Abstract
International terrorism is one of the critical threats that the world faces today. However, one of the most affected nations in the world is the United States of America. This aspect is informed by the fact that the hegemonic status of the US in the political, economic, and cultural perspectives made it a prime target for terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda whose ideologies contrasts with the strategies and policies adopted by the US. The 9/11 attacks in the US marked the turning point in American policy on dealing with global terrorism. The attacks were carried out on American soil resulting in a significant number of civilian deaths. The deaths reflected the extreme hatred that the terror cells harbored against the US and the West as a whole. The resultant War on Terror has caused significant geopolitical changes to many countries around the world. The surge of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria can be traced to the start of the counterterrorism measures in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Moreover, the threat of terrorism has led to significant sociocultural and political transformations of the West. The highlight of these changes is the surge of Islamophobia and anti-immigration sentiments throughout the US and European countries. Therefore, the surge of terrorism threats has been met with a surge in far right extremism around the West. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness the current counterterrorism approaches in relation to Europe and the US’ internal challenge of right wing extremism. The study will utilize extensive analysis of secondary data collected from books, journals, peer-reviewed articles, magazines, newspapers, and documentaries. The data was subsequently evaluated through thematic analysis.
Table of Contents
1.1.1 Terrorism and Organized Crime. 5
1.1.2 Nexus between the two. 6
1.2 Statement of the Problem.. 7
1.3 Research Objectives and Questions. 8
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW… 9
2.3 The Impact of Terrorism.. 13
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION.. 19
4.1 The Impact of Terrorism.. 19
4.2 Islamophobia and Far-right Extremism in the U.S. 21
4.2 Islamophobia and Far-right Extremism in Europe. 24
4.4 Counterterrorism Measures. 27
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background Analysis
Terrorism has become a reality in the daily routines where various groups across the word have embraced the act. Recently, the terrorist actions have been substantially reported mostly in Islamic groups consisting of ISIS, Qaeda, Taliban, and El Shabaab, who have become enemies of humanity.[1] David has stated that they have succeeded in several attacks making the international peace and security at great risk. The attacks have been associated with several deaths, injuries, and destruction of the infrastructure, which have increased fear among the nations. More recently, the Islamic State has attracted universal attention due to the growing rate of terror attacks and kidnappings. The group’s acts have mobilized the international community to address the issue despite the increased the challenges. The international society has thus, adopted the use of many global anti-terrorism types of equipment where their signatories are supposed to enhance them under their legitimate.
Terrorism has been described to be a highly contextual situation that has been studied and talked about severally. It is common that most of the terrorism occur as a result of complex relations between people, organization and the environment. The kinds of terrorism range from ethno-nationalism, religious conflict among others which occur within distinct contexts. In every context, there exist several grievances to motivate the terrorists and their core followers along the equipment that facilitate their actions.[2] For this study, radical extremism and the convoluted religious views and ideologies are significant in their decision to practice the terrorist activities where they honored and acknowledged harmful conducts. The violent activities, thus, articulated their future missions and explained their grievances such as socioeconomic disadvantages and inadequate justice which the target audience seems illegal.[3] Importantly contemporary terrorist teams, like Islamic State begin as small groups though they later become empowered them to spread across borders through the Middle East and spill over into Europe and North America.[4] Their stay together has made their strategic attacks more successful since there is no much disruption of their plans from their members.[5]
1.1.1 Terrorism and Organized Crime
Terrorism is the intimidation and violence to persons either the government or the civilians to embrace social, economic or political advantages. The terrorist actions occurred not later than the 1970s; when French revolution happened. People embracing terrorism refers to it as ‘a freedom fighting strategy’ while any government suffering the laws impacts refers to it as ‘a criminal act that leads to terror, fear, confusion, and mistrust between the citizens.’ Europe is negatively affected by the terror acts and defines it as malice activity aiming at harming the nation or other international firms. Notably, terrorism originates from simple disagreements in ideas, principles or individuals.[6] The disputes are mainly as a result of unconscious opposition between the views of different groups. It turns into serious conflicts since a large number of people consider the early stage warnings, and if the conflicts are overlooked, they eventually result into severe crisis such as terrorism where the parties intervene. As a result, it becomes anti-terrorism when the government waits until terror attacks occur rather than employing preventive actions before the occurrences.
