The difference between counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency is simple: counter-terrorism focuses more narrowly on combating the tactics and strategy of terrorism and those who employ it, while counter-insurgency is a broader category of responses to political violence carried out by minority groups, both terroristic and otherwise.
Counterinsurgency doctrine is arguably much less relevant than other means of conducting the war on terror. The military actions are the most publicised and easy to trace part of the war on terror, however, civilian organisations, internal and domestic politics and legislation can be more relevant and effective than the counterinsurgency doctrine that is being utilised in Iraq and Afghanistan today.
Terrorism is undoubtedly an issue at the forefront of security concerns, especially in the west as a result of the 9/11 attacks. But it is not a new concern. It has merely become more prominent due to the relatively recent attacks on the west and the resulting conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is terrorism as much of a threat as it is perceived to be?
Terrorism has become the most prominent security issue of the early 21st century and the response of western states to its dangers has also been highly controversial. Terrorism has existed since 66AD with the sicarii in Palestine whose activities “would qualify them as terrorists”. There are also many types of security with traditional and new security having differing views on where the emphasis of security should lie and what security actually is
Comparison between cases of ethnic conflict usually encounters scepticism. Unhappy nations like unhappy people, feel themselves to be unique. However analogies with other places have had a place in Northern Ireland. In general, these analogies appealed more to nationalists than it did to the unionists. It was only after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985 did unionist attitudes change
American efforts have not been directed at addressing the roots of terrorism. To the contrary, the US has instead focused on fighting the symptoms of terror, which resulted in a highly offensive approach which directly fostered hatred towards the US among Islamic communities.
Despite increases in military and civilian personnel to Afghanistan, the United States is losing the battle of perceptions. But the Coalition’s information operations can be improved.
The threat posed by extreme terrorism to the United Kingdom is both serious and ongoing, specifically since the catastrophic events 9/11 and 7/7. Security and liberty are both essential to modern democracy, but they do not hold equal value. Thus, security should be given greater weight than liberty in order to secure the state and prevent future terrorist attacks.
What is deemed ‘reasonable’ is not abstract and objective, but malleable. Due to this conflicting definition of what was ‘reasonable’, it became impossible for the warring sides to be reconciled.
This paper is an investigation on the conflict of our generation. From the ashes of the War on Terror arises the need to not only investigate the course of our actions, but also our understanding of those forces and phenomena to which we are committing both blood and treasure.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.
