Number of results to display per page
Search Results
12. Making the Case: What is America's Best Bad Option in Syria?
- Author:
- Mieke Eoyang and Aki Peritz
- Publication Date:
- 05-2013
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- President Obama drew a "red line" for Syria: if the Assad regime used its chemical weapons, such a move would "change [the] calculus" for an American response. As the UN and others investigate whether Assad has indeed crossed that red line, the U.S. must consider its options—because a failure to act could undermine our credibility. But "further action" is a broad category in the Syrian conflict. Our options range from increasing non-lethal aid to deploying troops in Syria. In this guide to the debate, we provide answers to six key questions: What are America's security interests in Syria? Which rebel groups should we support? What are Syria's military capabilities? What is the status of Syria's chemical weapons? What are the international community's options? What are America's options?
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- America, Middle East, Syria, and North America
13. Making the Case: Dismissing the Major Critiques of Syria's Chemical Weapons Destruction
- Author:
- Mieke Eoyang, Ben Freeman, Aki Peritz, and Faris Alikhan
- Publication Date:
- 09-2013
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Third Way
- Abstract:
- Our deal with Russia to destroy Syrian chemical weapons (CW) is a huge win for the United States because it will help keep those arms out of the hands of terrorists. Nevertheless, skeptics claim: We can't trust the Russians or the Syrians—despite America's history of reaching arms reduction deals with the Soviets and the Russians; We can't eliminate CW during a civil war—despite our experience with CW destruction; We will pay too much to implement this plan—even though it is far less than what we would spend on strikes. So far, the skeptics are wrong. While the destruction of Syria's CW will be a challenge, it is one that we can and should meet.
- Topic:
- Civil War, Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, International Security, and Armed Struggle
- Political Geography:
- America and Middle East
14. Clear and Present Safety
- Author:
- Michael Cohen and Micah Zenko
- Publication Date:
- 03-2012
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Foreign Affairs
- Institution:
- Council on Foreign Relations
- Abstract:
- Last August, the Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney performed what has become a quadrennial rite of passage in American presidential politics: he delivered a speech to the annual convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. His message was rooted in another grand American tradition: hyping foreign threats to the United States. It is “wishful thinking,” Romney declared, “that the world is becoming a safer place. The opposite is true. Consider simply the jihadists, a near-nuclear Iran, a turbulent Middle East, an unstable Pakistan, a delusional North Korea, an assertive Russia, and an emerging global power called China. No, the world is not becoming safer.” Not long after, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta echoed Romney's statement. In a lecture last October, Panetta warned of threats arising “from terrorism to nuclear proliferation; from rogue states to cyber attacks; from revolutions in the Middle East, to economic crisis in Europe, to the rise of new powers such as China and India. All of these changes represent security, geopolitical, economic, and demographic shifts in the international order that make the world more unpredictable, more volatile and, yes, more dangerous.” General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, concurred in a recent speech, arguing that “the number and kinds of threats we face have increased significantly.” And U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reinforced the point by claiming that America resides today in a “very complex, dangerous world.”
- Topic:
- Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- United States, China, America, Middle East, and India
15. Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission
- Publication Date:
- 01-2012
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- Aspen Institute
- Abstract:
- American expectations of how their government secures the United States have evolved substantially, especially during the post-9/11 decade. From the post-World War II, 20th-century evolution of the national security architecture in the United States, focused on countering overseas nation-states with conventional forces, we now face requirements to protect at home. And not only to protect, but to prevent: the new, domestic security architecture is targeted more at securing borders, infrastructure, and cyberspace with defensive measures as it is at pursuing any single adversary with offensive measures.
- Topic:
- Intelligence, Terrorism, and Counterinsurgency
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
16. The Terrorism Delusion: America's Overwrought Response to September 11
- Author:
- John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart
- Publication Date:
- 07-2012
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- International Security
- Institution:
- Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
- Abstract:
- On November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, a deluded little man with grandiose visions of his own importance, managed, largely because of luck, to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. Since then, many people have contended that such a monumental event could not have been accomplished by such a trivial person. Some of these disbelievers have undertaken elaborate efforts to uncover a bigger conspiracy behind the deed.