According to Sampson, if impending conflicts are recognized earlier, it would be easier for nations to predict and prevent natural disasters which destabilize the country’s peace. Cooperation among individuals could serve to solve conflicts. For the Islamic State insurgency, their plans began earlier; it was characterized by destruction of religious sites, destabilization of election, societal conflicts and violence attacks. More demonstrations prevailed which resulted in foreign intervention. The need for the ISIS to take power over more territories in Iraq, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East region has led to serious conflicts that have turned into terrorism actions. It created a lot of political scandals that increased violence rates rising tension across the country and their neighbors.[7] The U.S. has gained national interest in Middle East due to the subsequent surge of ISIS.[8] They aim to assist the country in maintaining security in the Northern part by reducing the power of the group to attack European territories until a final solution is obtained.
Crime
Many law policies investigations and prosecution of ISIS has identified a nexus between the commercial businesses like oil sales with terrorists’ organizations. Consequently, this acts as a source of capital for the group to purchase weapons and fuel their cars.[9]
1.1.2 Nexus between the two
The significant combination of the politically dominant teams and the planned crime networks in the Middle East results in destabilized security issues in their government (Barras, 2015). In both the North and the South regions, most youths with higher access to information and unmet high expectations have been engaged in terrorist attacks. In fact, the situation has led to high frustration levels which boost the aggressiveness and violence attitudes. The drives to the militant groups are the ethnic, social, economic and political factors. Therefore, this suggests that the conflicts could be maintained for prolonged periods due to highly potential supporters.
Additionally, David explains that there have been blurred links between the rebel troops and the political officials. In spite of this, some of the famous politicians have been associated with the rebelling groups as sponsors, funding, and supervisory activities and exploiting new ways of accessing a wide variety of economies to settle their political status. The connection between the two has also increased corruption rates and insecurity making the association between the Iraqi and Syrian governments and their civilians fragile. There has thus, evolved an impoverished community and a rich one who area is investing in the private sectors since they can easily access the corrupt funds.[10] The unworthy relationship hinders cooperation of the whole nation to gather the intelligent ideas that would combat crime and terrorism actions.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The threat of terrorism has been influential in determining foreign policies adopted by the US as well as European nations. In fact, it has influenced many relations with countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) regions. However, with increased immigration and sophisticated methods used by modern terror groups such as ISIS to recruit, the threat has morphed and become more difficult to gather intelligence and thwart. With the surge of homemade terrorism or lone wolf attacks in the US and across Europe, the issue has increasingly become pertinent in determining local politics. This has come in the form of right wing extremism manifested through broad Islamophobia in both the US and European countries. As a result, there is a need to evaluate the rationale and effectiveness of the current counterterrorism approaches adopted by the West, and whether they are playing a part in the increasing cases of Islamophobia. The mainstreaming of such stereotyping of a religion poses a massive danger to the liberal rights of equality in the West. This study seeks to establish the effectiveness of the current counterterrorism measures and the correlation between terrorism and the surge of right wing extremism in Europe and the US as well.
1.3 Research Objectives and Questions
1.3.1 Research Objectives
The study seeks to evaluate the following objectives:
- To evaluate the effectiveness of the current counterterrorism methods in thwarting attacks, preventing recruitment, and destroying the terrorist groups.
- To assess the relationship between right wing extremism and Islamophobia.
- To evaluate the impact of Islamophobia on the counterterrorism measures.
1.3.2 Research Objectives
- What is the effectiveness of the current counterterrorism methods in thwarting attacks, preventing recruitment, and destroying the terrorist groups?
- What is the relationship between right wing extremism and Islamophobia?
- What is the impact of Islamophobia on the counterterrorism measures?
