U.S. government.

The National Military Strategy – the military’s section of the overarching National Defense Strategy – lays out how the U.S. armed forces will contribute to that effort. As a former assistant secretary of defense and Pentagon chief of staff , I see that the military is focusing on three main goals to achieve integrated deterrence and prevent a conflict with Russia or China.

New operational plans

For the military, integrated deterrence means the armed forces will depend both on where forces are located and what they can do once they’re in action to influence adversaries’ decisions about when, where, how – and whether – to use military force against the U.S. or its interests.

In the shift away from counterterrorism toward preparation for a great power conflict, the Defense Department has developed new ways to deal with the fact that Russia and China, unlike small terrorist groups, can fight in the air, on land and at sea anywhere around the world – and online and in space, too.

First among those methods is what the Pentagon calls “ dynamic force employment ,” in which U.S. military forces are deployed rapidly around the world, without predictable rotation schedules. This approach can reassure allies facing threats from Russia or China.

For example, the U.S. has, at times, deployed as many as 10,000 troops to Poland . The troops are not permanently stationed there, but a continuous presence of U.S. forces keeps Russia guessing about the size and capabilities of the force and demonstrates a commitment to support nervous NATO allies in Eastern Europe.

Second is a shift of personnel and capabilities to what is called “ multi-domain operations ,” in which units with different missions across air, land, sea, space and cyberspace plan and train together. That way, they can be prepared to work closely together in actual conflicts.

This level of collaboration allows the nation to respond to threats in a variety of ways. For instance, challenges to American naval power on the high seas do not have to be met directly with corresponding naval action, but instead could be answered with cyberattacks or from space.

This approach might make the Chinese People’s Liberation Army think twice about launching military operations against Taiwan. Not only would the Chinese potentially face a fierce direct conflict, but U.S. cyber and space operations could also disrupt or destroy Chinese military communications, hindering their attack.

Investments in modernization

Recent research has shown that China’s investments in its military personnel and capabilities – particularly in air, naval and nuclear forces – have grown exponentially over the past two decades, to a level estimated at near parity with the United States. This has prompted the U.S. to modernize its own military’s corresponding capabilities. For the 2024 budget, the Department of Defense allocated a whopping US$234.9 billion for programs to support integrated deterrence , which likely represents a 10% increase over previous spending plans.

Some of this money will go to developing and acquiring F-35 fighter jets and building Columbia-class, nuclear-powered submarines . When the U.S. and its allies in the Pacific region, such as Japan, South Korea and Australia , deploy these planes and submarines, they will remind potential adversaries of American military power – which is itself a deterrent against foreign aggression.

Over the past 10 years, China’s rapid expansion of its nuclear weapon supply has alarmed senior policymakers in the U.S. Although then-President Barack Obama pushed countries to envision a world free of nuclear weapons , he approved the most expensive and significant upgrade ever to the U.S. nuclear arsenal. In 2022, the Biden administration renewed a financial commitment to “ field a modern, resilient nuclear triad ” consisting of intercontinental ballistic missiles, submarine-launched missiles and long-range nuclear bombers.

Advancing technology

In 2019, the Space Force was established as a separate branch of the armed forces and tasked with defending American space-based assets and upholding international law. Because of the importance of satellite communications to military operations and civilian life – including internet connectivity – the Space Force works closely with Cyber Command , the military organization charged with defending the nation against cyberattacks, to prevent malicious hackers from disrupting systems vital to the world, such as the Global Positioning System , widely known as GPS.

Recent intelligence indicates that China plans to conduct destructive cyberattacks against U.S. domestic critical infrastructure, including the electric grid, during any conflict. To counter those plans, Cyber Command continues to enhance its abilities to defend U.S. systems and companies against cyberattacks, as well as to conduct attacks against systems in other countries.

The Pentagon is also seeking to counterbalance China’s rapidly expanding military forces by using artificial intelligence software in a program called the Replicator Initiative . The effort seeks to build thousands of low-cost, AI-directed autonomous aircraft and boats that can be used in combat to “ counter the (Chinese military)’s mass with mass of our own ,” in the words of Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks.

Integration with allies and partners

The U.S. military has also sought to strengthen alliances with other countries, especially over the past four years of the Biden administration.

