There is a debate within the scholarly and policy communities around how best to reduce the motivation for individuals and groups to engage in violence. One perspective argues that terrorism is driven by political and economic grievances among large portions of a population. Such grievances may include economic neglect, political/cultural exclusion, or human rights abuses. These grievances give rise to terrorist/insurgent groups whose goal is to call attention to these grievances and force the government to address them. The best way to reduce terrorism, therefore, is for the government to address the fundamental issues that give rise to it.

Others argue that such an approach rewards terrorism and thus creates incentives for other actors to do more of it. They may believe that terrorism is the result of a handful of “bad actors”, “evil-doers”, and/or “fanatics”. In this view, combatting terrorism is simply a matter of identifying and neutralizing these actors.

The ongoing and escalating conflict in West Africa’s Sahel states (Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and parts of northern Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, and Nigeria) is a good example of this. On one hand, US and French governments view the conflict through the lens of the battle with global terror groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS. Their policies reflect that, having been primarily calibrated to support a more militarized counterterrorism approach focused on killing as many militants as possible. Advocates of an alternative approach view the conflicts as fueled by local groups—who do not share the goals or priorities of AQ or ISIS—pursuing local grievances. Their preferred approach would involve governments of these countries doing more to provide good governance, education, health, infrastructure, and general economic and political development.

The current and historical debate over the Israel-Palestine conflict offers another good example.

In your opinion—and after reading Ch. 6—what is the best way to think about this? Is there room for both approaches? If so, how can governments and militaries strike the right balance between these two types of approaches? Or, is one approach superior to the other?

______________________________

_______________________________________

i will provide you two student post as well you have to reply them.