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Terrorism
According to Taylor[11], terrorism is the application of violence to create fear among people to attain a religious or political objective. It originated in the late 18th century during the French revolution. The use of the term terrorism became popular in the year 1981-1989 during the times of Ronald Reagan the U.S president. The act of terrorism is usually used by the governments or the non-state individuals to abuse or condemn the opposing group (Taylor, 2014). The act of terrorist is supposed to send a warning to a recognized institution from an illegal secret organization. Many terrorists’ actions are motivated by conflict between races, political exiles and leaders or disagreement among the rich and the poor. However, contemporary terrorism has deviated from the conventional literary norms established in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks in the US. At the time, terrorism was largely confined to the Middle East and many assumed that it could be easily contained. However, over the years, the threat of terror has evolved to reflect the socio-economic and religious issues ravaging the Middle East and the relationship between Islam and the West.[12] The emergence of ISIS underscores the massive and deep-seated suspicion of the West in the Middle East and Islam as a religion. Additionally, the nature of the threat has also evolved to include lone wolves, online recruitment and self-radicalization.[13] These new forms have presented unprecedented terrorist threats to many Western democracies including the EU, UK, and the US.
Many terrorists’ attacks are inspired by a particular understanding of religious scriptures. For instance, the two related groups, Al-Qaida and IS tried to justify their violent actions as part of the movement against the unbelievers.[14] However, studies of terror groups indicate that the hatred or suspicion of the West is a rallying cry of many of these terrorist groups to recruit and have a sentimental connection with the masses. These groups do not restore human rights or protect the needs of their subjects once they take over regions. For example, ISIS’ presence in Iraq has led to intensified violence, destruction of property, loss of lives, and implementation of harsh “Islamic” laws designed to instill loyalty to the caliphate.[15]
In fact, IS wants to create a Caliphate which will be a state ruled by Islamic. The act of terrorism is determined by what the group involved intends to achieve. Terrorism can be a strategy put aside by the insurgent group to send the message to the other team. ISIS has also brought up unprecedented trends where many disenfranchised youth from the West have joined fighters in Syria and Iraq. This has exposed the vulnerability of many youth in Europe and the US, especially those that do not feel part of the country’s economic and social fabric. It also indicates that the problem of terrorism cannot be viewed as purely religious; rather, it has socioeconomic facets that are equally powerful as a driver of recruitment for these terror groups.[16]
Many literatures indicate that Islam is the primary driver of terrorism. However, contemporary terrorism indicates that these assumptions might not reflect the complete reality. The cultural response from the West in the aftermath of 9/11 attacks was a backlash against Islam and people with an Arab or Persian-descent. In fact, this behavior became strongly entrenched in the behavior of many people in the society, including law enforcement, airports authorities, and transport personnel as well.[17] The stereotyping of a terrorist as a “long-bearded,” or “Muslim” created a massive challenge for many American or European Muslims. The discrimination against one tribe has led to institutionalization and “culturalization” of Islamophobia in the US and Europe as well.
In the US, it is manifested in the form of biased airport checks for Muslims or Arabs, suspicion of Muslim members of the society as evil and out to destroy the US, and recently, the banning of travel of people from targeted Islamic countries. This behavior is consistent with Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978), which depicted a stereotyping of the Middle East in American popular media. Additionally, recent years have witnessed a massive surge in right-wing sentiments in the US and across Europe. In France, although Marine la Pen’s National Front was defeated in the 2017 French elections, the anti-Muslim and anti-immigration sentiments expressed during the course of the lection showed significant traction in the country.[18] The UK’s Brexit vote was also a rejection of immigration policies that could allow “too many” Muslims felling crises such as the Syrian civil war to settle in the UK. The surge of right wing politics in Europe has also been witnessed in Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, and other nations in the EU. In part, this is a rejection of multiculturalism, globalization, and open-border policies. However, it is also a manifestation of the growing Islamophobia throughout Europe.[19]
Studies have argued that terrorist attacks in Europe and across the US have increased the animosity against Islam. The attacks in Charlie Hebdo, Brussels, Paris Attacks, London, Orlando, and recently New York demonstrate an escalation of the terror attacks on Western targets. In many cases, these attacks have been inspired by ISIS and its affiliates. Therefore, the right wing arguments have mainly centered on the prevention of immigration of Muslims into their respective countries, having strong borders, and extreme vetting of any Muslims entering the countries.[20]
2.2 War on terrorism
The war on terror has been raging since the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the US. Strategically, the war has undergone several adaptations, changes, and transformations within this time. This is an indication of the scale of the challenge the West faces in fighting terrorist groups. The difficulty has primarily been centered on the evolution of the terror threat, the embedding of such terrorist groups with massive Middle eastern culture, and the morphing of the threat to present a massive danger from within the US and European countries as well.[21] The invasion of the Afghanistan drove the Taliban off power; however, the subsequent invasion of Iraq created a massively unstable region, which has led to the sprouting of ISIS into a dominant, cruel, and dangerous terror group in the region and across the world. Meanwhile, the Taliban have regrouped in Afghanistan and in the tribal areas of Northern Pakistan to pose a threat to Afghani and coalitions forces still in the country.[22] As a result, it has been extremely difficult to measure the effectiveness or success rate of the counter-terrorism measures. This is partly because of the extensive nature of the counterterrorism measures. This is often an elaborate and intricate approach that combines intelligence gathering, covert operations, boots on the ground operations, and use of drones, sanctions, and tools at the disposal of the West.