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine led NATO to expand its membership as well as the numbers and capabilities of troops available to the organization. The U.S. has reinforced its commitment to NATO, increasing troop deployments in Eastern Europe and support for European defense initiatives by committing nearly $3 billion in funding for additional fighter aircraft, air-defense batteries and munitions.

In Asia, around the Indian Ocean and across the Pacific Ocean, a vast region that the government often calls “ the Indo-Pacific ,” the U.S. has strengthened alliances with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines by conducting numerous military exercises and increasing military assistance. Efforts like the annual Marine Aviation Support exercise are aimed at countering Chinese military and political influence.

The U.S. has also sought to strengthen its alliances with the U.K. and Australia, with a commitment to sell up to five conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarines to the Australian navy by 2030.

Collectively, the U.S. has combined all of these efforts into a coordinated approach seeking to avoid open conflict with China and Russia. But the work is not yet done: The global political and military landscape is ever-changing, and new security challenges are always emerging.

Grace Jones , a master’s student in public policy and research assistant at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government, contributed research to this article.

• International relations
• Counter-terrorism
• US foreign policy
• US military
• Great power rivalry
• US-China relations
• US-Russia relations
• Great powers

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Finance Business Partner

Head of Evidence to Action

Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact Samantha Putterman, PolitiFact

Leave your feedback

• Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-warnings-from-democrats-about-project-2025-and-donald-trump

Fact-checking warnings from Democrats about Project 2025 and Donald Trump

This fact check originally appeared on PolitiFact .

Project 2025 has a starring role in this week’s Democratic National Convention.

And it was front and center on Night 1.

WATCH: Hauling large copy of Project 2025, Michigan state Sen. McMorrow speaks at 2024 DNC

“This is Project 2025,” Michigan state Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, said as she laid a hardbound copy of the 900-page document on the lectern. “Over the next four nights, you are going to hear a lot about what is in this 900-page document. Why? Because this is the Republican blueprint for a second Trump term.”

Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, has warned Americans about “Trump’s Project 2025” agenda — even though former President Donald Trump doesn’t claim the conservative presidential transition document.

“Donald Trump wants to take our country backward,” Harris said July 23 in Milwaukee. “He and his extreme Project 2025 agenda will weaken the middle class. Like, we know we got to take this seriously, and can you believe they put that thing in writing?”

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, Harris’ running mate, has joined in on the talking point.

“Don’t believe (Trump) when he’s playing dumb about this Project 2025. He knows exactly what it’ll do,” Walz said Aug. 9 in Glendale, Arizona.

Trump’s campaign has worked to build distance from the project, which the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, led with contributions from dozens of conservative groups.

Much of the plan calls for extensive executive-branch overhauls and draws on both long-standing conservative principles, such as tax cuts, and more recent culture war issues. It lays out recommendations for disbanding the Commerce and Education departments, eliminating certain climate protections and consolidating more power to the president.

Project 2025 offers a sweeping vision for a Republican-led executive branch, and some of its policies mirror Trump’s 2024 agenda, But Harris and her presidential campaign have at times gone too far in describing what the project calls for and how closely the plans overlap with Trump’s campaign.

PolitiFact researched Harris’ warnings about how the plan would affect reproductive rights, federal entitlement programs and education, just as we did for President Joe Biden’s Project 2025 rhetoric. Here’s what the project does and doesn’t call for, and how it squares with Trump’s positions.

Are Trump and Project 2025 connected?

To distance himself from Project 2025 amid the Democratic attacks, Trump wrote on Truth Social that he “knows nothing” about it and has “no idea” who is in charge of it. (CNN identified at least 140 former advisers from the Trump administration who have been involved.)

The Heritage Foundation sought contributions from more than 100 conservative organizations for its policy vision for the next Republican presidency, which was published in 2023.

Project 2025 is now winding down some of its policy operations, and director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, is stepping down, The Washington Post reported July 30. Trump campaign managers Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita denounced the document.

WATCH: A look at the Project 2025 plan to reshape government and Trump’s links to its authors

However, Project 2025 contributors include a number of high-ranking officials from Trump’s first administration, including former White House adviser Peter Navarro and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson.

