Skip to main content

US NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR COUNTERTERRORISM



As the President affirmed in his 2010 National Security Strategy, he bears no greater responsibility than ensuring the safety and security of the American people.This National Strategy for Counterterrorism sets out our approach to one of the President’s top national security priorities: disrupting, dismantling, and eventually defeating al-Qa‘ida and its affiliates and adherents to ensure the security of our citizens and interests.
In response to the attacks of September 2001, the United States embarked on a national effort against al-Qa‘ida, the transnational terrorist organization responsible for planning and conducting the attacks.As we approach the 10th anniversary of that day, we can look forward with confidence in our accom­plishments and pride in the resiliency of our nation.We have prevented another catastrophic attack on our shores; our citizens have not let the specter of terrorism disrupt their daily lives and activities; our Federal government has worked to become more integrated, efficient, and effective in its counterter­rorism (CT) efforts; and we have placed our CT campaign in a context that does not dominate the lives of the American people nor overshadow our approach to the broad range of our interests.
Yet the paramount terrorist threat we have faced—al-Qa‘ida and its affiliates and adherents—has also continued to evolve, often in response to the successes of the United States and its partners around the world.Our efforts in Afghanistan and Pakistan have destroyed much of al-Qa‘ida’s leadership and weak­ened the organization substantially.Meanwhile, in recent years the source of the threat to the United States and its allies has shifted in part toward the periphery—to groups affiliated with but separate from the core of the group in Pakistan and Afghanistan.This also includes deliberate efforts by al-Qa‘ida to inspire individuals within the United States to conduct attacks on their own.
Therefore, this National Strategy for Counterterrorism maintains our focus on pressuring al-Qa‘ida’s core while emphasizing the need to build foreign partnerships and capacity and to strengthen our resilience.At the same time, our strategy augments our focus on confronting the al-Qa‘ida-linked threats that continue to emerge from beyond its core safehaven in South Asia.
Since the beginning of 2011, the transformative change sweeping North Africa and the Middle East— along with the death of Usama bin Laden—has further changed the nature of the terrorist threat, par­ticularly as the relevance of al-Qa‘ida and its ideology has been further diminished.Usama Bin Laden’s persistent calls for violent regime change in the Arab World and perpetual violence against the United States and our allies as the method to empower Muslim populations stands in stark contrast to the nonviolent movements for change in the Middle East and North Africa.In just a few short months, those movements achieved far more political change than al-Qa‘ida’s years of violence, which has claimed thousands upon thousands of victims—most of them Muslim.Our support for the aspirations of people throughout the Middle East, North Africa, and around the world to live in peace and prosperity under representative governments stands in marked contrast to al-Qa‘ida’s dark and bankrupt worldview.
To put it simply: We are bringing targeted force to bear on al-Qa‘ida at a time when its ideology is also under extreme pressure.Nevertheless, we remain keenly vigilant to the threat al-Qa‘ida, its affiliates, and adherents pose to the United States.As expressed in our National Security Strategy, we face the world as it is, but we will also pursue a strategy for the world we seek.This Strategy articulates how we will achieve a future in which al-Qa‘ida and its affiliates and adherents are defeated—and their ideology ultimately meets the same fate as its founder and leader.
Source: US White House June 2011

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

India-Malaysia ties and the future

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim is on his first official visit to India. The main aim of this visit is to seek support for Malaysia’s application to join Brics and to fortify bilateral ties, as the country is keen to improve its connections with one of the rapidly expanding economies in Asia. In light of the increasing crumbling of the global order, particularly stemming from trade disputes between the United States and China, as well as the proxy conflict involving the United States and Russia, Malaysia is encouraged to reassess its foreign policy to uphold its neutral stance. Given India’s status as the largest democracy and the fifth-largest economy globally, along with its notable advancements in indigenous space and defence technologies, it is proposed that India emerge as Malaysia’s key partner in the years ahead. Why India is important for Malaysia The historical ties between India and Malaysia extend back several centuries, with significant Indian cultural, religious, and administ...

THE HISTORY OF TERRORISM: MORE THAN 200 YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT

The history of terrorism dates back at least 1500 years when Jewish resistance groups (66 - 72 A.D.) known as Zealots killed Roman soldiers and destroyed Roman property. The term assassin comes from a Shi'ite Muslim sect (Nizari Isma'ilis - also known as hashashins "hashish-eaters") fighting Sunni Muslims (1090 - 1275) and during Medieval Christendom resisting occupation during the Crusades (1095-1291). The hashashins were known to spread terror in the form of murder, including women and children. The brotherhood of Assassins committed terror so as to gain paradise and seventy-two virgins if killed and to receive unlimited hashish while on earth. The modern development of terrorism began during the French Revolution's Reign of Terror (1793 - 1794). During this period the term terrorism was first coined. Through the past two hundred years, terrorism has been used to achieve political ends and has developed as a tool for liberation, oppression, and i...

The by-election in Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB) and the Indian electorate

  I was born in Malaysia, belonging to the Indian ethnic group, which constitutes approximately 7% of the country's total population. My durable credence is that I am Malaysian first and foremost, and only then do I identify myself as Indian. Regrettably, it saddens me to witness and hear about the actions of certain politicians who question my loyalty to Malaysia. What is even more disheartening is that some Malaysians have been influenced by the manipulative rhetoric of these self-serving politicians. Recently, I have observed numerous discussions on both mainstream and online news platforms regarding the recognition and inclusion of Indians by ruling parties. Surprisingly, even the opposition has displayed a significant interest in the welfare of Indians. Upon contemplating the reasons behind this sudden surge in attention towards Indians, it becomes evident that it is primarily driven by the upcoming Kuala Kubu Baharu (KKB) by-election. It is noteworthy that such ...