Running Head: TERRORISM 1: The War On Terror: Perceptions of Risk Name Institution

Running head: TERRORISM 1
The War on Terror: Perceptions of Risk
Name
Institution
TERRORISM 2
The War on Terror: Perceptions of Risk
Actors in any conflict often view their actions as noble and rational, and describe those of
their opponents as driven by irrational opinions and principles. The war on terror aptly named, is
one such conflict that has raised great controversy globally. Indeed today, Americans are
constantly fed information on the state of the war on terrorism, greatly influencing their beliefs
and perspectives with regard to their safety in the face of terrorism. Due to this, different people,
hold diverse points of view on the topic of terrorism. And as a result several drivers including
politics, religious beliefs, and philosophical ideals guide the perspectives of the main actors in
this war (Muschett, 2018). The decision and policy makers have developed a rationality for their
actions in regard to the war on terror that deface their opponents on the other side of the war.
Religiously, the war on terror has been rationalized as a war to protect Americans and
Christians from Islam. Constantly, by political leaders and the media, the Muslim community has
been held responsible for the constant terrorist attacks that have occurred in the country,
disregarding the other attacks, not labelled terrorist that have been rained on the country. This
religious perspective, that the violence committed by terrorists is only done by Muslim
radicalisms and extremists, takes away from defining it as a distinctive war, against those who
wish to cause others harm. It relieves risk from those who believe that their religious perspective
eliminates them from being targets of the war on terror.
The political perspective on the war on terror, is to enhance the safety of the country, and
to ensure that all the American citizens live in a society that is safe and free of the fear and shock
that rose with the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks. Inherently, this political perspective has come
TERRORISM 3
with great costs, as a large percentage of US troops have lost their lives or their families in the
war. Drivers of this belief do not take into account the risk that troops or innocent people
undergo.
Different philosophical perspectives have been brought forth on the war on terror. Some
believe that it is through it that countries can achieve democracy, while others hold that the war
on can help bring peace to all humanity. The fundamental problem with this is that the
perception is held that in order to achieve democracy, then a great amount of risk must be taken
by both the actors in the war.
All these perceptions, and their equivalent impact on the level of risk taken, are not
taking into consideration the amount of advancement that is occurring rapidly globally. Indeed,
the religious, and political bias could in part foster further actions that may prove even more
detrimental. With technology especially, extremist terrorist groups who have not in the past shied
away from risk and extreme measures to pass their message, may go ahead and disregard
international agreements in their bid to cause as much harm as possible. They may resort to
nuclear weaponry, biological attacks, among others that affects greater masses.
Therefore, while the advancement of technology cannot be slowed down, individuals can
be guided to shift their bias, and instead develop a cautionary perspective. Indeed as an optimist
scholar on the issue of terrorism, the driving biases for this position, such as self enhancement,
perceived probability, and perceived controllability may dictate a lesser chance of being affected
by terrorism. However, a bias such as this, prevents the perception of risk in case of attack, and
in turn prevents caution. Instead it is important that statistical facts that can help detect instances
of attack, are relied upon as opposed to any biases.

TERRORISM 4
References
Howard, R. D., & Forest, J. (2013). Weapons of mass destruction and terrorism (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Muschett, L. (2018). Expressions of optimism bias and “self” versus “other” perceived
controllability in the context of military related risks. Electronic theses and dissertations
1(1). Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2667&context=etd
“Predicting Peril or the Peril of Prediction? Assessing the Risk of CBRN Terrorism” Gregory
Koblentz pp. 705-724

Running Head: TERRORISM 1: The War On Terror: Perceptions of Risk Name Institution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: TERRORISM 1: The War On Terror: Perceptions of Risk Name Institution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: TERRORISM 1: The War On Terror: Perceptions of Risk Name Institution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: TERRORISM 1

The War on Terror: Perceptions of Risk

The War on Terror: Perceptions of Risk

eliminates them from being targets of the war on terror.

by both the actors in the war.

of attack, are relied upon as opposed to any biases.

York, NY: McGraw Hill.

1(1). Retrieved from: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

Koblentz pp. 705-724

You might also like