UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(USA)
IN THE TRANSFORMING
GLOBAL ORDER.

● How did the evolution of transnational terrorism influence the

United State’s response strategies, and what are the key challenges
and ethical considerations in balancing national security with civil
liberties in the context of counter-terrorism efforts?

● How does the USA, as a permanent war economy, impact domestic

and foreign policies, national security priorities, economic
sustainability, and global perceptions of American power in the
21st century?

Name : Bellamkonda Sivanag

Roll Number : 22232724179
College Name : Department of Political science (North
Campus)
Q. How did the evolution of transnational terrorism influence the United
State’s response strategies, and what are the key challenges and ethical
considerations in balancing national security with Civil liberties in the context
of counter-terrorism efforts?

A. Transnational terrorism refers to terrorist attacks committed across national borders by people
or groups operating in multiple countries. It is a complicated and varied problem that presents
substantial threats to world security. One of the unique features of transnational terrorism is its
capability to cross national boundaries. Terrorist groups frequently operate in a number of
countries, using diverse methods to recruit members, generate cash, and plan and carry out
operations. This global reach allows them to exploit vulnerabilities in several places, making it
impossible for any single country to successfully resist the danger. Transnational terrorist
organizations, namely Al-Qaeda and ISIS, have proved their capability to pose large-scale
assassinations across numerous nations, producing widespread fear and instability. These
organizations frequently promote radical views and aim to enforce their beliefs through violence.
Their acts not only cause death and destruction, but also have far-reaching implications,
including population displacement, economic upheavals, and the erosion of trust and societal
cohesiveness. The growth of the internet and social media has made it easier to propagate
extremist material and attract people for transnational terrorist networks. Online platforms create
a virtual arena for radicalization, allowing people to access and spread extremist views,
communicate with uneducated masses, and organize attacks. The internet's borderless nature
presents substantial hurdles for law enforcement and intelligence agencies in detecting and
fighting the danger.

Main features of transnational terrorism:

Transnational Terrorism has been characterized by several distinct features:

1. Global Phenomenon: These terrorist groups, using international networks and
connections can operate across the globe and can cause severe destruction.
2. Borderless Ideologies: These groups often carry extremist ideologies that transcend
national boundaries. By attracting individuals from various countries who share their
beliefs, they have the capability to create mass destruction.
3. Use of Modern technology and communication: These groups, in recruiting,
radicalisation, and coordination of transnational terrorist activities, use internet and social
media platforms.
4. Exploitation of Vulnerabilities: Taking advantage of political instability, social
divisions, and economic disparities, they tend to exploit weaknesses in different regions
to foster their goals.
 5. Cross border financing: They rely on global financial networks to fund their operations,
often engaging in illicit activities such as money laundering and trafficking to generate
funds.
6. International cooperation: As these groups pose a severe threat of mass destruction of
both infrastructure and lives of people, there is an urgent need for collaboration and
information sharing among nations.

Impact of transnational terrorism on USA:

The impact of transnational terrorism on the United States has been tremendous, influencing
almost every aspect of society, security, politics, economy, psychology, society and international
relations. One important area that has been greatly shaped by transnational terrorism is the
national security agenda of the United States. The U.S defense policies have taken a paradigm
shift after the 9/11 attacks, perpetrated by the transnational terrorist group Al- Qaeda. New
policies primarily focus on prioritizing counter terrorism efforts, homeland security measures,
and preemptive strategies to prevent future attacks. Incidents like the establishment of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the implementation of the PATRIOT Act, and the
creation of intelligence agencies like the National Counter Terrorism center (NCTC) resonate the
impact of Transnational terrorism on US security frameworks. Transnational terrorism has had a
significant influence on domestic security and civil rights in the United States. The installation of
strengthened security standards at airports, seaports, and vital infrastructure locations, as well as
heightened monitoring and intelligence-gathering capabilities, indicates attempts to avoid
domestic terrorist attacks. However, these measures have sparked worries about privacy rights,
due process, government monitoring, and potential violations of civil liberties.