For example, the use of drones to strike terrorist targets was largely utilized under the Obama administration. In fact, the intelligence approach enabled the US to kill Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.[23] However, the Obama administration was been roundly criticized for the exit from Iraq, which is blamed for creating the gap that caused the surge of ISIS. However, the initial invasion of Iraq has also been blamed for the entire instability of the region, which helps breed terrorist groups. Therefore, the counter-terrorism measures have achieved significant success. However, they have also failed, which is why terrorism is still a pertinent and dangerous threat to Western democracy.
2.3 The Impact of Terrorism
The terrorist activities have led to the mass killing in the United States. Many people have lost their lives during the various attacks that have happened in the country. For instance, the terror attacks that killed over 3000 individual in the United States. It has increased the foreign and national suspicion. Many workers from outside the nation would not like to work with the companies or factories near the terror attacks happenings. At the same time, the investors would not want to invest in the country to avoid making losses.[24] This reduces the economy of the United States, and it becomes hard for them to recover from it. Additionally, the fear of terrorist attack would cause many workers to stay at home.[25] This makes all the companies and factories dormant thereby reducing the amount of output from the U.S factories. The consumer spending would lower due to the tension caused by the terrorists.[26] Therefore, due to reduced consumer spending the economy of the U.S which primarily depends on the spending decreases.[27]
Geopolitically, the war on terror has been the underlying driving factor in many relations between the West and many Middle Eastern countries. In this case, major countries like Egypt (Muslim Brotherhood), Saudi Arabia (Shia extremism), and Iran (Sunni extremism) have been condemned for proxy wars and conflicts in the region.[28] For example, the current crisis in Yemen has been blamed on Saudi Arabia and Iran that are supporting opposing sides.
The funding of the war on terror to deal with the terrorist cost the U.S economy a lot. The government had to set aside money to buy the equipment to be used by the military. The war on terror used almost 1.126 trillion dollars of the government spending. The defense spending on the 9/11 attacks increased the United States debt crisis. During these attacks, fewer jobs were created thereby producing less government tax revenue. The reduction of income led to the increase in the debt. Therefore, there were fewer funds to allocate to the infrastructure repair and replace the damaged properties.[29] The bombing lowered the integrity of the nation. Indeed, no investors would want to invest in the country during that time bearing in mind that the security of their properties is at stake. Moreover, the foreign exchange from the tourists reduced at that time of the attack. No tourist would like to go to a nation where violence from terror is the news update all the time. They would instead choose to go to another country where their safety is assured.
In both the US and Europe, right wing sentiments, Islamophobia, and anti-immigration ideas have gained traction in these societies alongside the surge of terrorism. Therefore, Islamophobia could partly be attributed to the fear created by terror attacks, the savagery of shootings like Charlie Hebdo and the suffering caused by attacking innocent revelers in Paris or passengers in Brussels. Therefore, more and more people have expressed ideas supporting a ban on immigration to curb any attacks and loss of innocent lives.
The activities by the terrorists have caused significant changes of the mind of many Europeans. The recent attacks by terrorists have made the citizens feel insecure. Therefore, they had to introduce security measures like checking the luggage at various stations. The attacks uncovered the weakness of the EU state borders which came from the Schengen Agreement whose role was to open borders between the member states. The criminals who attacked Brussels and Paris on November 2015 crossed the boundaries with liberty.[30] The EU had to strengthen the control they had over the external borders. It was to protect the citizens from the firearms traffickers and the illegal immigrants. This increased the EU members to take measures of taking the passengers credentials who want to cross the borders. The EU member state decided to decree a state of emergency and to increase the security forces.
