Essay on Dealing With Terrorism: Operation Inherent Resolve

The U.S. government has been quite preoccupied in dealing with terrorism from the year 2001. It has tried to develop strategies and making the strategies blatant on how it will employ them in dealing with terrorism. The current situation in Syria and the increase in a number of terrorism cells has posed a threat to the security of individuals; not only in the U.S but also other parts of the world (Jordan, 2011) The army is a significant part when it comes to dealing with terrorism. The army handles its operations in multifaceted surroundings through the support of JIIM partners which in full stands for with Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental and Multinational groups. It has a doctrine that provides various frameworks structured in developing and maintaining the partnerships. One of the frameworks is the lines of effort which is perceived to be long term strategy that is efficient in managing the operations of the army (Jordan, 2011). Three sections that make part of the lines of efforts include the combat operations, building partner capacity, and information operations. Building partner capacity faces the greatest challenges when compared to other lines of effort.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

For the purpose of boosting regional stability, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve which is the central command of the U.S. works hand in hand with regional partners in regards to the military force for the purpose of putting down ISIS such that there is coalition in the efforts by governments (U.S. Department of Defense, 2017). The terrorist groups have caused turmoil and major disasters in various countries such that they have become threats on the lives of people. Joint operational planning puts into perspective the combination of efforts of several boards for the purpose of achieving a common goal (Jordan, 2011).

It is worth noting that military commanders tend to combine both lines of efforts and lines of operations such that the objectives are combined to form one general goal. Also, it becomes easier for the commanders to put into perspective activities that are nonmilitary in their design of operations in addition to giving them the opportunity to include permanent tasks that provide the framework for the end conditions of a state in their operations (Posen & Ross, 2012). The combination enables commanders to put into perspective the factors that are less tangible in the environment of operations that is dominated by other instruments of power such that the commanders are able to have a foresight of the parallel operations involved in post-conflict steadiness (Posen & Ross, 2012).

It is important to note that the combinations make it possible to associate the purposes and activities of the given facets found in the entire system of operations in regards to the preset joint impacts. In other words, the framework present in the combination plays a significant role when a major operation occurs (Posen & Ross, 2012). The same situation applies to bodies such as the Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve and Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental and Multinational groups that include the combination of several operations such that focus is put into achieving a particular goal. The current situation that puts the need for building partner capacities in the bodies mentioned above is terrorism whereby strategies and efforts have been put together with the focus being putting down the terrorist group, the Islamic State that is found in Iraq and Syria. With the presence of partnerships, it becomes easier to consider other nonmilitary activities in the operations such as ensuring the well-being of the citizens of the affected countries in addition to employing conflict resolution strategies such as mediation and negotiation as strategies of maintaining peace. In regards to post-conflict stability, the bodies should have the foresight of the parallel operations factors that are less tangible in the environment of operations (Posen & Ross, 2012).

From the year 2001, the U.S. government has put focus on efforts necessary for establishing foreign security power especially from countries that are less powerful or rather weak nations with the view that developing them will facilitate the security objectives if the U.S. The focus resulted in the establishment of the Building Partner Capacity by the Department of Defense (McInnis & Lucas, 2015). Building partner Capacity entails a framework consisting of various missions, operations and administrations that focus on advancing the security measures of other nations such that the security goals of the countries align with the security objectives of the U.S. The increase in terrorist activities or rather attacks in several nations have prompted the necessity for the building partner capacity such that focus is being paid in eliminating the terrorist groups. The goals affiliated to building partner capacity include; termination of war, achieving victory in war, handling the security obstacles found in regions, offering indirect support to parties involved in conflict, mitigation of conflicts, improving participation of coalitions, creating alliance and creating both organizational and interpersonal connections (McInnis & Lucas, 2015).

Be that as it may, the building partner capacity has been debated upon by government officials in regards to its effectiveness. The two criteria used in evaluating its effectiveness include; if the strategic goal is obtained and if the effort used to result in consequences that align with the national interests of the U.S (McInnis & Lucas, 2015). The Building partner capacity faces the greatest challenges when compared to other lines of effort as it is perceived to be less effective when it comes to eliminating the connection of the U.S. from war. Therefore, the U.S. becomes more subjected to attacks from terrorists because of its associations. However, it is more effective in establishing organizational and interpersonal associations in addition to the formation of alliances (McInnis & Lucas, 2015).

The first issue that makes the building partner capacity possess the greatest challenges when compared to other lines of efforts is that it tends to be very complex when it comes to formulating its framework and promoting the objectives of the U.S. when establishing the programs in various nations (McInnis & Lucas, 2015). It entails a lot of studies and analysis especially since nations have different systems of administrations while others lack the basic foundation required in having a stable security system (McInnis & Lucas, 2015).

Another issue is the mixed record of building partner capacities whereby the framework has been effective in some countries but proved to be a failure in other countries (McInnis & Lucas, 2015). The basic assumptions based on the different outcomes include; the failures being associated with execution and the view that the building partner capacity is doomed to fail. Building capacity plans have proven to be effective in some other frameworks especially when it comes to achieving the laid out objectives while proved to be ineffective in attaining certain objectives and hence not resulting in the expected strategic impacts. Therefore, plenty of speculations has been brought in regards to the effectiveness of the building partner capacity (McInnis & Lucas, 2015).

According to studies by RAND which is a part of the National Defense Research Institute in the U.S., for the building partner capacity to achieve effective results, the efforts from the United States should be consistent (Paul et.al, 2015). The efforts, in this case, apply to the Department of Defense, inside the interagency in addition to members from the global community. Also, the implementation of the efforts should be consistent such that they are applied for a long period of time for the purpose of obtaining substantive results. The other challenge affiliated to building partner capacity is that it cannot solve issues at a quick rate. Various factors have to be put into perspective including to factors that are beyond the control of the U.S. Some of the factors include if the interests of the partners align with the interests of the U.S from either short or long-term perspectives, if the partner is legitimate when it comes to the system of administration, if the partner is active or passive when it comes to the assistance provided by the U.S and if the partner is willing to transfer the efforts provided to the local institutions (Paul et.al, 2015).

As stated earlier, building partner capacity faces the greatest challenges when compared to other lines of effort. Building partner capacity entails a framework consisting of various missions, operations and administrations that focus on advancing the security measures of other nations such that the security goals of the countries align with the security objectives of the U.S. It is perceived to be more effective when it comes to establishing organizational and interpersonal associations in addition to formation of alliances but last effective in when it comes to eliminating the connection of the U.S. from war. The line of effort faces challenges especially since most administrators are skeptical in its application in combating terrorism.

References

Jordan, A. A., Taylor Jr, W. J., Meese, M. J., & Nielsen, S. C. (2011). American national security. New York: JHU Press.

McInnis, K.J, & Lucas, N.J., (2015). What Is Building Partner Capacity? Issues for Congress. Congressional Research service, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R44313.pdf

Paul et.al, (2015). When Building Partner Capacity and Under What Circumstances?. RAND: National Defense Research Institute. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1253z1/RAND_MG1253z1.pdfPosen, B. R., & Ross, A. L. (2012). Competing visions for US grand strategy. New York: MIT Press.

U.S. Department of Defense,. (2017). Special Report: Inherent Resolve. Defense.gov. Retrieved 15 February 2017, from https://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve