Abstract
President Bush war on terror emphasized domestic surveillance, enhanced police powers, and military adventures abroad, and virtually all political debates focused on the administration’s initiatives. This was not inevitable. An alternative response to the threat of terrorism could include, for example, expanded funding for language instruction and comparative religion in American schools, improved training for first responders in medical emergencies, and an overhaul of the health care system to provide rapid responses to crises. Critics of the Administration's war on terror, however, were reluctant or unable to frame 9/11 to support alternative preferred policies. In contrast, during the Cold War, advocates used fear of Communism and the Soviet Union to build support for alternative domestic policies, including civil rights and social investment. By rejecting completely the premises of the war on terror, critics may have missed an opportunity to advance broader political agendas.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
