Current Trends in the War on Terror Essay

As the world is cowering in terror from the 9/11 attacks and the bombing incidents in Indonesia and other parts of the world, the world’s attention is shifted now to where the attacks may occur next and what can be done to address the situation. Some suggest that the answer lies in being able to suppress and perhaps eliminate all of the terrorist cells all over the world. The problem there, however, is that any attack that is targeted at eliminating terrorist cells would necessarily involve any host country where they may be located and in any Middle Eastern country, such an attack could prove disastrous (Campbell & Flourney 372). The more practical and ideal solution to this problem therefore lies at a more fundamental level; a more basic level wherein the country has more controls and no international liability (Kochler 37). The solution to this problem is by improving border security in order to prevent the occurrence of these terrorist attacks while the international community seeks for answers to address this problem at a global scale. At this point in time, domestic policies would be the best option in fighting the war against terror. This short discourse will therefore seek to shed light on the issue of terrorism and the crucial role that the border security plays in such. To gain a better understanding of the problem, it is important to first analyze the current trends that have been taken relative to border security to ensure the safety of the public from terrorist attacks. This will then be supplemented by an explanation on how border security can take an even larger role. The most crucial aspect in relation to border security and its role in the war against terror concerns the aviation industry. Since the 9/11 attacks, the public confidence with regard to air travel has greatly been shaken (Taylor 2). The attacks had the effect of sending a message that now, even airplanes could be used as missiles to target buildings regardless of whether there were people on board the aircraft of not. Every plane crash that is reported on the news is suspected to have been caused by a terrorist attack rather than just an equipment malfunction or a pilot error. In response to these attacks, security has been considerably increased in airports all over the world. Every passenger is now subject to a full body search and every hand carried and checked in item is thoroughly inspected for any suspicious objects that can either cause an explosion or aid a hijacker in gaining control over the aircraft (Campbell & Flourney 52). The impact has not been limited to airport security as even airplane manufacturers and airlines have resorted to installing devices and taking precautions with regard to what to do in case an airplane is hijacked. One of the safety measures that have been suggested and is highly debated is the issuing of arms for the pilots so that they may be able to defend themselves against any terrorist hijackers that are able to force themselves into the cockpits (Lott 1). The current controversy with regard to airline security concerns the proposal to equip the pilots of airplanes with weapons in order to protect themselves from any hijackers that manage to enter the cockpit (Taylor 2). This proposal is of course faced with a lot of opposition because of the implications of allowing pilots to be armed in aircrafts. There is a lot of concern with regard to the security of the other passengers on board just in case the armed pilots do decide to turn on the other co-pilots and hijack the aircraft themselves or hold passengers as hostages for whatever purpose. The proponents for arming the pilots argue that it is the best option because the pilots need to defend themselves against the terrorist hijackers (Keeler 151). The problem with this is that it negates the training of the pilots which is that in times such as hijackings they are not supposed to deal with the terrorists but instead secure the cockpit and land the plane as soon as possible (Will 1). The concern here is that the plane should be landed right away in order to protect not only the passengers but also the people on the ground who may become targets or victims as the 9/11 experience has shown. The duty of the pilot is not concern himself with whatever goes on in the cabin but instead make sure that the plane is safely on the ground where there are more units who can deal with the situation properly. Pilots are not adequately trained to deal with hijacking situations in terms of dealing directly with the terrorist hijackers (Will 1). Another argument for the arming of the pilots is that such a measure is only designed to protect the pilots from terrorist hijackers who succeed in gaining entry into the cockpit (3). While there as some merit to this precautionary measure, there is no guarantee that the armed pilots will do just that. There are instances when certain people, pilots included, enter a â€Å"cowboys or renegade† mode (Will 1). Most of the pilots have received a degree of military training as fighter pilots and there is some truth to the profiling of fighter pilots â€Å"live wires and risk-takers† (Will 1). The end result in these situations could be that instead of protecting the cockpit and landing the plane like they are supposed to, a number of these former fighter pilots could engage the terrorist hijackers.