Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Tables and Diagrams -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction -- 2. False Optimism: illusions of the Coming War -- 3. Jumping the Gun: First-Move Advantages and Crisis Instability -- 4. Power Shifts: Windows of Opportunity and Vulnerability -- 5. Cumulative Resources -- 6. Offense, Defense, and the Security Dilemma -- 7. Offense-Defense Theory and the Outbreak of World War I -- 8. The Nuclear Revolution and the Causes of War -- 9. Conclusion -- Appendix: Hypotheses on Power and the Causes of War -- Index

Al Qaeda and its jihadi allies pose a large threat to U.S. national security. Such a grave menace requires a strong response. Yet the United States has so far waged only a one-dimensional war against al Qaeda, fighting hard on one front when it should be fighting on four. Specifically, the Bush administration has focused heavily on an offensive campaign against al Qaeda overseas while neglecting three other critical fronts: bolstering homeland defense, securing weapons and materials of mass destruction from possible theft or purchase by terrorists, and winning the war of ideas. And the administration has sometimes done too little even on the offensive, instead diverting itself into a costly and counterproductive sideshow in Iraq. The public credits President Bush for toughness on terror. In fact, his administration has pursued a half-hearted war on terror, failing to devote the political and financial resources it requires.

Al Qaeda & its jihadi allies pose a large threat to U.S. national security. Such a grave menace requires a strong response. Yet the United States has so far waged only a one-dimensional war against al Qaeda, fighting hard on one front when it should be fighting on four. Specifically, the Bush administration has focused heavily on an offensive campaign against al Qaeda overseas while neglecting three other critical fronts: bolstering homeland defense, securing weapons & materials of mass destruction from possible theft or purchase by terrorists, & winning the war of ideas. & the administration has sometimes done too little even on the offensive, instead diverting itself into a costly & counterproductive sideshow in Iraq. The public credits President Bush for toughness on terror. In fact, his administration has pursued a half-hearted war on terror, failing to devote the political & financial resources it requires. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2006 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

Al Qaeda and its jihadi allies pose a large threat to U.S. national security. Such a grave menace requires a strong response. Yet the United States has so far waged only a one-dimensional war against al Qaeda, fighting hard on one front when it should be fighting on four. Specifically, the Bush administration has focused heavily on an offensive campaign against al Qaeda overseas while neglecting three other critical fronts: bolstering homeland defense, securing weapons and materials of mass destruction from possible theft or purchase by terrorists, and winning the war of ideas. And the administration has sometimes done too little even on the offensive, instead diverting itself into a costly and counterproductive sideshow in Iraq. The public credits President Bush for toughness on terror. In fact, his administration has pursued a half-hearted war on terror, failing to devote the political and financial resources it requires.[Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright 2006 The American Academy of Political and Social Science.]

View that the West and the US should pursue a more active but nondirect policy of peacekeeping.