The Role Of Terrorism In 21st Century Warfare

The Role of Terrorism in 21st-Century Warfare looks critically at the major armed conflicts that occurred during the 1990s and first decade of the present century. Conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria all involved the use of terrorism by one or more of the contestants, and at one time or another. What does this fact mean for violent conflicts yet to come? Authors Weinberg and Martin apply a comprehensive and systematic analysis to a variety of case studies examining the role played by terrorism as a stand-alone tactic as well as one used to ignite broad-scale conflict. Does terrorist violence occur during the early stages of an insurgency, as a leading indicator of a wider conflict? Or, is terrorism employed throughout the conflict's duration? On what occasions does terrorism tend to occur as an armed conflict begins to subside? When, in other words, is it a trailing indicator? This book represents the results of Weinberg and Martin's thorough investigation into the timing and role of terrorist violence in multi-dimensional conflicts. It is an essential text for understanding the role acts of terror play in warfare today and into the future.

On September 11, 2001, a small number of desperate men hoping to earn paradise attacked New York and Washington, D.C. Their spectacular acts of destruction concluded America's nearly decade-long vacation from insecurity, known as the "post-Cold War era." As eras go, this one was short and it certainly ended with a bang, not a whimper. The United States, still sole superpower, was now challenged by a bleak new world. Americans do not care for the bleak and do not tolerate it for long. Predictably, national shock soon became righteous anger, coupled to international campaigns against groups and states held responsible for the scourge of terrorism. These were short-term measures that hurt our enemies but did not "fix" the problem.Not long after these events, the Foreign Policy Research Institute organized a new Center on Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Homeland Security. Its purpose was to take a longer term view of the terrorism problem and what might be done about it--not only academic research but also policy suggestions. This book contains a broad selection of the Center's output, including essays on American strategy, homeland security, knowing the enemy, and the military dimension. A notable feature is the discussion of the educational issue: what and how to teach our children about terrorism.

A critical reflection on the role of terrorism in major armed conflicts occurring during the 1990s and the first decade of the twenty first century. Case studies include Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.

Seminar paper from the year 2012 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, grade: 2,7, , language: English, abstract: Under the term of asymmetric threats or warfare are these actions of combat summarized which deal with the unknown and surprise in terms of timings, ends, ways and means. The party in a conflict using asymmetric strategies and tactics is in comparison to their opponent usually poorly equipped and trained but very elusive and violent in their actions. In the same context they are often called by their enemies, usually regular forces, as terrorists. They call themselves frequently freedom fighters. Therefore one of the intellectual starting points for this essay is the often used citation, that “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”2. The more or less clear distinction between guerilla’s and terrorist’s used in the mid twenties century is becoming more and more blurred and obsolete3. The key difference between both, the guerilla warfare and terrorism, was defined by the aims, the means and the targeted group4. Guerilla is a warfare tactic, which is generally used by groups, who lack in conventional military force. They try to hit conventional forces and the government with unconventional means in order to support their political or military agenda. On the other hand, terrorism was a tactic used by more or less unorganized and less structured groups, aiming as well on governmental as on civilian targets5. Tactics of terrorism are designed to install fear and to de-motivate the enemy. This line which distinguishes both concepts became blurred and obsolete within the last two decades. Was terrorism once a mean to address and influence the public opinion for the purpose of predominantly political aims, it is now a tool to conduct significant strike against self declared enemies on behalf or by the instrumentalization of religion or politics. The distinction between guerilla and terrorism is almost not more existing. Terrorism is nowadays a method to use violence against enemies, who have a huge advantage in military power, in order to achieve desired aims by taking the advantage of psychological effects of physical violence7. For this reason, one of the assumptions for this essay is that terrorist tactics might influence modern warfare by installing a new modus operandi, a modified type of warfare. Therefore the central research question guiding this essay is: Are terrorist tactics shaping the modern type of warfare?

This edited volume addresses the relationship between the essential nature of war and its character at the beginning of the twenty-first century. The focus is on the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, situations that occupy a central role in international affairs and that have become highly influential in thinking about war in the widest sense. The intellectual foundation of the volume is Clausewitz’s insight that though war has an enduring nature, its character changes with time, space, social structure and culture. The fact that war’s character varies means that different actors may interpret, experience and, ultimately, wage war differently. The conflict between the ways that war is conceptualised in the prevailing Western and international discourse, and the manner in which it plays out on the ground is a key discussion point for scholars and practitioners in the field of international relations. Contributions combine insights from social theory, philosophy, sociology and strategic studies and ask directly what contemporary war is, and what the implications are for the future. This book will be of much interest to students of war studies, strategic studies, security studies and IR in general. Caroline Holmqvist-Jonsäter is currently completing a PhD in the conflation of war and policing in international conflicts at the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. Christopher Coker is Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE). He is the author of 11 books on war and security issues.

Scientific Essay from the year 2015 in the subject Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict, Security, , language: English, abstract: This paper discusses in varying detail the realities of the twenty-first-century battlefield environment. Unless practiced by large nation-states against each other, conventional warfare is a dying platform by which asymmetric warfare and terrorism have replaced the conventional warfare dynamic. Asymmetric warfare is defined as the blurring of the lines between politics, economics, combatants, civilians, and their context in the prosecution of war on an ever changing battlefield. Inclusive in this dynamic is cyber, communications, terrorism, the use of civilians as human shields and as both offensive and defensive weapons. Fourth generation warfare, as asymmetrical warfare has come to be known, is not new. It has existed in every war since the dawn of man. What is different is the total application of asymmetric components on a battlefield as a means to fight. The population-centric model, as espoused by the United States Army and Marine Corps, has now made it into the lexicon of air operations in Iraq, a segment of war prosecution it was never designed for. As a result, the Air Force has been subjected to mission paralysis and ultimately, mission failure. David Galula gave future military commanders guidance, not hard and fast rules. Rules of engagement have come to favor the enemy, and if the reality of war does not return to those in command, the United States may never win another war.