The USA's response to transnational terrorism has involved extensive military engagements and
overseas interventions in regions like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other areas of strategic
importance. These military operations, aimed at combating terrorist networks, destabilizing
regimes, and promoting democracy and stability, have had profound human, financial, and
geopolitical costs, shaping U.S foreign policy and global perceptions of American power and
influence. The economic impact of transnational terrorism on the USA is substantial, affecting
sectors such as travel, tourism, trade, insurance, and investment. Terrorist attacks, threats, and
geopolitical instability can disrupt economic activities, investor confidence, and market stability,
leading to economic losses, market volatility, and increased costs for security and risk mitigation
measures. The psychological impact of transnational terrorism on American society is profound,
causing fear, anxiety, trauma, and a sense of vulnerability among the population. Terrorist
attacks, media coverage, and government alerts can contribute to heightened levels of stress,
distrust, and social divisions, impacting community cohesion, public discourse, and perceptions
of safety and security. Transnational terrorism has influenced U.S. international relations and
global diplomacy, shaping alliances, partnerships, and security cooperation with other countries
and international organizations. The USA's leadership role in global counterterrorism efforts,
intelligence-sharing arrangements, and military cooperation initiatives reflect its commitment to
addressing transnational threats and promoting stability in regions affected by terrorism.

Key challenges in balancing National security and civil liberties :

Balancing national security with civil rights in the context of counter-terrorism activities is a
difficult and diverse task for the United States. Here I will try to briefly elaborate the significant
problems and ethical issues that come with maintaining this delicate balance. Maintaining
freedom of expression, association, and dissent while combating radical beliefs is a substantial
problem. Efforts to fight radicalization and violent extremism must not violate constitutional
rights or silence genuine political criticism. Balancing the need to avoid radicalization and foster
social cohesion while maintaining fundamental liberties is a recurring ethical quandary in
counter-terrorism measures. One of the most difficult tasks in balancing national security and
civil rights is the conflict between effective monitoring measures and people's right to privacy.
Following 9/11, the United States established a variety of monitoring programmes, including the
Patriot Act and mass metadata collecting by intelligence organizations such as the National
Security Agency (NSA). While these measures were intended to improve national security by
identifying and avoiding terrorist threats, they aroused serious concerns about government
overreach, violation of private rights, and potential abuses of power. The ethical quandary here is
to strike a compromise between establishing effective counter-terrorism measures and protecting
people’s constitutionally guaranteed privacy rights. Another significant obstacle is the question
of profiling and prejudice in counterterrorism measures. The United States has debated the
ethical implications of targeting people as possible dangers based on their race, religion,
ethnicity, or country. Racial and religious profiling contradicts not only the values of equality and
nondiscrimination, but it also weakens confidence and collaboration with impacted populations.
Striking a balance between recognising actual risks and avoiding discriminatory tactics is vital
for upholding civil rights and promoting inclusion and justice in counterterrorism measures.

The conflict between rapid security measures and due process of rights raises serious ethical
concerns. Following terrorist acts or threats, there is typical pressure to take immediate action,
such as arresting suspected terrorists or instituting monitoring measures. However, protecting
individuals rights to a fair trial, legal counsel, and the presumption of innocence is critical for
upholding the rule of law and fundamental human rights. Balancing the necessity for immediate
action with due process safeguards is a tricky ethical balance in counterterrorism activities. The
use of force in counterterrorism operations presents ethical concerns, notably with human rights
and international humanitarian law. Military engagements, drone strikes, targeted murders, and
other types of violent actions are frequently used to counter terrorist threats. However, preserving
proportionality, minimizing civilian losses, following legal norms, and avoiding abuses of human
rights are also important ethical issues. The United States must manage the complications of
deploying force while maintaining its commitment to international law and human rights
standards. Other important issues include transparency and accountability when balancing
national security and civil freedoms. Maintaining openness in counterterrorism policies,
operations, and decision-making processes is critical for fostering public confidence and
accountability. However, national security imperatives frequently necessitate a degree of secrecy
and confidentiality, raising concerns about the level of openness and the necessity for strong
monitoring systems to prevent abuses of authority.

