Suchergebnisse

"President George W. Bush maintained in his address of 20 September 2001, that the successful prosecution of the war against terrorism will require the judicious use of 'every resource at our command - every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war'. Unlike the Cold War, the War on Terrorism is neither a battle against some ideology nor bounded by physical boundaries or conventional political units such as nation-states. The War on Terrorism is the internationalisation, or rather, globalisation of previous wars. Terror is not a nation, and the enemies in such wars are not nations; any regime such as Libya simply by repudiating terrorism, can become an ally of the anti-terror coalition. Regimes that continue to practice terrorism against domestic opponents qualify to participate in the wider war if they conform to certain norms in external affairs. The 28 articles reprinted here consider aspects of that most amorphous of animals - the War on Terrorism. They do not set out to provide all of the answers; nor do they radiate a unified vision of what constitutes the war on terrorism; the pieces begin from a range of political and intellectual outlooks. Taken as a group, however, the difficulties of determining the limits and nature of the war on terrorism receive important attention. The authors address several major themes within the war on terrorism: what falls within its perimeters, its shifting manifestations, implications, responses and future directions."--Provided by publisher.

A new kind of "international terrorism" -- "International terrorism" as a media event -- Terrorism as war/War against terrorism -- "War against international terrorism" in abstractions -- "War against international terrorism" as military action -- Happenings and unthinkingness

This book responds to the Bush Administration position on the "war on terror." It examines preemption within the context of "just war"; justification for the United States-led invasion of Iraq, with some authors charging that its tactics serve to increase terror; global terrorism; and concepts such as reconciliation, Islamic identity, nationalism, and intervention.

1. Introduction : philosophy, politics, terror / Bob Brecher and Mark Devenney -- 2. Rediscovering the individual in the 'war on terror' : a virtue and liberal approach / Heather Widdows -- 3. Is there a justifiable shoot-to-kill policy? / Shahrar Ali -- 4. Torture and the demise of the justiciable standard of enlightened government : a US perspective / Don Wallace and Akis Kalaitzidis -- 5. Asylum and the discourse of terror : the European 'security state' / Fran Cetti.

The 9/11 attacks revealed that the transnational terrorist threat facing the US and its partners was far more dangerous than most had previously discerned. It was now clear that al-Qaeda intended to, and could threaten the West's - particularly the US' - political and military leverage, with the aim of shifting the balance of power from the West to Islam after a violent global confrontation. In that sense, the new terrorist threat is strategic, and it has led to a worldwide mobilisation comparable to that required by a world war.This Paper argues that prevailing in the war' on terror, much like victory in the Cold War, entails containment, deterrence, outperformance and engagement. Military power is secondary to intelligence, law enforcement, enlightened social policy and diplomacy. Diplomatic engagement with the larger Muslim world is paramount as a means of denying al-Qaeda not merely recruits but theclash of civilisations' it seeks. The US-led intervention in Iraq, though intended to introduce democratic reform in the wider Middle East, has so far antagonised Islam and strengthened Islamist terrorism. This suggests that coercive or aggressively ideological diplomacy is unlikely to win over an Islamic population biased by anti-Western propaganda. Successful Western diplomacy will have to be discreet, nuanced and incremental.

We are supposed to wage war against Terrorism - but exactly what we are fighting against in this war, there is nearly no consensus about. And, much worse, nearly nobody cares about this conceptual disaster - the main thing being, whether or not you are taking sides with the good guys. This volume is an analytical attempt to end this disaster. What is Terrorism? Are terrorist acts to be defined exclusively on the basis of the characteristics of the respective actions? Or should we restrict such actions to acts performed by non-state organisations? And, most important, is terrorism already by its very nature to be morally condemned? But, having a clear idea of what Terrorism is, would be only the beginning. Rational moral assessment still needs two further components: The relevant facts; and the relevant values and norms. Now, in a field where systematic disinformation has been even proclaimed to be the official policy, facts are obviously very hard to get at. This volume is mainly interested in Ethics: What's wrong with Terrorism? And what is morally right or morally wrong, respectively, with all the different means of Counter-Terrorism? What are the moral boundaries for waging war agains terrorism? What are the right ways of dealing with terrorists? And what about the alleged anti-terrorism wars on Afghanistan and Iraq?