Skip to main content

Assessing America's War on Terror: Confronting Insurgency, Cementing Primacy

By Ashley J. Tellis  

During the 1990s the United States and its allies enjoyed a much sought-after period of prosperity and tranquility following the end of the Cold War. In hindsight, however, it is now apparent that Al Qaeda, a fiercely anti-American global terrorist network, was taking root in over sixty countries during this period, culminating in the devastating September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. 

The Bush administration, which had entered office determined to secure U.S. primacy amid the emergence of major power centers in Asia, such as China, soon found itself forced to confront a worldwide Islamist insurgency. 

This study analyzes the relevance of terrorist groups as substatal actors in international politics, their influence on deeper dynamics of the international system, and the challenges facing the United States posed by transnational terrorist organizations. 

It argues that international terrorism, although currently salient, does not necessarily replace or even alter the traditional concerns of international politics, but rather subsists among them. On balance, the United States has managed these interlocking challenges with partial success, and needs to pay greater attention to pursuing the legitimacy and protecting the economic foundations of its power. 

Failing to do so, or waging a poorly defined "war against all," carries the risk of far-reaching economic and political reverberations that may, in the not-too-distant future, enervate the United States, undermine its legitimacy as the sole superpower, and gradually erode continued American dominance in the world order.

Source: The National Bureau of Asian Research 2004

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Two Tales, Two Leaders - PART 1

Man has dual nature; he is both his own person and a member of his country. On the one hand, the law must protect the individual from the injustices of the multitude.  History has shown how individuals fall prey to mass perversity, their crime being simply a refusal to conform to the beliefs and prejudices of the majority. Anwar Ibrahim, The Asian Renaissance, 1997., Page 63. The value system and ethical code therefore determine the success or failure of corrective measures. If the value system is wrong, corrective measures will not be productive or will be only slightly productive. When the value system motivates, very little corrective measures are needed. Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, The Malay Dilemma, 1970., Pages 172-173. Introduction Malaysia is our motherland. We love our country. This country has so much of wealth. Even though, Malaysia has agonized considerably in past three decades because of the malpractices of the corrupted characters but she is never fail t...

Brexit: A lesson for Malaysians

Yesterday, Britons through a referendum made a decision to leave European Union. The ruling Conservative Party divided on this referendum and David Cameron in favour of ‘Remain’ was defeated outright. Even though he is disagreed with the decision of Britons, he announced that he is resigning from his premiership in respect of people’s decision. We can expect in a mature democracy country like United Kingdom this is vastly anticipated to be transpired.   A few days ago, the current Chief Commissioner of Malaysian Anti-Corruption of Commission made a statement that he is stepping down from his position and there are some rumours indicating that a few prominent officers from the said Commission will either resign or retire. It’s very eccentric news for Malaysians as it will have a profound impact on bribery and corruption issues in Malaysia as a whole. Recently, the results of two by elections were won by Barisan Nasional, the ruling party of Malaysia. Many promises had been...

Constitution of Malaysia: An Introduction Part 5

7 (1) No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed. (2) A person who has been acquitted or convicted of an offence shall not be tried again for the same offence except where the conviction or acquittal has been quashed and a retrial ordered by a court superior to that by which he was acquitted or convicted.