Preventive measures and preemption in counter-terrorism activities provide another ethical

quandary. While preventive measures may be required to avoid impending dangers, the risk of
unwarranted interventions, civilian fatalities, and unforeseen repercussions must be carefully
evaluated. Balancing preventative measures with ethical norms of need, proportionality, and
accountability is critical in counterterrorism decision-making. Balancing national security with
civil rights in the context of counterterrorism initiatives necessitates negotiating significant
problems and ethical quandaries. Striking the correct balance between effective security
measures and basic rights and freedoms is critical to preserving democratic ideals, the rule of
law, and human rights norms. Continuous conversation, supervision systems, adherence to legal
frameworks, and ethical decision-making procedures are critical for resolving these issues and
establishing a rights-based approach to counter-terrorism.

Conclusion

The evolution of transnational terrorism has profoundly shaped the United States response
strategies and posed significant challenges in balancing national security with civil liberties. This
dynamic interplay between security imperatives and ethical considerations has been a central
theme in the country's counterterrorism efforts. Transnational terrorism has had a significant
impact on the United States response plans, particularly the change from traditional state-based
threats to non-state actors acting beyond boundaries. The emergence of terrorist groups such as
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and its affiliates has prompted novel ways to information collecting, military
operations, and international collaboration. To address these transnational threats, the United
States has made significant investments in counterterrorism capabilities including intelligence
sharing, surveillance technology, targeted attacks, and special operations. However, this progress
has resulted in significant problems and ethical dilemmas. One such problem is balancing the
necessity for effective surveillance methods to discover and thwart terrorist plans with the
protection of people's privacy. Following 9/11, intelligence services implemented surveillance
programmes such as the Patriot Act and began collecting metadata in bulk. While these measures
attempted to improve national security, they generated worries about government overreach,
violation of private rights, and potential abuse of authority. Finding a balance between effective
monitoring and privacy safeguards is an important ethical topic.
Another problem is dealing with profiling and prejudice in counterterrorism activities. The
United States has faced criticism for targeting possible threats based on race, religion, ethnicity,
or nationality. Racial and religious profiling contradicts not only the values of equality, but it also
weakens confidence and collaboration with impacted populations. Avoiding discriminatory
tactics while detecting actual risks is critical for protecting civil rights and promoting inclusion
and justice. Another ethical problem is the tension between expedited security measures and due
process rights. When it comes to avoiding terrorist acts, there is often pressure to respond
quickly, such as detaining suspected terrorists or deploying monitoring measures. However,
protecting individuals rights to a fair trial, legal representation, and the presumption of innocence
is critical to upholding the rule of law and fundamental human rights. Furthermore, the use of
force in counterterrorism operations raises ethical concerns about human rights and international
law. Military engagements, drone strikes, targeted murders, and other forms of violent
intervention are used to counter terrorist threats. However, essential ethical considerations in the
use of force include ensuring proportionality, minimizing civilian casualties, adhering to legal
norms, and avoiding abuses of human rights.

To summarize, the growth of transnational terrorism has altered the United State response plans,
resulting in advances in counterterrorism capabilities. However, it has also brought significant
problems and ethical quandaries in balancing national security concerns with civil liberties.
Maintaining democratic ideals and the rule of law in counterterrorism initiatives requires striking
a balance between effective security measures and respect for fundamental rights and freedoms.
Continued conversation, oversight systems, adherence to legal and ethical frameworks, and a
rights-based approach are critical for effectively addressing these difficulties.
Q. How does the concept of the United States as a permanent war economy
impact domestic and foreign policies, national security priorities, economic
sustainability, and global perceptions of American power in the 21st century?

A. The concept of the United States as a permanent war economy has been a topic of significant
debate and scrutiny, highlighting the intricate relationship between military expenditures,
economic dynamics, and national security imperatives. In this essay I will attempt to delve
deeper into the key aspects of the USA as a permanent war economy and its implications. The
notion is based on a significant allocation of resources and government spending towards
military and defense-related activities. The United States is consistently ranked among the top
countries in terms of military spending, with a sizable amount of the government budget
allocated to defense programmes, procurement, personnel, and operations. This high level of
military spending indicates the country's commitment to maintaining substantial defense
capabilities, technological dominance, and global military presence.The military-industrial
complex is critical to maintaining the war economy. This complex includes defense contractors,
technology companies, research institutions, and government agencies that design, manufacture,
and supply military equipment, weapon systems, and defense services. The interaction of defense
industry interests, government contracts, and defense policies contributes to the continuity of the
war economy by driving economic activity, innovation, and job creation in defense-related
sectors. The global military footprint of the United States is another hallmark of its status as a
permanent war economy. The USA maintains a vast network of military bases, installations, and
alliances across regions, contributing to global security, power projection, and strategic interests.
This global military presence requires ongoing investments in infrastructure, logistics, personnel,
and diplomatic engagements, shaping the country's defense priorities and resource allocations.