- Topic:
- Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- America
17. Homegrown Terrorism
- Author:
- Ally Pregulman and Emily Burke
- Publication Date:
- 04-2012
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Abstract:
- Incidents of “homegrown terrorism”—extremist violence perpetrated by U.S. citizens or legal U.S. residents, and linked to or inspired by al Qaeda's brand of radical Sunni Islamism—have increased in the aggregate since 9/11. Homegrown extremists, as defined in the CSIS report A Threat Transformed: Al Qaeda and Associated Movements in 2011, are “radicalized groups and individuals that are not regularly affiliated with, but draw clear inspiration and occasional guidance from, al Qaeda core or affiliated movements.” A growing number of Muslims—both naturalized citizens and American-born—have communicated with extremists who are linked to al Qaeda and Associated Movements (AQAM), have sought terrorist training, or have attempted to carry out attacks either inside the United States or abroad. While not official members of al Qaeda or its affiliates, these individuals and small groups have been influenced by and have sought to involve themselves in AQAM's global war against the West.
- Topic:
- Islam, Terrorism, Insurgency, and Counterinsurgency
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
18. Muslims in America
- Author:
- Jessica Stern
- Publication Date:
- 05-2011
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- The National Interest
- Institution:
- Center for the National Interest
- Abstract:
- The threat of domestic Islamic terrorism grows. But the origin of the problem is neither mosques nor the Muslim community writ large—it is jihad cool.
- Topic:
- Security and Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- America
19. AQAP's 'Great Expectations' for the Future
- Author:
- Bruce Riedel
- Publication Date:
- 08-2011
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- CTC Sentinel
- Institution:
- The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point
- Abstract:
- American counterterrorism officials recently warned that al-Qa`ida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) is trying to produce the lethal poison ricin to be packed around small bombs for use in attacks against the U.S. homeland. This latest development is further evidence of AQAP's growing threat to the United States. The group has demonstrated remarkable resiliency and adaptability in its history, surviving several leadership changes and major crackdowns in both Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Its success in the face of adversity is a model for other al-Qa`ida units now threatened. In particular, with al-Qa`ida's core in Pakistan under severe pressure due to Usama bin Ladin's death in May 2011, AQAP provides insights into the jihad's capacity to rally back from defeat.
- Topic:
- Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- Pakistan, America, Yemen, and Arabia
20. George W. Bush, Barack Obama and the future of US global leadership
- Author:
- James M Lindsay
- Publication Date:
- 07-2011
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Institution:
- Chatham House
- Abstract:
- The foreign policy world views of George W. Bush and Barack Obama differ dramatically. Bush made terrorism the focal point of his foreign policy and dismissed the idea that either allies or international institutions should constrain America's freedom of action. Obama sees terrorism as one of many transnational problems that require the cooperation of other countries to combat and, as a result, the United States must invest more in diplomatic efforts to build partnerships. Despite these differences, both presidents share one common conviction: that other countries long for US leadership. Bush believed that friends and allies would eventually rally to the side of the United States, even if they bristled at its actions, because they shared America's goals and had faith in its motives. Obama believed that a United States that listened more to others, stressed common interests and favored multinational action would command followers. In practice, however, both visions of American global leadership faltered. Bush discovered that many countries rejected his style of leadership as well as his strategies. Obama discovered that in a globalized world, where power has been more widely dispersed, many countries are not looking to Washington for direction. The future success of US foreign policy depends on the ability of policy-makers to recognize and adapt to a changing geopolitical environment in which the US remains the most significant military, diplomatic and economic power but finds it, nonetheless, increasingly difficult to drive the global agenda.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- United States, America, and Washington