The attacks have led to the rise of the popularity of the far-right parties. These parties were to drive in the campaigns against the anti- Muslims and anti-migrants. For instance, the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands has tried to increase their influence on anti-Muslim and anti-immigration.[31] The attacks have caused mass killing in the nation. Many people have died during that period of the attacks. It has also led to the destruction of properties worth billion dollars. The country suffered the withdrawal of tourists who would have wanted to visit the nation. Thereby, decreasing the foreign exchange that the European government would have gotten from the tourists.[32] As a result, the economy of the country continues to decline. Less or no investors wanted to invest in Europe and this negatively affected the economy of Europe.
Moreover, high-profile terrorist attacks have led to employment growth in security sectors. The administrations had to employ many soldiers to act as security defenders in Europe.[33] However, this has increased the government spending on that sector which would instead be spent on development projects. Increase in this spending in one sector of security has caused a lot on the economy of the nation. In fact, the government had to use more money to fund the military that were to fight against the terrorist.[34] The attacks which occurred in 2004 of the Madrid train bombings could affect the defeat of the binding center-right government. The attacks came three days before the Spanish election took place. People were moving from the nation to the country where they felt they had an assurance for their safety.
The decision made by the leaders to close the borders has affected the trade that was carried out between the trade unions. Therefore, no traders were allowed to cross the boundaries, and this would continue to change the economy if the leaders do not make a wise decision. The country integrity on security matters was destroyed by the news of the bombing that took place.[35] People did not feel secure to cross the borders as they used to before the attacked. Thereby, this affected the Europe international relations with other countries. The workers who had arrived in Europe from other countries to work in Europe industries would no longer go to work. In fact, most of them chose to fly back home for their safety.
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
The concept of terrorism is increasingly relevant throughout Europe and the US. It is heavily covered in commentaries of written and broadcast media. It has also been the subject of many studies since 9/11 attacks.[36] Therefore, the response to terror attacks, the war on terror, the cultural adjustments, transition of sentiments, rise of right wing sentiments, anti-immigration, and Islamophobia have all be studies broadly. This paper seeks to evaluate the limits of international counter-terrorism policies (with special reference to Europe and US) and its implications for Islamophobia and far right extremism. As a result, the study was primarily carried out through the analysis of secondary data. This approach was convenient, fast, cheap, and safe to carry out. Additionally, this approach offered the study a retrospective view of many terrorist events in the past, responses by both the governments and the people in the aftermath.[37] Therefore, secondary data provided this study with the benefit of hindsight and a retrospective examination of many of the actions and behaviors adopted in the lead-up to, during, and aftermath of the terrorist attacks. This provided a vantage point to evaluate the effectiveness of the counterterrorism approaches and strategies adopted by the West.[38]
Thematic analysis was primarily used to evaluate the collected data (both qualitative and quantitative data. In this case, themes such as right wing extremism in the US and Europe, the rise of anti-immigration sentiments in the West, and Islamophobia were analyzed extensively with the context of the broader counterterrorism strategies adopted[39] by the West in the Middle East as well as at home.[40] Comparative analysis of the responses from Europe and UK to terror threats, the evolution of terrorism, and the surge of Islamophobia was carried out.
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 The Impact of Terrorism
The study establishes that the primary effect of terror acts is in the lives of people. The attacks have caused loss of many lives in various countries that have experienced the attack. The bombing that is carried out by the attackers lives hundreds of people dead. Many lives of both civilians and the army trying to stop the terrorist from attacking have been lost. Therefore, they are likely to move to other countries for safety. The attacks have managed to damage the integrity of a nation. People from all over the world will have a wrong impression about a nation which has reported more bombing from the terrorist. Additionally, the attack will confuse the country as no one knows what will happen tomorrow and which spot is the terrorist target. They will leave in fear in their own country and this is not good for the development of the nation.