A recently released recording of Russell Vought, a Project 2025 author and the former director of Trump’s Office of Management and Budget, showed Vought saying Trump’s “very supportive of what we do.” He said Trump was only distancing himself because Democrats were making a bogeyman out of the document.

Project 2025 wouldn’t ban abortion outright, but would curtail access

The Harris campaign shared a graphic on X that claimed “Trump’s Project 2025 plan for workers” would “go after birth control and ban abortion nationwide.”

The plan doesn’t call to ban abortion nationwide, though its recommendations could curtail some contraceptives and limit abortion access.

What’s known about Trump’s abortion agenda neither lines up with Harris’ description nor Project 2025’s wish list.

Project 2025 says the Department of Health and Human Services Department should “return to being known as the Department of Life by explicitly rejecting the notion that abortion is health care.”

It recommends that the Food and Drug Administration reverse its 2000 approval of mifepristone, the first pill taken in a two-drug regimen for a medication abortion. Medication is the most common form of abortion in the U.S. — accounting for around 63 percent in 2023.

If mifepristone were to remain approved, Project 2025 recommends new rules, such as cutting its use from 10 weeks into pregnancy to seven. It would have to be provided to patients in person — part of the group’s efforts to limit access to the drug by mail. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval over procedural grounds.

WATCH: Trump’s plans for health care and reproductive rights if he returns to White House The manual also calls for the Justice Department to enforce the 1873 Comstock Act on mifepristone, which bans the mailing of “obscene” materials. Abortion access supporters fear that a strict interpretation of the law could go further to ban mailing the materials used in procedural abortions, such as surgical instruments and equipment.

The plan proposes withholding federal money from states that don’t report to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention how many abortions take place within their borders. The plan also would prohibit abortion providers, such as Planned Parenthood, from receiving Medicaid funds. It also calls for the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure that the training of medical professionals, including doctors and nurses, omits abortion training.

The document says some forms of emergency contraception — particularly Ella, a pill that can be taken within five days of unprotected sex to prevent pregnancy — should be excluded from no-cost coverage. The Affordable Care Act requires most private health insurers to cover recommended preventive services, which involves a range of birth control methods, including emergency contraception.

Trump has recently said states should decide abortion regulations and that he wouldn’t block access to contraceptives. Trump said during his June 27 debate with Biden that he wouldn’t ban mifepristone after the Supreme Court “approved” it. But the court rejected the lawsuit based on standing, not the case’s merits. He has not weighed in on the Comstock Act or said whether he supports it being used to block abortion medication, or other kinds of abortions.

Project 2025 doesn’t call for cutting Social Security, but proposes some changes to Medicare

“When you read (Project 2025),” Harris told a crowd July 23 in Wisconsin, “you will see, Donald Trump intends to cut Social Security and Medicare.”

The Project 2025 document does not call for Social Security cuts. None of its 10 references to Social Security addresses plans for cutting the program.

Harris also misleads about Trump’s Social Security views.

In his earlier campaigns and before he was a politician, Trump said about a half-dozen times that he’s open to major overhauls of Social Security, including cuts and privatization. More recently, in a March 2024 CNBC interview, Trump said of entitlement programs such as Social Security, “There’s a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting.” However, he quickly walked that statement back, and his CNBC comment stands at odds with essentially everything else Trump has said during the 2024 presidential campaign.

Trump’s campaign website says that not “a single penny” should be cut from Social Security. We rated Harris’ claim that Trump intends to cut Social Security Mostly False.

Project 2025 does propose changes to Medicare, including making Medicare Advantage, the private insurance offering in Medicare, the “default” enrollment option. Unlike Original Medicare, Medicare Advantage plans have provider networks and can also require prior authorization, meaning that the plan can approve or deny certain services. Original Medicare plans don’t have prior authorization requirements.

The manual also calls for repealing health policies enacted under Biden, such as the Inflation Reduction Act. The law enabled Medicare to negotiate with drugmakers for the first time in history, and recently resulted in an agreement with drug companies to lower the prices of 10 expensive prescriptions for Medicare enrollees.

Trump, however, has said repeatedly during the 2024 presidential campaign that he will not cut Medicare.

