This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Van Evera, S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Assessing U.S. Strategy in the War on Terror

MIT

Al Qaeda and its jihadi allies pose a large threat to U.S. national security. Such a grave menace requires a strong response. Yet the United States has so far waged only a one-dimensional war against al Qaeda, fighting hard on one front when it should be fighting on four. Specifically, the Bush administration has focused heavily on an offensive campaign against al Qaeda overseas while neglecting three other critical fronts: bolstering homeland defense, securing weapons and materials of mass destruction from possible theft or purchase by terrorists, and winning the war of ideas. And the administration has sometimes done too little even on the offensive, instead diverting itself into a costly and counterproductive sideshow in Iraq. The public credits President Bush for toughness on terror. In fact, his administration has pursued a half-hearted war on terror, failing to devote the political and financial resources it requires.

Key Words: terrorism • al Qaeda • counterterrorism strategy • offense • defense • weapons of mass destruction • public diplomacy

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 607, No. 1, 10-26 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0002716206291492


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?