Can terrorism be defeated Discuss in terms of both the military and Essay

Can terrorist act be disappointed Discuss in terms of both the military and non-military resolutions to the threat - Essay ExampleThese conflicting opinions argon now in the process of ripening and it is hoped that it will not be long before they fancy their application in practical terms. Discussion Older theorists flip proposed that terrorism can be defeat if certain principles argon followed. Terrorists often win because we respond to terrorism the way terrorists want us to respond. If our response is not in accordance with the terrorists will, they fail to achieve their objective. So, it should be realized that the choice is ours. If we can look at to refuse to act upon the will of terrorists, we can hope to defeat terrorism, although we cannot always prevent it (Fromkin, 1975). Such ideas wee dominated the minds of intellectuals of the past, but keeping in mind the present scenario of the world, we can infer that such ideas are far from reality. The previous two decades have seen a rise in the tendency to control terrorism using the military approach. The idea of intervening within states for the resolution of military conflicts appeared prominently in the supranational scenario in the early 1990s, when in the Gulf war and later in Cambodia the international community contend its role (Snyder, 2008). Subsequent years have seen a surge in such military measures and a collective effort on part of many countries to contain terrorism and limit it to its origins. They have, however, resulted in a growth of terrorist activities across the world, let alone stopping its spread. Our recent experiences of waging war against terrorism have besides made us realize virtually bitter realities of the life. Most modern discoveries in neuroscience, anthropology, human growing and paleoethnology have favored the idea that Homo sapiens are not inclined towards killing others of their declare species. The similarity between a killer in uniform and a killer with out uniform is striking. Both have to be fed with hatred in the process of de-humanizing them, during which they are trained to overcome their natural tendency to allow others to live (Ram & Summy, 2008). Such discoveries have conduct us to believe that the military approach is, in fact, not the solution to the problem of terrorism. Theorists of insurgency have focused on the element of preserving public sympathy during military actions to gain benefit after putsch of states. Similarly, an indirect approach to contain insurgency, which is termed the hearts and minds approach, emphasizes the need to gain public support by political meat (Snyder, 2008). Such observations have favoured the non-military approach for the solution of terrorism. Democracy is considered by some to be the solution for terrorism. This may be true in some cases, but again it has its birth limitations. In many European states where democracy is the rule, a number of terrorist groups have emerged, which not only fail to comply with the norms of democracy for their own expression but also use democracy as a tool to augment their deadly activities (Snyder, 2008). Such observations have led us to believe that perhaps, the non-military approach is too soft for terrorism oriented mentality. So, the lesson learnt during war on terrorism is that terrorism cannot be defeated instead, it can only be attenuated, reduced and controlled to some degree. Unrealistic hopes of completely sweeping