Search

Begin New Search Topic War on Terror Publication Year within 10 Years

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. United States Budgetary Costs and Obligations of Post-9/11 Wars through FY2020: $6.4 Trillion

Author:
Neta C. Crawford
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
Abstract:
Since late 2001, the United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $6.4 Trillion through Fiscal Year 2020 in budgetary costs related to and caused by the post-9/11 wars—an estimated $5.4 Trillion in appropriations in current dollars and an additional minimum of $1 Trillion for US obligations to care for the veterans of these wars through the next several decades.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Armed Forces, Military Spending, 9/11, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Asia, Middle East, and United States of America

3. Human Cost of Post-9/11 Wars: Direct War Deaths in Major War Zones, Afghanistan and Pakistan (October 2001 – October 2019) Iraq (March 2003 – October 2019); Syria (September 2014-October 2019); Yemen (October 2002-October 2019); and Other

Author:
Neta C. Crawford and Catherine Lutz
Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
Abstract:
This chart tallies direct deaths caused by war violence. It does not include indirect deaths, namely those caused by loss of access to food, water, and/or infrastructure, war-related disease, etc. The numbers included here are approximations based on the reporting of several original data sources.
Topic:
9/11, War on Terror, Casualties, and Iraq War
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, South Asia, Middle East, Yemen, and Syria

4. 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

5. Defining the Concept of ‘Violent Extremism’

Author:
Mathias Bak, Kristoffer Nilaus Tarp, and Christina Schori Liang
Publication Date:
08-2019
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Geneva Centre for Security Policy
Abstract:
During the last few decades, the concept of violent extremism (VE) has played an increasingly prominent role in policies and development programming on a global level. Having gone through several incarnations, the current focus for most actors deals with preventing and countering violent extremism. This terminology was constructed in an effort to repackage the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in a manner that shifted the focus away from the over-militarised responses of the 90s and early 2000s, to methods linked to social support and prevention. Where counterterrorism focuses on countering terrorists through physical means, the Preventing and Countering Violent Extremism (P/CVE) approach aims to prevent the rise of violent extremist organisations (VEOs) through less militarised methods. P/CVE programs therefore aim at developing resilience among communities that may be prone to violent extremism. According to the 2015 UN Plan of Action to Prevent Violent Extremism, such interventions aim to address the root causes and drivers of violent extremism, which often include: socio-economic issues; discrimination; marginalization; poor governance; human rights violations; remnants of violent conflict; collective grievances; and other psychological factors.1 The concept of violent extremism has also become increasingly mainstream in the international community, with both the UN Security Council (UNSC 2014)2 and the UN General Assembly3 (UNGA 2015) calling for member states to address VE.
Topic:
Security, Violent Extremism, Counter-terrorism, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
United Nations and Global Focus

6. Global Terrorism Index 2019: Measuring the impact of terrorism

Publication Date:
11-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute for Economics & Peace
Abstract:
The GTI report is produced by the Institute for Economics & Peace (IEP) using data from the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) and other sources. Data for the GTD is collected and collated by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) at the University of Maryland. The GTD contains over 170,000 terrorist incidents for the period 1970 to 2017. Deaths from terrorism fell for the fourth consecutive year, after peaking in 2014. The decline in deaths corresponds with the military successes against ISIL and Boko Haram, with the total number of deaths falling by 15.2 per cent between 2017 and 2018 to 15,952. The largest fall occurred in Iraq, which recorded 3,217 fewer deaths from terrorism in 2018, a 75 per cent decrease from the prior year. For the first time since 2003, Iraq is no longer the country most impacted by terrorism.
Topic:
Political Violence, Terrorism, Military Affairs, Counter-terrorism, ISIS, ISIL, Violence, War on Terror, and Peace
Political Geography:
Iraq, Middle East, North Africa, and Global Focus

7. PART II: (Un)Accountability for Torture

Author:
Elizabeth Grimm Arsenault
Publication Date:
06-2019
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgetown Journal of International Affairs
Abstract:
“The category of public reputational accountability,” Keohane asserts, “is meant to apply to situations in which reputation, widely and publicly known, provides a mechanism for accountability even in the absence of other mechanisms.” The effectiveness of public reputational accountability, in particular, has floundered because of the fact that the U.S. public’s views have shifted since the inception of the torture program. Even while recognizing that enhanced interrogation techniques are now against the law, former CIA director Michael Hayden defended the Agency’s past use of the techniques in 2014, claiming that “we thought we were doing the nation’s will.” Today, though, it can be argued that the absence of public reputational accountability stems from the fact that the issue of torture has been reframed in the public imagination.
Topic:
Intelligence, Torture, Impunity, War on Terror, and Accountability
Political Geography:
Middle East and United States of America

8. 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

9. 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

10. Underlying Implicating factors of U.S. War on Terror and its Unintended Consequences for Pakistan

Author:
Asifa Jahangir
Publication Date:
12-2019
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
Pakistan‟s reactive foreign policy attitudes and actions negate (or seem contradictory to) the core principle of realist paradigm, which says that intentions may vary independently without having any influential peer-pressure. Holistically, the critical analysis of Pakistan‟s foreign policy history exhibits that this country always chooses to pursue a reactive policy rather than proactive one. The best and recent example is Pakistan‟s dealing with Afghanistan problem since 9/11. This study uses archival evidence of long-simmering tensions about the continuing Afghanistan War and its unexpected consequences of Pakistan‟s policy decision to examine hypotheses derived from Barry Buzan‟s Regional Security Complex Theory. This paper aims to make the following inquiries: (1) how did Pakistan react in the response to U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and its War on Terror? (2) What have been the factors implicating Pakistan in Afghanistan War? (3) Why has Pakistan been failed in designing a proactive policy to prevent the challenges surfaced from enduring Afghan conflict and pose the serious threats to its security? (4) What are the unintended consequences of Pakistan‟s reactionary policy towards Afghanistan and in which direction have these outcomes guided Pakistan towards? While foreseeing the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and its spillover effect on region, this paper will provide Pakistan‟s proactive strategies in the form of National Action Plan and CPEC so as to overcome such possible effects in future over the internal security situation and economic condition of the country.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Conflict, and War on Terror
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia, and United States of America