Project 2025 would eliminate the Education Department, which Trump supports

The Harris campaign said Project 2025 would “eliminate the U.S. Department of Education” — and that’s accurate. Project 2025 says federal education policy “should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.” The plan scales back the federal government’s role in education policy and devolves the functions that remain to other agencies.

Aside from eliminating the department, the project also proposes scrapping the Biden administration’s Title IX revision, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. It also would let states opt out of federal education programs and calls for passing a federal parents’ bill of rights similar to ones passed in some Republican-led state legislatures.

Republicans, including Trump, have pledged to close the department, which gained its status in 1979 within Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s presidential Cabinet.

In one of his Agenda 47 policy videos, Trump promised to close the department and “to send all education work and needs back to the states.” Eliminating the department would have to go through Congress.

What Project 2025, Trump would do on overtime pay

In the graphic, the Harris campaign says Project 2025 allows “employers to stop paying workers for overtime work.”

The plan doesn’t call for banning overtime wages. It recommends changes to some Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, regulations and to overtime rules. Some changes, if enacted, could result in some people losing overtime protections, experts told us.

The document proposes that the Labor Department maintain an overtime threshold “that does not punish businesses in lower-cost regions (e.g., the southeast United States).” This threshold is the amount of money executive, administrative or professional employees need to make for an employer to exempt them from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In 2019, the Trump’s administration finalized a rule that expanded overtime pay eligibility to most salaried workers earning less than about $35,568, which it said made about 1.3 million more workers eligible for overtime pay. The Trump-era threshold is high enough to cover most line workers in lower-cost regions, Project 2025 said.

The Biden administration raised that threshold to $43,888 beginning July 1, and that will rise to $58,656 on Jan. 1, 2025. That would grant overtime eligibility to about 4 million workers, the Labor Department said.

It’s unclear how many workers Project 2025’s proposal to return to the Trump-era overtime threshold in some parts of the country would affect, but experts said some would presumably lose the right to overtime wages.

Other overtime proposals in Project 2025’s plan include allowing some workers to choose to accumulate paid time off instead of overtime pay, or to work more hours in one week and fewer in the next, rather than receive overtime.

Trump’s past with overtime pay is complicated. In 2016, the Obama administration said it would raise the overtime to salaried workers earning less than $47,476 a year, about double the exemption level set in 2004 of $23,660 a year.

But when a judge blocked the Obama rule, the Trump administration didn’t challenge the court ruling. Instead it set its own overtime threshold, which raised the amount, but by less than Obama.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

You Want Policies? Trump’s Got Policies.

By Thomas B. Edsall

Mr. Edsall contributes a weekly column from Washington, D.C., on politics, demographics and inequality.

Donald Trump’s policy initiatives for a potential second term are rife with unintended adverse consequences — which, in less charitable terms, could be described as deliberate attempts to delude the electorate.

The first of these initiatives is his proposal to deport roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States.

Illegal immigration “is poisoning the blood of our country,” Trump declared in October 2023. “We will carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in American history.”

The second initiative is to impose a 10 percent across-the-board tariff on all products imported into the United States, a tariff that would rise to 60 percent for imports from China.

In response to my query, Henry J. Aaron , an economist at the Brookings Institution, sent his criticism of the Trump agenda by email:

Take the across-the-board tariff. It would injure American consumers by jacking up prices not only directly but also indirectly by lessening foreign competition and would injure export industries through exchange rate effects that increase the price of American goods to foreign buyers.

In addition, Aaron wrote, Trump proposes

to give the White House greater influence over monetary policy. This idea is genuinely frightening, as the political interests of incumbent politicians often diverge from the imperatives of sound monetary policy, especially in election years. Trump is reminiscent of Juan Perón, who converted Argentina from a country richer than France, Germany or England into a poverty-ridden, inflation-crippled middle-income nation, in no small part by forcing his Treasury to print money to pay for his whims.

With that for a starter, let’s take a deeper look at Trump’s plan to raise import duties — i.e., tariffs — and his plan to make his 2017 tax cuts permanent.

Jason Furman , an economist at Harvard and a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration, warned in an email, “If Trump follows through on his campaign commitment to across-the-board tariffs, something he could do unilaterally without congressional approval, the result would be the worst global trade war since the Great Depression.”

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .