Suchergebnisse

The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda--lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1780/thumbnail.jpg

The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda-- lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power. ; "December 2003." ; Includes bibliographical references (p. 46-56). ; The author examines three features of the war on terrorism as currently defined and conducted: (1) the administration's postulation of the terrorist threat, (2) the scope and feasibility of U.S. war aims, and (3) the war's political, fiscal, and military sustainability. He believes that the war on terrorism--as opposed to the campaign against al-Qaeda-- lacks strategic clarity, embraces unrealistic objectives, and may not be sustainable over the long haul. He calls for downsizing the scope of the war on terrorism to reflect concrete U.S. security interests and the limits of American military power. ; Mode of access: Internet. ; 2

With regard to the issue of whether civil rights may be restricted during terrorist emergencies by adopting such measures as preventive or investigative detention, greater surveillance, and more police powers of search, Ignatieff seeks to articulate a political ethics of 'the lesser evil' as a middle course between civil libertarianism and consequentialism [pp. 7-8]. On his account, the 'pure' civil libertarian denies that new security concerns may ever trump any prevailing civil rights and rejects the argument that temporary suspension of some rights is a lesser evil compared to the great evil of numerous deaths caused by a terrorist attack.

"The authoress continues the theoretical debate in her article by using the US hegemony between 2001 and 2008 as well as US leadership in the Global War on Terror as an example in order to debate a modern concept of hegemony, combining realist, constructivist and critical IR perspectives while distancing her concept from the simple realist notion of unipolarity. She finds that the US hegemony is based on material and ideological power and validates her thesis with a qualitative analysis of interviews conducted with scholars and practitioners from the EU und ASEAN and their evaluation of IS dominance." (author's abstract)

The following article is edited remarks from Attorney General Mukasey's Commencement address at Boston College Law School on May 23, 2008. His remarks focus on the role and ethics of lawyers in the Global War on Terrorism. Attorney General Mukasey contends that lawyers must faithfully adhere to the law, especially in the national security context where the questions are complex, the stakes are high and the pressures to do something other than adhere to the law are great. Attorney General Mukasey argues that political and public pressure on national security lawyers can lead to "cycles of timidity and aggression," and that scrutiny of their work, given the threats facing the country following September 11, 2001, must be conducted responsibly, with an appreciation of its institutional implications.