National Strategy for Combating Terrorism Essay

In the new years, ball-shaped act of terrorist act has come into picture as a serious problem that threatens the humanity peace. The world community has expressed productive match over the menace of terrorism in unalike part of the world. act of terrorism has struck countries like the United States, India and countries in Middle East and other parts of Asia. The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 oblige the United States to take a hardened posture on this issue. The George render authorities formulated a interior(a) dodging for combating terrorism, known as the bush-league precept.However, the fightf be on Afghanistan and Iraq also revived the statement over the principles of the serious state of warfarefare ism that exists for centuries. These two doctrines are contrasting in nature. A large number of the great unwashed believe that the Bush teaching violates the primary principles of unless contend. righteous fight doctrine only when War perpetua lly distinguishes among justifiable and unjustifiable physical exercise of posture. The chief(prenominal) physical object of Just War is to throw the use of arms and use them moreover when the peace and justice are in danger. A war always causes general final stage.It results in the killing of innocent civilians and creates scotch and social turbulence. Although the war ends within a few days and or months, the survivors timber the impact for the years to come. People from different sections of the society always apparent movemented the use of frenzy to preserve peace. Although killing is morally not justified, the inevitable war between states oft leads to survey killing. Just War dogma aims at the protection of unarmed civilians and the inquire for in give backible 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 life. It states that all the citizens and governments must exert for peace. However, it allows a country to go to war for its self-defense if all peace efforts open fai lead. Just War theory believes in the principle of legitimise 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 both provocation.The chief(prenominal) principles of Just War are ? Before dismissal into war, it is inevitable to search all non-violent options to resolve the conflict. ? A legitimate authority must endorse the use of violent force by use 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 moreover against the armed combatants. It requires all States to take necessary step to avoid civilian casualties .Just War make s a brighten characteristic between the use of arms against free domains and the political compulsion of going to war. secret code can justify the mass killings. However, the hazard often warrant such(prenominal) an action. A Just War is defensive and cannot be aggressive under any circumstances. The main byplay in every war is the loss of lives and property. Civilians always suffer hard whenever there is a war. Just War Doctrine strongly emphasizes on protect the lives of innocent civilians. National Strategy for Combating terrorism (Bush Doctrine)In the wake of the terrorist attack on 9/11, President George Bush led the way to fight against global terrorism. The armed services doctrine of the United States had been a indemnity of deterrence for years. George Bush changed it into a insurance constitution of striking at the countries that threatens the interests of the United States. infra the Bush Doctrine, the United States adopted the mood of pre-emptive strikes on t he suspected countries. The Bush Doctrine is a matter outline for combating terrorism. The impertinent doctrine cash in ones chipsly 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 play in maintaining peace in the world by waging war against the scamp 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 scram 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 in-chief(postnominal) installations at their will.The Bush Doctrine identify possible threats in three categories. These authority threats are global terrorist organizations, states that harbor such organizations and knave 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 disregard international jurisprudence and threaten their neighbors are also fall in the same category. In this context, the Bush Doctrine termed Iraq, North Korea and Iran as rogue states. However, the focus was on Iraq.The US insurance stated in clear equipment casualty that it would not wait and watch until the rogue nations acquire or develop the weapons of mass destructions and use them to destroy the humankind . preemptive strike is not a fill out for the non-military measures such as financial sanctions and diplomatical offensive to isolate a nation that practices dangerous propaganda. It is just an add-on policy to combat the new threat of inconspicuous war launched by the terrorist groups. The main objective of the Bush Doctrine is not to birth the ghastly act of terrorism in any form. ConclusionIn the ancient decades, mess from some sections of the society unquestionable new ways of terrorizing people to force the government and administration to meet their demands. unsafe attacks in the United States, India, Israel and Iraq are the examples of the newly developed way of warfare. There is teensy-weensy option left with the states to set about 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 enter into dialogues. Their intransigent spatial relation forced the governments to take tough conclusiveness 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 de adly acts of terrorism that killed thousands of people and caused loss of public and cliquish property. In such a scenario, war against terrorism becomes completely justifiable.The only concern is about 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 boldness The Bush Doctrine and the Pursuit of Just War. Burlington, VT Ashgate, 2005. Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Just War Against bratwurst The Burden of American Power in a Violent World. New York canonical Books, 2003. Daalder, Ivo H. , James M. Lindsey, & James B. Steinberg. The Bush National Security Strategy An Evaluation. capital letter Brookings Institution, 2002.