You can view this on the NLA website. Login Register. Advanced search Search history. Browse titles authors subjects uniform titles series callnumbers dewey numbers starting from optional. See what's been added to the collection in the current 1 2 3 4 5 6 weeks months years. Your reader barcode: Your last name:. Cite this Email this Add to favourites Print this page.
You must be logged in to Tag Records. Hamm Conclusion. In the Library Request this item to view in the Library's reading rooms using your library card. Order a copy Copyright or permission restrictions may apply.
Yet tonight the international partnerships most important to us are weakened: the European Union is divided; the Security Council is in stalemate. Those are heavy casualties of a war in which a shot has yet to be fired. In his view, the widespread perceptions of the lack of US wisdom regarding the invasion of Iraq has led to a general weakening of US legitimacy in the international arena.
As you read, take some notes on:. Cox identifies the particular problems facing US policy makers and the characteristics of contemporary US power. He also identifies a number of particular problems, which again raise questions about the nature of contemporary US power and how it might establish legitimacy for its current global activities Cox, In this part, we look at whether the war on terror has been a success for the US, using opposing viewpoints to argue the case for and against.
Not all observers have shared the doubts about US power reported in the previous section, and some have remained more sanguine about its global exercise. Click to view An American foreign policy for a unipolar world. Others also endorsed the globalist, democratic realist approach. Edward Luttwak, for one, thought that the Bush conduct of the war on terror has been largely successful:. While anti-terrorist operations have been successful here and there in a patchy way, and the fate of Afghanistan remains in doubt, the far more important ideological war has ended with a spectacular global victory for President Bush.
From Morocco to Indonesia, governments appeased militants at home while encouraging them to focus their violent activities abroad Other than the Algerian and Egyptian governments, every Muslim state preferred at least to coexist with militant preachers and jihadis in some way Sophisticates everywhere ridiculed the uncompromising Bush stance, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists," as a cowboy stunt, but it was swiftly successful. Governments across the Muslim world quickly changed their conduct.
Some moved energetically to close down local jihadist groups they had long tolerated, to silence extremist preachers and to keep out foreign jihadis they had previously welcomed. Suddenly, active Islamists and violent jihadists suffered a catastrophic loss of status. Instead of being admired, respected or at least tolerated, they had to hide, flee or give it up.
Numbers started to shrink. The number of terrorist incidents outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq keeps going down, while madrassas almost everywhere have preferred toning down their teachings to being shut down.
In Indonesia, the largest Muslim country, the dominant association of imams condemns all forms of violence without exception In Pakistan Bush forced the most dramatic reversal of policy. Jihadism has been largely confined to Iraq and the border zones of Pakistan. Writing in , he leaves the question of a third, or subsequent, rounds open although he does makes some suggestions as to the factors that might be decisive Nye, He also directs attention to the problematic nature of the global system that exists today and the absence of restraints on the imprudent exercise of power by the US.
Nye, Finally, what are the perceptions in other parts of the world, in the Middle East and the Arab World, an area of critical importance in terms of current military commitments and the ongoing struggle against jihadist terrorism?
Following September 11, various regional organizations created new legal mechanisms to fight terror. Part II compares the post—September 11, , era with the — period. Other ad hoc disarmament efforts are also gaining ground: in December , for example, the United States assisted Ukraine in shipping pounds of highly enriched uranium to Russia. Television and Rejali, D. I found the text to be accurate overall although the latest research and statistics are primarily from and
Some information on this question emerged in a symposium on the Middle East held in Washington in I have been polling in six countries — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon — for the past five years with Zogby International to look at a variety of attitudes, not only attitudes toward the United States. Two things have happened over the past five years. One that we began detecting in , , after the collapse of the Camp David negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians was the decline in trust in the United States.
