Welfare vs Warfare - USA's Struggle to Regain Balance

After the ‘War on Terror’, as the Bush -led government chose to call their mass killings in Afghanistan, left millions homeless and caused exponential bilateral damages contributing to the current economic debt, America’s role in fighting terror has been persistently censured in people’s tribunal across globe. While Bin Laden’s execution has consoled many who questioned US counter-terrorism actions, the future threats of terrorism rising from the remnants of the once active Al-Qaida is an emerging concern.

The bi-partisan congress’ office is now thinking over the deliberations of tracking down groups of terror which pose threat to the US security. Active militant groups like the Al-Shabab and Al-Qaida operating in Yemen and Somalia have been identified as potential threats to the security of US. Even though the international law supports attack for self defense from any terror threats, it does not mean USA can strike military attacks anywhere and anytime. The principle of International law of war is quite unclear to the government officials as the law is quite unsettled. Hence, this raises a slew of questions pertaining to the legality of the attacks which includes the determination of combat zone, usage of weapons and selection of the target-individuals on attack list. The lingering question is whether to strike on high-value terrorists or attack the foot soldiers also who mostly operate with parochial concerns. The challenge lies in preserving the sovereignty of the attacked nation while tweezing out the terrorists.

Also questions on the limit of military strikes ( drone attacks, commando raids, missiles) have split the house in to two. Another burning concern is the economics of the attack which will incur high cost to the current economic stagnation of the country. In the face of an economic stagnancy, the concept of attacking terror groups in Yemen and Somalia with an objective to preserve homeland security sounds absurd. While the government is struggling drafting propositions to cut debts by adjusting military pension and medical benefit rates for retired service men, the idea of fresh military attacks remain under the shadow of budget debates.

It’s an irony that the government is toying with idea of fighting terror attacks, when it is thinking of adjusting the lifelong pension of retired military officers- a policy which might affect the volume of military application in the US, as the pension after 20 years of service is considered as an incentive which motivates young applicants to apply in army. With the current economic state at a standoff, lot is at stake and any wrong action at this delicate moment on the part of the Obama-led Government, will be weighed heavily against it. After all, no one wants a repetition of War on Afghanistan, which to a large extent contributed to the current economic condition.