The role of the military is increasingly important in combating terrorism at the local and international stages. The role of the military in counter-terrorism can be defined by the evolving face of terrorism. Today, the war on terrorism has evolved. This is because terrorist organizations and cells have increasingly changed technics and methods on how they organize and operate from local, regional on international levels. Such changes are increasingly forcing the military to re-evaluate its role on how to combat such threats.
Forming military alliances
Australia’s National Terrorism Threat Level is PROBABLE. The security agencies have received credible intelligence indicating that individuals or groups have developed the intent and capability to carry out a terrorist attack in Australia. As a result, terrorism continues to pose a threat to Australians living and traveling abroad. Many terrorist organizations have shown their willingness and ability to carry out attacks, including against Australian interests. Today, small autonomous groups and terrorist cells are propping up in various parts of the world. More so, so they are forming an allegiance with established organizations such as ISIS, ISISL, and AL Shabaab, among other established groups. Most of such terror groups do not pose a direct security threat to Australia. However, they can offer significant effort to established terrorist groups in completing their missions. Thus, the military can adopt a strategic approach that can allow the Australian army to form strategic partnerships with allied nations to combat emerging indirect threats of autonomous groups and terrorist cells. The collaboration can be effective with middle-income or low-income countries, which have been plagued by the rise of insurgent groups such as in South East Asia and African continents. Such a partnership can allow the Australian military to offer financial and military equipment support to partner nations in exchange for military intelligence on the activities of terrorist groups operating in foreign lands. For example, the Australian military can form a military partnership with a country like Kenya as means of gaining military intelligence and assistance in combating the threats of AL Shabaab terrorists[1][2]. Such a partnership will enable Australia to gain critical intelligence and area of operation in terror activities in east Africa, specifically Somalia.
The region has been cited as active for mist ISIS and AL Qaeda groups for organizing and launching terrorist activities in western countries such as Britain, the United States, and Australia. Thus, by forming a military partnership the Australian military will be able to expound on their role as a strategic partner in combating terrorism emerging from foreign-based non-state terrorist groups.
Integrating public interest
In recent months the Australian special forces of accused of a war crime on its quest to combat terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq. [3]Cites that the Special Forces were accused of killing more than thirty Afghanistan citizens hence violating international law. This causes significant implications on the activities, legitimacy, and legality of the Australian military towards combating local and international terrorism. Ideally, if the state, through any of its agencies, utilizes its power in violation of international human rights standards, the effectiveness, legitimacy, and faith in the state’s effort against terrorism would be weakened. This would be worsened by a lack of effective accountability, whether actual or perceived, allowing state agents to get away with illegal counterterrorism actions. Counterterrorism strategies and procedures, like any other action taken by the public authority in a democratic society, must be held accountable. Accountability implies that policies and measurements are subject to inspection by a variety of oversight organizations[4]. Accountability systems should include civilian supervision done by NGOs, the media, and the general public, as well as the executive and legislative arms of government, as well as an independent, impartial, and educated court.
Terrorism experts assert that public support is very critical for any nation to aim to combat terrorism[5]. Thus, it is the role of the Australian military to “roll out” plans on how the public can be integrated as a stakeholder towards combating foreign-based non-state terrorist groups. This is because having public support can enable the military to gain insightful and relevant information from the public such as “tips” or Intel, especially on terrorist activities within the country. This will require the military to demonstrate the highest levels of discipline and adherence to rule or law when engaging with terror suspects or groups either locally or internationally.
Direct engagement
Traditionally, Australia has been relying significantly on other western security agencies, especially in gathering terrorism intelligence. The central intelligence agency (CIA) and the British MI5/6 division have been the primary source of much of the intelligence collected and shared by the Australian military[6]. However, with the increasing terrorist threat levels are the country is becoming more active in matters of terrorism the Australian military force needs to strengthen its independence and reliability in gathering or acquiring intelligence. This can be achieved by expanding the military’s budget towards counter-terrorism, which will allow the country to hire and recruit domestic and foreign agents who can be used to collect actionable Intel and data that can enable the country to combat both foreign-based non-state terrorist groups.
Bibliography
Chigudu, Daniel. “Al-Shabab and fundamental terrorism in Somalia: Threats to the continent and beyond.” International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) 10, no. 3 (2021): 412-418.
Gill, Peter. “Evaluating intelligence oversight committees: The UK intelligence and security committee and the ‘war on terror’.” Intelligence and National Security 22, no. 1 (2007): 14-37.
Haner, Murat, Melissa M. Sloan, Francis T. Cullen, Amanda Graham, Cheryl Lero Jonson, Teresa C. Kulig, and Ömer Aydın. “Making America safe again: Public support for policies to reduce terrorism.” Deviant Behavior 42, no. 10 (2021): 1209-1227.
Jaensch, Jena. “The lasting legacy of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan.” SAGE 1 (2021).
Pettinger, Tom. “De-radicalization and counter-radicalization: Valuable tools combating violent extremism, or harmful methods of subjugation?.” Journal for Deradicalization 12 (2017): 1-59.
[1] Pettinger, Tom. “De-radicalization and counter-radicalization: Valuable tools combating violent extremism, or harmful methods of subjugation?.” Journal for Deradicalization 12 (2017): 1-59.
[2] Chigudu, Daniel. “Al-Shabab and fundamental terrorism in Somalia: Threats to the continent and beyond.” International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) 10, no. 3 (2021): 412-418.
[3] Jaensch, Jena. “The lasting legacy of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan.” SAGE 1 (2021).
[4] Chigudu, Daniel. “Al-Shabab and fundamental terrorism in Somalia: Threats to the continent and beyond.” International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) 10, no. 3 (2021): 412-418.
[5] Haner, Murat, Melissa M. Sloan, Francis T. Cullen, Amanda Graham, Cheryl Lero Jonson, Teresa C. Kulig, and Ömer Aydın. “Making America safe again: Public support for policies to reduce terrorism.” Deviant Behavior 42, no. 10 (2021): 1209-1227.
[6] Gill, Peter. “Evaluating intelligence oversight committees: The UK intelligence and security committee and the ‘war on terror’.” Intelligence and National Security 22, no. 1 (2007): 14-37.
Leave a Reply