National Strategy for Combating Terrorism Essay

In the recent years, global terrorism has beget into picture as a serious problem that threatens the solid ground peace. The world community has expressed deep mention over the menace of terrorism in different parts of the world. Terrorism has struck countries like the joined States, India and countries in Middle East and other parts of Asia. The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 beat backd the coupled States to take a tough military position on this issue. The George shrub administration formulated a national dodging for combating terrorism, known as the Bush article of faith.However, the fight on Afghanistan and Iraq also bring to the debate over the principles of the respectable contend belief that exists for centuries. These two teachings be contrasting in nature. A large number of tidy sum intrust that the Bush dogma violates the basic principles of fairish struggle. adept war Doctrine Just War forever distinguishes between justifiable and unjustifia ble usage of force. The master(prenominal) objective of Just War is to restrain the use of coat of arms and use them only when the peace and justice argon in danger. A war al flairs causes widespread destruction.It results in the killing of innocent civilians and creates frugal and social turbulence. Although the war ends within a few days and or months, the survivors feel the imp encounter for the years to come. People from different sections of the society eer app arent movemented the use of violence to preserve peace. Although killing is mor ally non justified, the requisite war between states often leads to potful killing. Just War Doctrine aims at the protection of unarmed civilians and the ingest for required measures to minimize deaths.Just War is a theory practiced by the Catholic Church. The Catechisms teachings on Just War forbid the intentional destruction of human beings life. It states that all the citizens and governments moldiness work for peace. However, it allows a country to go to war for its self-defense if all peace efforts have failed. Just War theory believes in the principle of legitimate self-defense in the form of war. However, the threat must be real and grave and there should be no alternative to avoid war . It completely denounces initiating armed conflict without some(prenominal) provocation.The main principles of Just War are ? Before going into war, it is prerequisite to explore all non-violent options to resolve the conflict. ? A legitimate authority must endorse the use of violent force by exploitation discretionary power. ? A Just War fought against injustice with right intentions, is always justifiable. ? It prohibits States from using unnecessary use of force. Peace is the ultimate goal of a Just War. ? Just War allows use of force only against the armed combatants. It requires all States to take necessary steps to avoid civilian casualties .Just War makes a clear distinction between the use of arms against self-directed nations and the political compulsion of going to war. Nobody can justify the mass killings. However, the circumstances often warrant such(prenominal) an action. A Just War is defensive and cannot be aggressive under any circumstances. The main stage business in every war is the loss of lives and property. Civilians always suffer severely whenever there is a war. Just War Doctrine strongly emphasizes on protecting the lives of innocent civilians. field of study Strategy for Combating Terrorism (Bush Doctrine)In the put forward of the terrorist attack on 9/11, President George Bush led the way to fight against global terrorism. The military doctrine of the United States had been a polity of deterrence for years. George Bush changed it into a insurance of striking at the countries that threatens the interests of the United States. Under the Bush Doctrine, the United States adopted the idea of pre-emptive strikes on the suspect countries. The Bush Doctrine is a natio nal strategy for combating terrorism. The new doctrine clearly states that the US would not allow any country to question its military supremacy.It also believes that the US has a bigger role to pass in maintaining peace in the world by waging war against the monkey nations and terrorists. It denounced terrorism in strong words and calls for non-compromise on its national interests . The need of a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorism has bend necessary keeping the strong capabilities of the terrorists. By using weapons of mass destruction, terrorists sent a clear signal that they could launch attacks on important installations at their will.The Bush Doctrine identified possible threats in three categories. These potential threats are global terrorist organizations, states that harbor such organizations and rogue states. It defined rogue states as states that oppress their own citizens and squander the national properties for the self-interest of the rulers. Countries that d isregard outside(a) law and threaten their neighbors are also fall in the akin category. In this context, the Bush Doctrine termed Iraq, North Korea and Iran as rogue states. However, the accent was on Iraq.The US policy stated in clear impairment that it would not wait and watch until the rogue nations acquire or stimulate the weapons of mass destructions and use them to destroy the humankind . Preemptive strike is not a substitute for the non-military measures such as financial sanctions and diplomatic offensive to isolate a nation that practices dangerous propaganda. It is just an add-on policy to combat the new threat of invisible war launched by the terrorist groups. The main objective of the Bush Doctrine is not to tolerate the ghastly act of terrorism in any form. ConclusionIn the past decades, people from some sections of the society developed new ways of terrorizing people to force the government and administration to meet their demands. Suicidal attacks in the United States, India, Israel and Iraq are the examples of the newly developed way of warfare. There is little option left-hand(a) with the states to tackle terrorism. A full-fledged war against terrorism and countries harboring terrorists has become inevitable. In this context, the Bush Doctrine seems to be an effective option. The leaderships in the world always explored ways for dialogue and discussion to tackle such problems.However, from the recent incidents, it has become clear that bringing the terrorists into negotiating table is almost impossible. They hardly showed any willingness to cipher into dialogues. Their intransigent attitude forced the governments to take tough decision in curbing terrorism. Many people question the policy of the Bush Doctrine citing the principles of Just War Doctrine. However, in the recent years the world witnessed sulphurous acts of terrorism that killed thousands of people and caused loss of public and private property. In such a scenario, war ag ainst terrorism becomes completely justifiable.The only concern is roughly the loss of civilian lives. States going to war must address this concern properly and take necessary steps to avoid this.BibliographyDolan, Chris J. In War We Trust The Bush Doctrine and the Pursuit of Just War. Burlington, VT Ashgate, 2005. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War Against Terror The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York Basic Books, 2003. Daalder, Ivo H. , James M. Lindsey, & James B. Steinberg. The Bush National Security Strategy An Evaluation. Washington Brookings Institution, 2002.