Terrorist attacks have many impacts on the economy globally. Firstly, the attacks destroy the economy directly. In fact, terrorists destroy the machines, infrastructure, and workers who would have helped in building the economy. Terrorism causes physical damage to everything around the place of attacks. High-profile attacks are known to destroy billions of money and properties and to kill millions of productive workers.[41] By destroying resources which would have generated goods and services affect the economy negatively. Secondly, the attacks have increased the insecurity in the marketplace. It affects even the people who do not live near the place of attacks.[42] The markets find it difficult to recover from the loss and tension caused by the terrorist attacks. For instance, markets which were shut down after September 11, did not improve fast from the attack. Threats from the terrorists which are publicly announced make the marketers more resistance to continue working. Moreover, the investors find it hard to invest in these markets, and this makes the economy of the nation worsen.
Thirdly, it negatively affects the sector of tourism and trade. Indeed, there is no tourist will be attracted to a nation which is full of chaos. They will choose to stay at home rather than having to visit some parts which have tension over terrorist attacks. As a result, it reduces the foreign exchange that the tourists contribute to the economy of the nation.[43] Thereby, the more the tension the terrorist cause in a country the less the tourists are attracted to the place. Additionally, country trading with each other will not be comfortable with the environment. The trading partners will decide to look for traders elsewhere rather than trading with a country full of tension from terror attacks. It will reduce the amount the state gained from the traders, and this reduces the economy of the country. Fourthly, the attacks increase foreign and national suspicion. The attacks raise the distrust of workers from outside the country and the investors.[44] Thereby, no worker will be willing to work in places of terror thus reducing the output from the factories. Additionally, investors would not want to invest somewhere security is at stake for fear of losing their properties. As a result, it reduces the overall profit that the economic gains from the investors and the imported workers.
The surge of right wing extremism in the West can, in part, be attributed to the failure of counterterrorism to eliminate the threat. In this case, right wing sentiment focuses on the threat, savagery, inhumanity, and relentless ambition of terrorist to destroy the West as a foundation for their hate for Islam and Muslims. They point to the failure of the last 10 years of the War on Terror as a need to change tact to prevent terrorists from “flowing” into the West. For example, the recent immigration crisis in Europe occasioned by the ongoing civil war in Syria exposed the increasing Islamophobia in major European countries. This is especially the case in countries such as the UK and France that have a significant number of Muslim citizens. Therefore, the study indicates that terrorism and the failure of counterterrorism measures over the last decade have established the platform for the surge of right wing extremism and Islamophobia in the West.
4.2 Islamophobia and Far-right Extremism in the U.S.
Islamophobia refers to the intense dislike or fear of the Muslim religion mostly by a political organization. Islamophobia causes the far-right extremism. Hate criminal actions against the Muslims have increased considerably. For instance, a mosque in Texas was put on fire by a group of people who said to be anti-Muslim extremist. The report made by FBI stated that most hate crimes against Muslims that were taken to police started sooner following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. In the year 2001, there were almost 481 crimes reported against the Muslims.[45] The year before there were only 28 criminal cases reported. However, other administration data opposed to the police data saying that they had undercounted the hate crimes. The data from different institutions showed that there were a higher number of hate crimes in a year. The respondents said that they did not report most of the crimes to the police. The FBI report states that the number of hate crimes against Muslims was 257 in the year 2015. It was the second-highest number of hate crimes against Muslim since the FBI started to record.[46]
A study conducted by university students showed that Christians acquire employment more than Muslims. In fact, for every job applied by both parties Christians will have a higher percent to get feedback. Only a few Muslims will have feedback from the same position. It doesn’t mean that Muslims does not qualify to be employed in that job, but it is due to fear of Muslims in the United States. The employers feared engaging Muslims since they were highly known to be terrorists.[47] The employers would even provide a reason for not hiring the Muslims saying that the headscarf they wore is against the policies of the company. The Muslims were getting more rejections from the school administration. Many schools feared that the Muslim children would introduce an act of terrorism in the schools.
Moreover, United States has introduced a security policy regarding the attacks on 9/11. American airports have decided to defend themselves from the terrorist who would want to cross to their country. Therefore, they have introduced a measure that would ensure that all airports have security checks for the Arabs and Americans.[48] The security policy proved that the United States feared the Muslim as they believe that they took part in the attacks on 9/11. Islamophobia is noted during the process of immigration. It has mostly affected the male child of the Muslim population. It is because the male Muslim is seen to put more threats than the females. Many Muslims have been deported, and others were having their visa canceled.
