Terrorism has become the most important threat regarding international stability in the 21st century. Though the Euro Atlantic community considers that it is of the utmost importance to eradicate it, it is not able to set up a common strategy. Since the war in Iraq, the Bush administration has developed the doctrine of the Global War on terrorism, in which military forces are used to defeat terrorists and terrorism. On the contrary, European countries have decided to prefer a strategy based on political and diplomatic means in order to defeat terrorism. This divergence in strategy to fight terrorism puts into question the unity in the Western world. The American military campaign in Iraq has shown its limits. Far from its initial goal, it has given a fresh impetus to terrorism. The terrorist attacks in Madrid and London have revealed the determination of those terrorist groups to punish the countries that supported the military action in Iraq.
[...] The Iraqi experience also showed that the global war on terrorism could “change terrorists into martyrs” (Eichler 2006: and lead to manipulate huge populations and thus create terrorist pool” (Bailes, 2005: 5). The repressive acts of the American Army in Iraq against the insurgents are also a source for Al-Qaeda to be seen as causalities of a brutal and unfair policy and thus use this false interpretation to recruit new members. The military strikes are necessary in a classical war which represents a direct violence. [...]
[...] This point of view contrasts with the English one which pretends that world needs a unique pole where Europe and the United States would be strategic partners Terrorism at the era of globalisation The new threat of global terrorism Since 9/11, analysts talk about “global terrorism” which represents the third step in the history of terrorism (Eichler, 2006: 8). The former ones were national terrorism and international terrorism. National terrorism main issue was to turn people's attention towards national stakes and to impose concrete evolvements in domestic policies. [...]
[...] On the contrary, the doves refuse war and favoreconomic influence and non violent threats; they also wish a strengthening of the UNO. Fighting against terrorism will remain the main axis of the American foreign policy for several years. Furthermore, it seems possible that the Unites States will have to reconsider its strategy and progressively shift from a unilateral policy to a multilateral one. The struggle against terrorism shows the difficulties to stick to its own sovereignty in a growing interdependent world. [...]
[...] In spite of the persistent problems, both approaches which have been drawn since 2002 global war on terrorism and the European security strategy are rather compatible than competitive. The goal is not to chose one in order to reject the other one. Indeed, in some situations the European “soft strategy” is perhaps more efficient. However we cannot deny that “hard strategy” is inescapable in other cases. That is why it seems important that the struggle against terrorism opens a path towards cooperation. [...]
[...] The main criticism is the fact that the United States have an “astonishing preference for military solutions” as response to terrorism (“Beyond Pre-emption and Preventive Policy Analysis Brief., February 2006, p Theoretical debates on the global war doctrine The Neo-conservative doctrine. A first characteristic of the neo-conservative thought is unilateralism, which may lead to some extend to imperialism. Imperialism finds its roots in the traditional American exception. According to Pierre Hassner (2002, quoted in Trépant, 2004: 25) Neo-conservatives are: “radically partisan for sovereignty and radically interventionist regarding the others”. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
