{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

S policy throughout the cold war pros goals are clear

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: cal authorities often more effective, they have language advantage, know landscape & laws Allies have better capabilities Less cost to U.S. Cons? Question of competence We have the strongest military More difficult to have oversight You don’t have accountability for gear lent to “allies” Not as popular domestically Strategy assumes parallel interest between United States and our allies Allied state could shift from bystander to target Containment Picture: Lebanese Hezbollah U.S. efforts directed towards the group’s sponsors (Syria and Iran sanctions), no direct targeting Goal: transform the group from a grave threat to a dangerous nuisance Terrorism only has limited direct effects Assumes threat from terrorism is smaller than perceived External pressure, economic sanctions, no fly zones Ultimately not using direct force, the group will eventually combust over time Actually U.S. policy throughout the Cold War Pros? Goals are clear cut Prevents groups on the ground To be effective, should be multilateral Cons? Could be seen as doing nothing, to American people, sometimes need doing something for reassuring people Improving defenses against terrorism Goal: Improve emergency preparedness, domestic intelligence, border control, and port- security initiatives Pros? Doesn’t require U.S. to work with our allies Visible, tangible reminder that we are doing something Cons? Quantity of borders to cover is overwhelming, and all cargo Terrorist are more innovative than U.S. govt. Costs – expensive option 9/11 cost Al- Qaida $500,000, beefing up our safety cost more than $500 billion (airport security, etc) cri...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online