The Far-right is the cause of the many United States plots and terror attacks than then Islamists. Many reports show that; many terror incidents were caused by right-wing extremists than the Muslims. The terrorist’s attacks in the documentary of the United States were undertaken by the American citizens and the supremacists. The attacks caused by far-right extremists usually lead to much loss of lives compared to the Islamic invasions. Trump through his twitter condemns the activities of Islamic terrorism.[49] He did not comment when the Muslims were asked not to leave the mosque. He has a firm belief that the Muslims cause more terror attacks in America. However, Muslim also suffered terrorists’ attacks meaning that they are not the only group who can organize an attack. For instance, many Muslims were cut down while outside the mosque by a man in a van. The police investigation reported that the incident was a terrorist attack. However, the suspect was arrested and kept in custody.
The attacks on Muslims left many of them dead, and the witness had witnessed the killer shouted that he was going to kill the Muslims. Therefore, a war against Muslims in the United States is still on as many people fear them. The number of hate crimes has increased since far-right terrorists killed an MP Jo Cox. The attacks were against minority tribal group, religions and blacks. The government has concentrated on ending the Muslim terror attacks but has failed to recognize that far-right extremists cause other attacks.[50] In fact, the action taken by the government to tackle the right-wing terrorist has created a favorable environment for them to generate scandals. The government has considered the Muslim the fundamental cause of attacks and ignored the dangerous groups of whites’ extremists who are as dangerous as any other terrorists.
The leaders did not have a better way to bring the divided communities together. In fact, some like Theresa were practicing the policy of divide and rule. Therefore, providing a better climate for the terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, if they become united, they could deal with the terrorist. No one group would want to revenge each other for an incident that killed their people. The government should focus in all terrorist and not only the Muslims.[51] The earlier the government understands that even the far-right terrorist is dangerous, the more they will be able to deal with them too. The party should unite its people without considering whether you are a Muslim or white. The mentality they put in people’s mind about the Muslims created hatred among the citizens.
4.2 Islamophobia and Far-right Extremism in Europe
A study carried out in several counties in Europe reveals that the fear of Muslims has been increasing. Therefore, threatening the uniformity among Muslim and any other religion. In fact, Islamophobia has a motivating aspect to the much violence regarding the anti-Muslim. Increase in fear of Muslims has affected the democracy of the countries around Europe. In Europe, Muslims are viewed as the enemies.[52] Thereby, physical attacks against them can be carried out to eliminate them. They also can be restricted from having a political voice. The government believes that Muslims cannot be trusted and that they are the enemies of other Europeans wellbeing. Islamophobia is found in all walks of life to all those who have been given a wrong impression about the Islam and Muslims. It is enacted to the poor and middle-class citizens and to those who are educated. Indeed, no group seems to view Muslims as good people.
The freedom of Muslims to worship is violated in Europe due to the fear people have for Muslims. They distrust them to the extent that even when they are worshipping, they could suspect that they could be arranging an attack. Therefore, the government has set aside policies which show the highest levels of discrimination against the Muslims.[53] The strategy that had to stop hijab for particular professionals is an act of discrimination. The security in Europe did not consider any hate crimes against Muslims as a criminal act. In fact, Muslims were subject to either by physical abuse or even verbal abuse.[54] The policy of immigration which allowed only the Muslims and Arabs to have their credentials checked before they cross borders. Nevertheless, they could have their Visa taken to deny them from traveling to other countries.[55]
The fear of Muslim extended even to schools. The school curricula did not consider any Muslim child in the classroom. In fact, they failed to offer any Islamic teaching to the Muslim students. The Muslim students would be isolated and denied their right to worship even when they are in school. Many schools did not want to admit the Muslim student because they feared that they might cause an attack even in the schools. The motivation to make them suffer for being associated with Islam denied them better job opportunities. Indeed, Christians had higher chances to acquire job even when a Muslim who had applied for the same seemed to have more potential to do the job. The attacks on Muslim refugees in Germany have increased. Islamophobia is a problem that Europe must deal with because it shows a lot of racial discrimination in the nation.