Trust is different from the question, do you like our foreign policies? Do you have confidence in the government? What we have seen is a dramatic decline in the confidence measure, particularly after the collapse of the Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. Second, in the most recent survey, the United States is now seen as a primary threat. In an open question that I asked — name the two countries that are the most threatening to you — the vast majority of people in every country named the United States and Israel as the two countries that are most threatening to them.
Iran, you would think, would be seen as a threat, at least in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. However, those who identified it as a threat were is the single digits.
This tells you, again, that the Iraq War has become a new prism through which Arabs are looking at the United States and the Middle East. They have used all of these seeming trends — the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in the Palestinian areas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and so forth — as examples of this rising tide that endorses a pan-Islamic agenda. The evidence is not there. On the contrary, al-Qaeda has not been able to win hearts and minds.
Most people have not endorsed its agenda.
In fact, when asked what aspect of al-Qaeda do you sympathize with most, only 6 percent say that they sympathize with their advocacy of a puritanical Islamic state. Only 7 percent say that they sympathize with their methods. A plurality say that they like the fact that they are standing up to the United States. This is a negative, not a positive. If you look at these other Islamic groups and also at the positions of the public on social issues, you find that they are rejecting the agenda advocated by al-Qaeda, but they win by default because of the anger toward the United States.
This activity invites you reflect what you learnt so far, by considering one of two questions. It may help you to write down your thoughts; aim for about 1, words. This question encourages you to define modern terrorism as variously discussed in section 2. In thinking about the nature and form of modern terrorism, you need to draw on your work from sections 2 and 3. You need to also carefully consider the relationships between terrorism and asymmetrical and symmetrical forms of warfare as defined in section 3. You need to draw some conclusion based upon your reading and reflection of the materials you have encountered.
Answers to this question will draw on sections 3, 4 and 5 of the course. The media have become increasingly integral to the organisation of contemporary societies. Indeed, for the majority of Western populations, it is now television, newspapers, radio and the internet that provide the primary sources of information regarding political events. While the media often appear to provide a clear and impartial analysis, it is first important to recognise that media production is rarely a politically neutral process.
This is not to say that the events portrayed in, say, news and current affairs are simply works of fiction invented by journalists, but rather to suggest that what is often authoritatively presented as real, factual and objective is actually constructed through a process of selection. This process, when examined, can often reveal how embedded social and political values and organisational processes can work to produce different 'realities' of any given situation.
You should bear this selectivity in mind as you tackle the readings chosen for this section's study. The attack on the World Trade Centre on 11 September provided a set of powerful and dramatic images that, as a result of modern telecommunications, were able to be rapidly transmitted around the globe — images that in the immediate aftermath were exhaustively repeated, analysed and pored over by horrified and fascinated media audiences.
Indeed it was perhaps the striking and shocking visual spectacle of the attack that made it so amenable to constant replay and expert analysis. The second part of the extract is concerned with the ways in which the manipulation of the media has now become central to operations of contemporary terrorism. Now read the extract. As you read, try and answer the following questions, taking notes as you go:.
Click to view Mass-mediated terrorism: The central role of the media in terrorism and counter-terrorism. One argument suggested by Nacos, that political groups now fully understand the power of the media for disseminating and amplifying the impacts of their actions, has also been taken up by Retort You will have already touched on their arguments regarding the war on terror and the oil lobby in section 4.
This is controversial in so far as we may never know the precise motivations of the hijackers, or how they could guarantee in advance that the media would be on hand to witness the event directly. Yet Retort are surely correct in their assertion that the attacks helped underline how the media have now become a crucial vehicle for the public dissemination of terrorist causes and actions. Retort further argue that both terrorists and governments are now involved in what they term an 'image-war' — a battle to control public opinion through manipulating the daily flow of media events, images and discourses.
The next reading deals with this issue. Kellner provides an overview account of the activities of US and other media and George Bush's Government, in the early days of the Iraq War. Read the extract , taking notes as you go. Then attempt to answer the following questions:. Such attempts to create positive spectacles underlines the importance attached by the US to ensuring, not just a military victory, but what Retort would refer to as an image victory.