Radicalized Islamic terrorism does not necessarily pose the greatest risk to national security, but rather non-Islamic extremist organizations are an increasingly imminent danger.
Empirical and rhetorical evidence within the context of America’s prosecution of the War on Terror ultimately supports the contention that it is not over. ‘Who won?’ then becomes hypothetical.
Despite the US’ claims of self-defence and terrorist eradication, it can be argued that the NATO invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001 was not legal under international law.
Politicising human rights reduces their potential to act as a standard against which regimes can be measured and affects power in the international sphere. The War on Terror is an example of this trend.
This essay critically assesses the validity of the 9/11 Commission’s assertion that the teachings of Ibn Taymiyya, the 13th century Hanbali theologian, influenced al-Qaeda to terrorism.
The War on Terror marked a new security culture of anticipatory surveillance problematic in producing a sense of security that stretches beyond the political realm.
From all of the threats falling under the cyber umbrella, acts carried out to cause terror and loss of life through damage to critical infrastructure present the largest danger.
Drones have evolved within the strategic framework of the U.S. defense community, and are now poised to play a focal role in the future of American power.