Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Terrorism is a transnational threat. There is no State of Al Qaeda. This raises at least two legal issues. First, international law concerning the use of force is defined by and relies upon the political apparati of the state system. Second, normative arguments about the use of force speak to the proper conduct of concentrated political authority, which since Westphalia is embodied in the sovereign state. How, then, are states to provide for the security of their citizens (and justify the means by which they do so) when confronted with non-state threats? Over the past few years, the Bush Administration has attempted (among other strategies) to territorialize the terrorist threat. That is, they have identified terrorist networks with particular states (e.g. Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria) and taken aggressive action against them. This linkage of threats with states has been an important foundation of arguments made by the United States about the legality of its War on Terrorism.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Given the strong preference of most status quo governments for aggressive action to isolate and destroy al-Qaeda, why has a global coalition against terrorism failed to emerge? The most common answer to this question is that the Bush Administration failed to capitalize on international sympathy after September 11th attacks on New York and Washington because its unilaterlism fractured the fragile coalition against international terrorism with the divisive Iraq war. This paper seeks to challenge this conventional view by arguing that while Bush's foreign policy has caused significant damage to America's standing abroad that three characteristics of the current international system have played a larger role in undermining efforts to establish a functioning coalition against global terrorism: (1) a lack of consensus among governments on the nature of the threat posed by al-Qaeda; (2) an imbalance of global military power which creates incentives for free-riding and soft-balancing by U.S. strategic partners and allies; and (3) a diverging strategic outlook between the populations in the centers of power in the U.S., Europe and Asia, which creates incentives for local leaders to attack U.S. efforts against terrorism for domestic political gain. Together, these three characteristics of the international system explain why despite strong state preferences for multilateral action against al-Qaeda that a coherent military and political strategy has yet to emerge. The power politics of a war on terror also reveal a tragic dimension to America's efforts to rally support against al-Qaeda, namely that the one state with the capacity to construct a global strategy to confront the threat of international terrorism will remain unable to do so in the absence of significant shifts in the power and preferences of its allies and partners.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: A century ago, terrorism was most often grounded in secular ideology -- anarchism, communism, nationalism or the like. And, the tactic of choice was the assassination of a highly visible political leader. In recent years the world has witnessed the emergence of a unique and innovative form of political violence. In stark contrast to the older form, scholars have identified a ?new terrorism? grounded largely in non-secular ideology; more specifically, an ideology of sacred proportions that traces its roots to traditional culture and fundamental religious beliefs rather than secular ideas.This ?new terrorism? differs in both ideology and scope, when compared to politically violent movements of a century ago. Al-Qaeda exemplifies this new paradigm largely on the basis of its millenarian character. This paper asserts that al-Qaeda?s legitimacy among radical Islamists rests on four distinct characteristics that, taken together, form a model of the ?new terrorism:? (1) the belief in an idealized future, (2) perceptions of a serious and pervasive threat ? one so dangerous that it imperils the very survival of the community, (3) the availability of a potential deliverer or savior, and (4) a search for community renewal or revitalization. Such a model provides a framework for the analysis.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The United States and Al Qaeda represent two fundamentally different forms of warfare. According to Christopher Coker, the US, with its basis in the Western way of warfare, relies on an almost totally instrumental form of warfare and Al Qaeda, with its basis in the Islamic way of warfare, fights an expressive, existential form of warfare. This paper illustrates how both sides' ways of warfare are converging toward each other through analysis of each sides strategic plans and operational acts. It also argues that this is in fact a good thing and that the United States should actively pursue a more expressive and existential form of warfare. This is because it will allow us to understand our enemy and thereby allow us to defeat him in terms he can understand, an instrumental view of warfare is in some ways weaker than an existential one and that it is necessary to adopt an existential approach in order to defeat an existential enemy.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The concept of a social script is used to analyze several different terrorist groups in the United Kingdon in recent years that have been led by or inspired by al-Qaeda, including the 7/7/05 London subway and bus bombings, the unsuccessful 7/21, 2005 attacks, and the aborted August, 2006 planned attacks to demonstrate the usefulness of the script concept used in conjunction with network analysis to understand the motivation and modus operandi of different terrorist cells or networks over time. The social network analyses are supplemented with qualitative analyses, including comparative analyses of important similarities and differences in the alienation currently being experienced by young Muslim, who are potential Islamic recruits to European terrorist cells in various European countries.