Search

Begin New Search Topic War on Terror Political Geography North America

1. Numbers and Per Capita Distribution of Troops Serving in the U.S. Post-9/11 Wars in 2019, By State

Author:
Heidi Peltier
Publication Date:
01-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
Abstract:
This infographic displays an estimate of the raw number of service members from each state operating in the United States post-9/11 wars in 2019 and the relative burden borne by each state in making this contribution. The ‘post-9/11 wars’ refers to U.S. military operations around the world, including in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere, that have grown out of President George W. Bush’s “Global War on Terror” and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. The color coding on the map shows the broader context of each state’s contribution of service members in relation to its population size. The darkest color, for instance, shows that South Carolina, Hawaii, Alaska, Florida, and Georgia send the highest numbers of troops, per capita, to war. Since there is no publicly available government data that lists service members involved in the U.S. post-9/11 wars by their state of origin, the research team estimated the figures using a combination of various government data sources. The Methodological Appendix, below, lists sources and methods.
Topic:
Demographics, War, Armed Forces, Military Affairs, 9/11, War on Terror, and Statistics
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. Where We Fight: US Counterterror War Locations 2017-2018

Author:
Stephanie Savell
Publication Date:
01-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
Abstract:
This new map shows for the first time that the United States is now combating terrorism in 40 percent of the world’s nations.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Counter-terrorism, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
Africa, Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

3. Part I: (Un)Accountability for Torture

Author:
Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
Abstract:
With the nomination and eventual appointment of Gina Haspel to the directorship of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), debates around the legality and the morality of the torture program undertaken during the early years of the War on Terror resurfaced. Some editorials asserted that condoning torture was now a roadmap for promotion at the CIA. Others, including former senior leaders of the CIA, argued that none could lead the Agency better than Haspel and claimed she was a person of integrity. Yet, amid the debates about her leadership of the Agency loomed two larger questions: 1) who is most responsible for the torture program, and 2) what does accountability mean? In the balancing act between the demands of justice and the imperatives of national security, how can we best ensure that the right people are held accountable for the U.S. torture program? Forceful repudiations of the program did occur through both internal agency proceedings as well as in the form of checks and balances across the federal government, but the public view of torture has changed in the almost two decades since 9/11. This shift is significant because U.S. popular opinion against the torture program a decade ago significantly contributed to pushback against it, pushback that manifested in the accountability measures detailed below. In the absence of public opposition, accountability measures will be more elusive.
Topic:
Intelligence, Torture, War on Terror, and Accountability
Political Geography:
Middle East, North America, and United States of America

4. What NATO’s counter-terrorism strategy?

Author:
Kris Quanten
Publication Date:
05-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
NATO Defense College
Abstract:
Until 2001, NATO considered the terrorist threat as a secondary phenomenon with a limited impact on the Alliance. The 9/11 attacks marked a radical turnaround: suddenly terrorism became a top secu- rity priority. This was also the first and only time in NATO’s history that Article 5 was invoked, further- more for a terrorist attack. Initially, the reaction to 9/11 was purely military. However, it soon became clear that there was lit- tle strategic vision underlying the initiatives to fight terrorism at the operational level. Hence, the hasty approval, at the NATO Prague Summit in 2002, of a Military Concept for Defence Against Terrorism.1 This Concept foresaw a number of new initiatives, such as intelligence sharing, CBRN measures, the establishment of a Terrorist Threat Intelligence Unit, and Civil Emergency planning, as a priority. Yet all these separate initiatives lacked coordination and an overarching vision.
Topic:
NATO, Regional Cooperation, Terrorism, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
Europe, North Atlantic, and North America

5. Terrorism, tactics, and transformation: The West vs the Salafi-jihadi movement

Author:
Katherine Zimmerman
Publication Date:
11-2018
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
Abstract:
The Salafi-jihadi movement shifted to prioritizing local over global objectives during the Arab Spring. Analysts wrongly understood this as a weakening of the groups. Groups have hidden their true nature by hiding their ties to global jihadi groups, such as al Qaeda and the Islamic State, and by rebranding and reorganizing on the ground. Movement leaders design and execute attacks in ways that create doubt and ambiguity about the responsible party. This new technique exploits US counterterrorism policy, which is not designed to pursue anyone other than the individuals directly responsible for the attack. American officials are countering a dynamic enemy with an irrelevant and outdated strategy.
Topic:
Counter-terrorism, Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Salafism, Arab Spring, War on Terror, Sunni, and Jihad
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iraq, Middle East, Libya, Yemen, Syria, North America, and Arabian Peninsula

