Counterterrorism implies the strategies, techniques and tactics used by military bodies, governments and other state bodies towards mitigating or preventing terrorists’ attacks. Counterterrorism is not limited to specific organization or fields but rather a universal activity occurring across the various societal levels. Terrorism implies the mode of tactics that are used by governments or insurgent groups to cause terror through application of some tactics.
However, across the decades of terrorism, counterterrorism efforts have been incremental, stealthily, defensive and pragmatic whose aim is to marginally cause effect towards terrorists pay-off. The relevant costs caused by terrorism through their defensive and disruption are usually higher than the opportunistic attacks by the same. Generally, counterterrorism tends to be highly reactive and therefore frustrating. Following the American September 11th attack, great challenge has been developed an addressing counterterrorism.
However, there has been lots of difficult in addressing the most effective counterterrorism policy allied to the shifting nature of terrorism attacks. More evident however, two basic methods have been used in addressing counterterrorism Firstly is the use of techniques related to law enforcement. According to response of many people, law enforcement on terrorism has been described as perhaps the most adequate and potential methods towards counterterrorism.
To many, legal structure addressing terrorism is the most appropriate method which fanaticism and motivations held by terrorists can be dealt with. Through legal framework, various codifications about illegitimate and legitimate concessions, unworthy and worthy political ideologies, unjust and just motivations which helps to bring progress towards the aspect social justice is dealt with. Accordingly, the law should describe those levels of impunity that leads to suffering of the whole society.
The legal policies should adequately address on the codes and levels of security and criminal justice as well as focusing on politics and its broad framework support towards development of terrorism. The role of law therefore codifies the level of public confidence that is provided by the political status within democratic state. The rule should be tool towards promoting public confidence which does not lead to the state of undermining the existing level of peace.
Through legal enforcement as a tool for counterterrorism, there has been the adoption of socio-economic, political and peace reforms that addresses criminal justice and therefore addressing on the foundation of root causes in terrorism. Legal enforcement therefore offers fountain flexibility in addressing peace, criminal law, democratic principles, foreign criminal relations, peace deals, law and national policies that consequently mitigate both domestic and non domestic terrorism.
Alternatively, democratic states have employed the facet of military force in counterterrorism. Through use of military activity and forces, it draws a dramatic preempts and a demonstration towards the native ability in attack of terrorists with highly flexibility and speed. Military efforts have been described by many activists as vitally important both in the short run periods of terrorists attacks when huge destruction operation have occurred as the long run relationship of terrorists building.
This involves the application and the use of heavy military attacks, safeguarding and protecting the society from the effects of terrorist attack. Though of massive framework and capacity however, military process has been described has less effective in addressing the stoppage of terrorism. This is because its threats and irregularities have been led to underground performance of terrorism activities which causes imperative terrorist escalation between the attackers and the governments as well as causing international alienation between different states.
Elsewhere, the scene of terrorism has been characterized as been in state of evolution which gives difficulties in addressing such effectiveness of military command. Consequently, terrorist groups have grown into been move amorphous by changing their tactic’s through use of highly evolving systems of information technology. Consequently, targets of attack by the military defense have been inherently difficult. Comparatively therefore, law enforcement can perhaps be the most appropriate method for addressing counterterrorism.
This is in the view that, the law enforcement process incorporates various aspects that address the root cause of terrorism. The law process addresses various social, culture, religious and political process which may cause bureaucratic and organizational stumbling blocks on addressing the fight against terrorism. Elsewhere, the address by the legal process is highly flexible to incorporate a good framework by institutions and policies that govern terrorism.
Due to the flexible nature of terrorism, the effects and tools of military enforcement have been less effective in addressing prevention and mitigation of terrorism. The advancing nature of social structures and technology has left terrorists at been highly volatile to adapt with changing defense tactics. However, legal enforcement is the basic tool which addresses the variables, opportunities, conditions, responses, guidelines and influences of terrorism in the society. Legal enforcement is therefore more appropriate and a counterterrorism tool than military forces.