As discussed in the text, which of the "strategies for dealing with terrorism" do you believe would be most effective? Explain your answer.

Chose from below article I have attached

Five strategies for dealing with terrorism are part of official U.S. policy and have widespread support elsewhere in the world: Make no concessions, prosecute terrorists, apply economic sanctions, use military force if necessary, and defend against terrorism. In addition to these responses, nations must address the root causes in order to counter terrorism (Tucker, 1998).

Make No Concessions

Many national leaders say that they will never give in to demands by terrorist groups. This policy is based on the logic that giving terrorists what they want by, say, paying ransom, surrendering land, or freeing prisoners only encourages further violence. Some nations say they will not even negotiate with terrorists.

But critics claim that a no-concessions policy has little impact on terrorism. They point out that many terrorist organizations are not looking for concessions but simply want to inflict as much damage as possible. In addition, research suggests that whether a country makes concessions has little effect on the subsequent level of terrorism.

Read European Countries' Policy of Paying Ransom to Terrorists

Prosecute or Kill Terrorists

A second strategy to deal with terrorists is capture and criminal prosecution. The federal government successfully prosecuted Timothy McVeigh for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that killed 168 people; McVeigh was convicted of this crime and executed in 2001.

In 2006, Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged "twentieth hijacker" in the September 11, 2001, attacks, was sentenced to life in prison. In some cases, the U.S. military tries to kill terrorist leaders.

This was a strategy of the Obama administration, which favored targeting terrorist leaders rather than deploying combat troops on the ground. In 2011, for example, U.S. military forces succeeded in tracking down and killing several senior al-Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. The recent use of drones to kill militants in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere is another example of this policy (Nordland & Masood, 2013; Trofimov, 2016).

Apply Economic Sanctions

The United States has applied economic sanctions or trade restrictions against a number of nations believed to be supporting terrorism, including Libya, Syria, Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. Economic sanctions may harm another country, but bringing about a desired change of behavior may take years, if it occurs at all.

In addition, economic sanctions may harm the civilian population of a country while having little effect on leaders. Sanctions against Cuba, for example, in place from 1960 until the Obama administration lifted them in 2015, have probably hurt the living standards of ordinary people. Yet these sanctions apparently have done little to threaten the power of that country's leaders, Fidel and Raul Castro.

Use Military Force

A fourth strategy to oppose terrorists and their supporters is direct use of military force. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States went to war in Afghanistan.

In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq and ousted its leaders, claiming they were planning to engage in terrorism against this country. In 2011, a multinational force helped drive Libyan dictator and reputed sponsor of terrorism Muammar Gaddafi from power.Of course, any use of military force is risky because it may provoke further terrorist attacks.

In addition, going to war is almost always controversial, as the largely negative response both among the U.S. public and among world leaders to the use of force by the United States in Iraq clearly showed.

A fifth strategy is to make terrorism harder to carry out. For more than twenty-five years, the U.S. government has used various security measures to protect airports, buildings, and personnel.

In addition, the government gathers intelligence data in an effort to identify terrorist groups, monitor their activities, and prevent their attacks.

Shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which greatly expanded the power of government officials to monitor the behavior of people in the United States. Congress renewed this act in 2005, and provisions of the act were renewed again in 2011.Government leaders claim the USA PATRIOT Act has worked, helping to prevent new attacks.

Critics reply that giving such broad powers to government threatens people's civil liberties, which may be more harmful to the country than terrorism itself.

ReadSOCIAL POLICY The USA Patriot Act: Are We More Secure? Less Free?

Address the Root Causes of Terrorism

A final issue, which often gets little attention, may be the most important of all. It points to the need to examine the underlying conflicts and conditions that cause people to engage in terrorism in the first place.

This approach does not assume that the claims made by terrorists are valid, nor does it condone terrorists' use of violence against innocent people.

But it does help us see that terrorism is a symptom of the passionate belief on the part of less powerful people that they are being treated unfairly.

If there were greater opportunity for such people to express their grievances and if the powerful nations of the world took greater interest in global inequality and showed greater respect for the cultures of less powerful people, perhaps fewer terrorist acts would occur.