Terrorist Fighters Research Articles

How to Fight Terrorism: Alternatives to Deterrence

Deterrence has been a crucial element in fighting terrorism, both in actual politics and rational choice analyses ofterrorism. But there are superior strategies to deterrence. One is to make terrorist attacks less attractive. Anotherto raise the opportunity cost - rather than the material cost - to terrorists. These alternative strategies effectivelydissuade potential terrorists. The strategies suggested here build on the "benevolence" system and tend toproduce a positive sum game among the interacting parties. In contrast, the deterrence system is based on"threats" and tends to produce a negative sum game interaction.

Targeting terror: U.S. policy toward Middle Eastern state sponsors and terrorist organizations, post-September 11

September 11 produced unprecedented political will in the United States to fight terrorism with all of the energy and power at the collective disposal of America and its allies. That principle has already been applied to al-Qaeda and is now being applied to Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But what effect has the US-led war on terror had on the leaders and state sponsors of other Middle Eastern terrorist organizations? Here, Michael Levitt provides an assessment of US counter-terrorism policy during 2002 and argues that, without marshalling the resolve and resources to fight terror on all its fronts simultaneously, the West will not fully come to grips with the implications of September 11. The book begins with an overview of the war's impact on counter-terrorism documents produced since the attacks, then focuses on the activities of Palestinian terrorist groups, the escalating roles played by Syria and Iran, and the facilitation of terrorism by entities that are not included on the US State Department's sponsors of terrorism list. Levitt argues that to effectively combat terrorism, neither the United States nor its allies can be satisfied with battling only al-Qaeda, or any other specific terrorist group or collection of groups. The war on terror must target terrorism as a means, and all organizations that employ it or facilitate its use.

How to Fight Terrorism: Alternatives to Deterrence

Deterrence has been a crucial element in fighting terrorism, both in actual politics and rational choice analyses of terrorism. But there are superior strategies to deterrence. One is to make terrorist attacks less attractive. Another to raise the opportunity cost - rather than the material cost - to terrorists. These alternative strategies effectively dissuade potential terrorists. The strategies suggested here build on the benevolence system and tend to produce a positive sum game among the interacting parties. In contrast, the deterrence system is based on threats and tends to produce a negative sum game interaction.

Is Development an Effective Way to Fight Terrorism

Understanding the conditions that foster terrorism suggests that part of the solution to terrorism lies in the pursuit of economic and political development.

Civilian Democracy Is Best Way to Fight Terror and Avoid War

New Perspectives QuarterlyVolume 19, Issue 4 p. 67-69 Civilian Democracy Is Best Way to Fight Terror and Avoid War BENAZIR BHUTTO, BENAZIR BHUTTO BENAZIR BHUTTO, former prime minister of Pakistan, now heads that country‘s leading opposition People’s Party. She spoke with NPQ editor Nathan Gardels in london.Search for more papers by this author BENAZIR BHUTTO, BENAZIR BHUTTO BENAZIR BHUTTO, former prime minister of Pakistan, now heads that country‘s leading opposition People’s Party. She spoke with NPQ editor Nathan Gardels in london.Search for more papers by this author First published: 01 February 2011 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5842.2002.tb00106.x AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume19, Issue4Fall 2002Pages 67-69 RelatedInformation

Fight Terrorism By Ending Poverty

Fight Terrorism By Ending Poverty

What's in a Name? How to Fight Terrorism

When, in the immediate aftermath of the September 1i attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared that the United States was with terrorism, he made a very natural but terrible and irrevocable error. Administration leaders have been trying to put it right ever since. What Powell said made sense if one uses the term against in the sense of a war against crime or against drug trafficking: that is, the mobilization of all available resources against a danger ous, antisocial activity, one that can never be entirely eliminated but can be reduced to, and kept at, a level that does not threaten social stability. The British in their time have fought many such wars-in Palestine, in Ireland, in Cyprus, and in Malaya (modern-day Malaysia), to mention only a few. But they never called them wars; they called them emergencies. This terminology meant that the police and intelligence services were provided with exceptional powers and were reinforced where necessary by the armed forces, but they continued to operate within a peacetime framework of civilian authority. If force had to be used, it was at a minimal level and so far as possible did not interrupt the normal tenor of civil life. The objectives were to isolate the terrorists from the rest of the community and to cut them off from external sources of supply. The terrorists were not dignified with the status of belligerents: they were criminals, to be regarded as such by the general public and treated as such by the authorities. To declare war on terrorists or, even more illiterately, on terrorism is at once to accord terrorists a status and dignity that they seek and that they do not deserve. It confers on them a kind of legitimacy. Do they qualify as befligerents? If so, should they not receive the protection of the laws of war? This protection was something that Irish terrorists always demanded, and it was quite properly refused. But their demands helped to muddy the waters and were given wide credence among their supporters in the United States.

Man without a Gun: One Diplomat's Secret Struggle to Free the Hostages, Fight Terrorism and End a War

Man without a Gun: One Diplomat's Secret Struggle to Free the Hostages, Fight Terrorism and End a War

“You Can Run but You Can'T Hide”: Using Rico to Fight Terrorism

“You Can Run but You Can'T Hide”: Using Rico to Fight Terrorism

Terrorism in a Bargaining Framework

A LTHOUGH hostage seizures are a small percentage of terrorist incidents, they represent some of the most spectacular and influential events.2 The takeover of the American embassy in Tehran on November 14, 1979, the seizure of eleven dPEC oil ministers on December 21, 1975, and the capture and killing of nine Israeli athletes on September 5, 1972, are incidents not easily forgotten. From 1968 through 1982, of the approximately 8,000 reported terrorist events, 540 (7 percent) were transna-