Furthermore, the defense industry's influence on government policies and decision-making

processes plays a vital role in maintaining the war economy. Defense contractors and lobbyists
frequently advocate for more defense spending, funding for specific weapons programmes, and
policies that benefit the defense industry. This impact can incentivize governments to prioritize
defense spending, procurement contracts, and military operations, thus ensuring the war
economy's continuation. The economic ties formed by the military economy are equally notable.
Certain regions, sectors, and towns in the United States rely substantially on defense spending,
military contracts, and related economic activity to generate jobs, revenue, and ensure economic
stability. This dependency produces a strong incentive in maintaining high levels of military
spending and defense-related investments, especially during times of relative peace.While the
concept of a permanent war economy has been criticized for potentially diverting resources from
social welfare programmes, contributing to budget deficits, and fueling militarization, supporters
argue that strong defense capabilities are critical for national security, deterrence, and
geopolitical stability. War economy is viewed as a way to sustain military readiness,technical
dominance, and strategic alliance in an increasingly uncertain global security environment.
USA as a permanent war economy:

The term "permanent war economy" refers to a situation in which a large percentage of the
country's economy, resources, and government spending is allocated to military and
defense-related operations, even during periods of relative peace. This theory gained prominence
during the Cold War and has continued to influence US economic policies, defense goals, and
global participation.

Several significant characteristics that determine the United States as a permanent war economy
includes:
1. High military expenditure: The United States has regularly allocated a significant
amount of its federal budget to defense and military expenses. This includes money for
personnel, weapons systems, R&D, intelligence agencies, and overseas military missions.
2. Industrial- Military complex: The industrial-military complex of the USA comprises
defense contractors, technology firms, research institutions, and government agencies
involved in producing and supplying military equipment, technology and services. It
plays an important role in carrying out defense related economic activities and
innovation.
3. Global military presence: The United States maintains a massive network of military
bases, installations, and partnerships around the world, which helps to ensure global
security, power projection, and influence. This global military presence necessitates
continual investments in supplies, infrastructure, and manpower, hence perpetuating the
war economy.
4. Defense industry influence: The defense sector has a significant impact on government
policies, procurement decisions, and national security strategy. Lobbying, contracts, and
collaborations between defense contractors and government agencies all help to sustain
the war economy.
5. Economic Dependencies: Certain regions, industries, and communities in the United
States rely heavily on defense spending and military contracts. This dependency creates
incentives to maintain high levels of military spending even in the absence of direct
military threats or conflicts.
6. Technological Advancements: The pursuit of military superiority and technological
advancements in defense systems, cyber capabilities, space exploration, and other
domains drives investments in research, development, and innovation, contributing to the
war economy's continuity.
7. Geopolitical Dynamics: The USA's role as a global superpower and its involvement in
geopolitical rivalries, security alliances, and conflict zones contribute to the perpetuation
of the war economy. Strategic considerations, deterrence strategies, and responses to
emerging threats shape defense priorities and resource allocations.
While the concept of a permanent war economy has been criticized for its potential negative
impacts, such as diverting resources from social welfare programs, contributing to militarization,
and fueling arms races, it also has supporters who argue that robust defense capabilities are
necessary for national security, deterrence, and global stability. In summary, the USA as a
permanent war economy reflects ongoing investments, dependencies, and priorities related to
military and defense activities, shaping economic policies, industrial dynamics, and strategic
engagements both domestically and internationally.