6. The U.S. Defense, between the Revolution and the Offset / La Defensa estadounidense, entre la revolución y la compensación

Author:
Guillem Colom
Publication Date:
06-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal on International Security Studies (RESI)
Institution:
International Security Studies Group (GESI) at the University of Granada
Abstract:
The article reviews the U.S. contemporary Defense planning to establish the continuity patterns that exist between the Revolution in Military Affairs developed in the 1970s under the Second Offset Strategy, matured in the 1990s and succeeded during the War on Terror; and the Third Offset Strategy that will guide its Defense planning until 2030 and capable of inspiring a new revolution.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Armed Forces, Military Affairs, History, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

7. The Applicability of International and Domestic Immigration Law to Relocated Guantanamo Detainees

Author:
Sarah Weiner
Publication Date:
11-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
The physical relocation of detainees from Guantanamo to the United States would not meaningfully alter U.S. obligations under domestic immigration law or international law concerning refoulement. Domestic immigration law would not affect U.S. authority to bring aliens into the United States and to detain those aliens under the laws of war. Detainees would not enter the United States as immigrants, but rather would remain legally “at the border” during their detention. If a detainee secures his release from law-of-war detention, then the United States would be prohibited from transferring the former detainee to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. This obligation applies equally to detainees held at Guantanamo and in the United States. If the United States could not find a suitable country to accept the former detainee, then the United States may have the authority to hold the alien indefinitely in immigration detention, provided that his custody meets statutory requirements. This authority is constitutionally untested and potentially inconsistent with obligations under international law, but these concerns would apply equally to both Guantanamo- and U.S.-located former detainees.
Topic:
Law, Prisons/Penal Systems, War on Terror, and Detention
Political Geography:
North America, United States of America, and Guantanamo

8. The War on Terror: Forgotten Lessons from World War II

Author:
Stephen W. Van Evera
Publication Date:
10-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
President Bush recently likened the war oon terror to the struggles American faced in World War II, expkaning that our enemies are “successors to Fascists, to Nazis ... and other totalitar- ians of the 20th century.”1 The analogy to World War II is useful and illuminating. Important lessons from World War II apply to the war on terror. Yet the Bush administration has itself left the lessons of World War II largely unheed- ed. Its conduct of the war on terror departs from the policies that brought the United States victory in World War II and success in the postwar years.2 The administration will have more success against our terrorist enemies if it learns and applies the methods that won the Second World War.
Topic:
Terrorism, War on Terror, World War II, and Propaganda
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, and North America

9. The Bush Administration is Weak on Terror

Author:
Stephen W. Van Evera
Publication Date:
10-2006
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The U.S. public widely credits President Bush with toughness on terror. An August 2006 poll found 55 percent of Americans approving his handling of the campaign on terror and only 38 percent disapproving. Republican candidates are running successfully on the terror issue in this fall’s election campaign. In fact, the Bush administration is weak on terror. The administration wages a one-front war against al-Qaeda, the main terror threat, when effort on every relevant front is needed. Specifically, it has focused on an offensive military and intelligence campaign abroad while neglecting five other critical fronts: bolstering homeland security, securing weapons and materials of mass destruction from possible theft or purchase by terrorists, winning the war of ideas across the world, end- ing conflicts that fuel support for al-Qaeda, and saving the failed states where al-Qaeda and like groups can find haven. The administration has also bungled parts of the mili- tary offensive by diverting itself into a counterproductive sideshow in Iraq and by alien- ating potential allies. As a result, al-Qaeda and related jihadi groups remain a potent threat more than five years after the 9/11 attacks.3 Assessments by U.S. intelligence and other analysts actually indicate that the terror threat has increased since 9/11.4 The Bush administration’s toughness on terror is an illusion. Its counterterror cam- paign has been inept and ineffective.5 President Bush talks the talk of strong action but doesn’t walk the walk. And his weakness on terror is a putting the United States in great danger.
Topic:
Intelligence, Terrorism, Al Qaeda, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
United States, Middle East, and North America