What actions, if any, should the federal government take concerning terrorism in the Middle East, and more precisely, actions involving ISIS the burgeoning non-state terrorist actor in the Middle East? Moreover, can innovations in science help in dealing with this situation?
Policy Maker Client:
In this case, the policy maker is the President of the United States. He alone has the authority to manage the security situation. This, of course, due to the President also serving in a capacity as the commander in chief.
The policy options:
1. Use technological innovation to prevent the harm of American troops on the ground. Technological innovation would involve use of drones for surveillance, and engagement.Traditionally, troops on the ground are the answer against terrorism. This, of course, makes the commitment credible, and provides the resources to nation build, where the state had failed. Failed states usually don't have the capacity in the government to manage issues such as security, hence, the need for external help in situations involving terrorism.
2. Use technological innovation in electronic warfare to disrupt ISIS, meanwhile, rebuilding the countries capacity to manage security affairs. This would require relevant experts to help nationbuild. In this case, computer hacking skills, and intelligence gathering are the main aims of the U.S.
3. Status quo would involve the current policy involves airstrikes to shock, and awe ISIS. Moreover, strategic airstrikes are used to disrupt and dissuade further action in Iraq, and Syria by ISIS.
References:
Diamond, Larry. "Promoting Democracy as a Key Element of a Smart Long-Term Strategy To Undermine, Isolate and Ultimately Defeat Radical Islamist Terrorism." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. http://stanford.edu/~ldiamond/paperssd/SolariumIIDemocratization.pdf
Hi Richard,
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very relevant policy question - lives are certainly at stake here! Here are my two cents:
1. Innovation timespan - Innovating something probably takes a long time. When you refer to technological innovation, I see it as a form of 'creating' something that doesn't yet exist, rather than 'using' cutting edge technology. I think there is an important difference there.
2. Perhaps what can be said is about how experimental and cutting edge technology is employed on the battlefield. What is the lag time from testbed to the front line, and are there ways to accelerate the uptake of such technologies?
3. You make several references to rebuilding a failed state. I am worried that this is not something that innovation can help in, above politics and simply monetary aid that helps provide food and shelter and keeps the terrorists away from the vulnerable poor. But I might be wrong - this is the way I see it though. Do make sure to justify the role of innovation in what you eventually decide to say.
Hope this helps!
Hi Richard,
ReplyDeleteI have already expressed my concerns about this question, and I don´t have much to add. This question is highly politically engaged. When you are talking about some particular target territory - Iraq and Syria - this means that the U.S. involves in their internal affairs, and such an involvement has to be approved by the United Nations Organizations. In general, it is fine to talk about innovations to improve the country´s security but developing new weapons (even electronic warfare as you call it) is not a solution because it gives incentive to other international actors to improve their weapons as well. So the arms race is only destabilizing the security situation in the whole world.