Impact on domestic and foreign policy, national security goals, economic sustainability, and
global perceptions of American dominance:

The United States, as a permanent war economy, has a substantial impact on domestic and
foreign policy, national security goals, economic sustainability, and global perceptions of
American dominance.
1. Domestic and foreign policies: The emphasis on maintaining a strong military-industrial
complex influences domestic defense budget, procurement, and technological innovation.
It also influences foreign policies, alliances, and military operations, focusing on strategic
objectives, security relationships, and global leadership.
2. National security goals: The persistence of the war economy affects national security
priorities by giving first preference to defense capabilities, technological developments,
intelligence capacities, and strategic deterrence. It also drives investments in
cybersecurity, space exploration, and emerging threats, shaping defense strategies and
resource allocations.
3. Economic sustainability: The war economy has an impact on economic sustainability
since it creates economic dependency on defense-related companies while also producing
jobs, revenue, and technological improvements. However, it raises worries about
diverting resources away from other industries, adding to budget deficits, and ensuring
long-term economic resilience.
4. Global perceptions of American power and influence: The United States status as a
persistent war economy shapes foreign perceptions of American strength and influence. It
projects military might, technological prowess, and global reach, influencing alliances,
partnerships, and geopolitical trends. However, it raises concerns about militarism,
unilateralism, and the balance of hard and soft power in foreign policy.
5. Alliance and partnerships: The continued existence of the war economy has an impact
on alliances and partnerships by emphasizing security cooperation, military and
technology exchange, and defense commitments. It strengthens relationships with allies,
promotes collective security arrangements, and impacts international responses to
common dangers and challenges.
6. Technology and innovation: The war economy fuels technological innovation, research,
and development in defense-related industries, resulting in advances in military
 capabilities, cybersecurity, space exploration, and emerging technologies. It also
promotes innovation in dual-use technologies for civilian uses.
7. Budgetary and resource allocation: The emphasis on defense spending in the war
economy influences budgetary priorities and resource allocations, sparking arguments
about the trade-offs between military spending, social welfare programmes, infrastructure
investments, and other public priorities. It also influences discussions about economic
responsibility, budget deficits, and government expenditure.
8. Public opinion and civil military relationship: The war economy influences public
opinion and civil-military relations by altering views of national security concerns,
defense policies, military interventions, and the role of the armed forces. It raises issues
of civilian oversight, democratic accountability, and popular support for the defense
projects.

Conclusion

The concept of the United States as a permanent war economy has far-reaching implications for
domestic and foreign policy, national security goals, economic sustainability, and global
perceptions of American strength and influence in the twenty-first century. This persistent
paradigm shapes the nation's global role and internal dynamics. Domestically, the reliance on a
permanent war economy has a considerable impact on budgetary allocations, resource
distribution, and economic dependence. Defense expenditure priorities frequently drain resources
away from other essential areas like education, healthcare, infrastructure, and social welfare.
This can spark arguments regarding the trade-offs between military spending and domestic
investments, with implications for public services, economic growth, and social well-being.
Moreover, the war economy generates economic activity, jobs, and technological advancements
in defense-related industries. This creates economic dependencies and vested interests in
maintaining high levels of defense spending, leading to a cycle of economic sustainability for
certain sectors but also raising concerns about the long-term fiscal health and economic
resilience of the country. In terms of national security priorities, the concept of a permanent war
economy drives the development of defense capabilities, technological innovations, intelligence
infrastructure, and strategic alliances. It shapes the USA's responses to emerging threats, military
engagements, and strategic deterrence strategies. However, the emphasis on military solutions
and defense-centric policies may overshadow non-military aspects of national security, such as
diplomacy, conflict resolution, humanitarian aid, and peacekeeping initiatives.

In terms of foreign policy, the continuation of the war economy has an impact on the United
States global engagement, security commitments, and alliances. It displays American power,
military might, and technological superiority, impacting perceptions of the nation's leadership
and influence on the global arena. However, it raises concerns about unilateralism, military
intervention, arms proliferation, and the balance of hard and soft power tactics in international
affairs. Furthermore, the notion of the United States as a perpetual war economy influences
foreign perceptions of American power and influence. While it projects military power and
security capabilities, it also raises questions about militarization, hegemony, and the effects of a
dominant military-industrial complex on global stability and security dynamics. This can
influence alliances, partnerships, and diplomatic relations with other countries, shaping global
perceptions of American leadership and involvement in international issues.To summarize, the
notion of the United States as a perpetual war economy has far-reaching ramifications for
domestic and foreign policies, national security objectives, economic sustainability, and global
perceptions of American might and influence. Balancing national security, economic
sustainability, and global leadership with fiscal discipline, strategic foresight, and international
cooperation remains a critical undertaking in navigating the complexities of the 21st-century
geopolitical environment.