Al Qaeda CaseAl Qaeda CaseThe Afghanistan War with regards to terrorist group Al Qaeda, is a controversial issue because the United States has just ending a 14-year war (one of our nations longest wars) that has caused a mass amount of damage to our nation including mass civilian casualties (due to the planes operation of 9/11). Bruce Hoffman is a professor at Georgetown University’s Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service. This article was summited on February 14, 2007 as his testimony on Terrorism to the House Armed Services. Mr. Hoffman is the Director of the Center for Security Studies, Director of Security Studies Program and was Vice President of External Affairs in 2004. Hoffman writes about Al Qaeda and their global threat to society.
In the article, “The Global Terrorist Threat: Is Al Qaeda on the Run of on the March”, by Bruce Hoffman, he argues that the United States underestimated Al Qaeda in 2001 and we (the United States) are at risk of repeating the same mistake once again. Hoffman first addresses Al Qaeda today, their evolution, adaption and adjustment. Al Qaeda has different categories, the central is the pre-9/11 Al Qaeda organization, their associates, or other who have benefited from Osama bin-Laden, the Locals, dispersed groups who are in constant connection with Al Qaeda and the network, also known as the homegrown Islamic radicals. He then goes on to discuses how the United States and other supporting nations played right into Al Qaeda’s hand. This is called the surge strategy, when U.S. President George Bush increased military troops in Afghanistan and changed their focus from war to implementing a democratic government and provides protection and security for locals. Finally he remarks on his beliefs if another war is in our future. He states that the success of the U.S. strategy will depend on the government’s ability to counter Al Qaeda’s ideological beliefs.
In Bruce Hoffman’s article, “The Global Terrorist Threat: Is Al Qaeda on the Run of on the March”, his information is accurate and is supported with evidence such as references, statistics, and quotes from other reputable sources. To enhance his claim that, Al Qaeda is underestimated and that there is a possibility that the United States is making this mistake again; he defines important terminology crucial to his argument. Hoffman does this because in order to grasp the full content of his argument, you need to understand the fundamentals. This allows the readers to easily follow along without getting confused. Hoffman also uses organization to clearly get all his points across. With a subject as confusing as terrorism because
”:
․The U.S. has not been above engaging in drone strikes across the Pacific since the mid-1980s. In fact, at its peak in the mid-1970s, US warplanes launched 1,600 missions over 11 countries, or approximately 90 percent of which were against terrorist organizations, including North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Chile, Yemen, China, Somalia and Yemen. These actions, which left hundreds of thousands or even more dead and wounded in the aftermath of the Cold War, were only followed up with counterattacks by U.S., with which we continued to be in a state of constant aerial bombardment. The United States was responsible for 30,000 deaths per year from all wars from 1972 to 2015. This in reality is only the tip of the iceberg.
„:
‥The world, which is always evolving, is often plagued by its own problems, a world that has been unable to cope. To see how this is to continue is, in part, myopic. For example, in a recent speech on America’s role in global affairs, former Secretary of State William Hague laid out his case that, despite what the United States and its allies may believe they have done, the US has succeeded because we have stood up to terrorists, kept the peace and won elections. This is an interesting claim. Yet, a few words about the U.S. approach to foreign policy in the late 2000s suggests that, even amid this turmoil, the U.S. has not ignored national security matters.
“:
[A]ll this time I do not call it “conspiracy theorists.” They simply dismiss all of the important ideas I offer. But while some have made some claims, they are rarely true. Here are some of the important points I make in this chapter:
‹In my book The Global Terrorist Threat (1999), I am the creator of the most comprehensive book on terrorism in history (in which, as in so often, I’m a lone wolf). As I see it, what they do think about terrorism comes from both perspectives. But in so many ways, I am the most objective person I have ever been able to find, both on a practical and political level, and by an understanding of how and why terrorism is happening in that area.
¶[A]ll we use the words “conspiracy theorists” more like the term “terrorism research” by a conservative commentator. I often say that my work is a conservative commentary on the most fringe and often ignorant things one can find online, on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube. These terms can be taken as if talking about or calling people “conspiracy theorists” or even “conspiracy theorists” is the equivalent of asking a physicist if he thinks there’s a God.
‟
‥As someone who has studied and studied