The far-right parties have increased in the European politics. The parties have been attaining electoral support in many European countries. Firstly, there was the party in Germany named as Alternative for Germany. It started as a movement campaigning against the euro currency. It gained more votes in the state elections defeating other political parties.[56] The party had won in several occasions including the legislature of the hometown of the Chancellor Angela Merkel. The party had supports from the people who were against everything that are according to the norms. The party had a policy which was against Muslims saying that they did not belong to Germany. Thereby, the junta banned the establishment of mosques in Germany.
Secondly, the France National Front party which uses its popularity to promote its policies against the immigration and the European Union positions. It encourages protective economic strategies. The party would reduce the benefits that immigrants acquire from the government. In fact, the party would reduce the health care facilities given to immigrants.[57] They could also reduce the number of people allowed into France. Thirdly, in Netherlands, there was a Party for Freedom which was against the European Union and Islamic religion. Indeed, the party had given an order for the closure of Islamic schools. Additionally, it has demanded a recorded data about the society of all Dutch citizens. The party leader was Geert Wilders who was a most known far-right leader in Europe. He is on trial for allegations of inciting people to hate and discriminate the Muslims.
Fourthly, Golden Dawn party in Greece which won the elections during the time the country suffered devastating debt problems. The party was against the Immigrants. However, the party members and leaders were arrested on allegations of having criminal organizations. Fifthly, the Jobbik party in Hungary which was against immigrants. It was a party which protected the economic in the nation. The party wanted to increase the government spending on the people of Hungary who lived abroad.[58] Moreover, the party wanted to establish a new institution that would support the Hungarians overseas. Sixthly, the Sweden Democrats party which advocated for restrictions on immigration. Additionally, it was against the European Union membership and wanted the change of associations. Other parties include; Freedom Party in Austria which was also against immigration. Lastly, the People’s Party in Slovakia which was an anti-immigrant party and it allowed the European Union.
4.4 Counterterrorism Measures
The substantial influence of the 9/11 attacks on American principles can be identified by the change in American foreign policy to adopt an extremely realist strategy. Following the attacks, military missions were launched against Al Qaeda and Iraq for particular reasons to each. In the case of Iraq, the US wanted the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden. On the other hand, the Iraq invasion was necessitated by the belief that its president, Saddam Hussein was assembling Weapons of Mass Destruction secretly. It is evident that US foreign policy was altered from a neo-realist approach to the declaration of the war on terror in these two nations.[59]The aggressive approach is further illustrated by the pursuance of a deterrence policy concerning rogue governments that might harbor or offer support to the extremists.
There are various definitions provided in the identification of the concept of terrorism. For instance, it can be defined as the astounding threat or utilization of seemingly sporadic violence against innocent civilians to achieve political objectives by a non-state actor. On the other hand, international terrorism involves committing violent acts abroad.[60] One of the characteristic features associated with terrorist organizations is that they regard secular governments as immoral and lacking legitimacy since they do not employ religious authority. Another attribute is that these groups tend to appoint themselves as the leaders of the communities in which they operate in to handle domestic challenges in sectors such as education, health, and social welfare. Terror groups also ascribe to the Universalist doctrine in which they consider their perspectives as part of the inheritance of any individual that claims to be a believer. The penultimate feature of terror groups is that they tend to be exclusionists as they do not condone any differing opinions in addition to persecuting all the other individuals that are deemed as non-believers. The final feature of these groups is that they tend to employ an offensive approach in their operations for the purpose of meeting their set objectives.[61] Based on this understanding, America’s war on terror was a wrong choice from the outset based on the motives that informed the invasion.
4.4.1 Al Qaeda
Following the departure of the Soviet Union from Afghan territory, a civil war ensued that pitted different wings of Anti-Communist fighters against each other. The leader of this faction was Mullah Omar, who hailed from the Pashtu ethnic group. Mullah Omar founded the Taliban group which attracted the support of Bin Laden, the leader of the Al Qaeda organization. Over time, Bin Laden became Mullah’s close confidant while Bin Laden found a haven for the members of his group.[62]
Based on this understanding, it can be stated that Al Qaeda was formed as a group whose particular focus was to support local jihadi fighter that fought against opposing regimes especially the Muslim ones. During the 1990s, Al Qaeda recruited Islamists who had learned in the Western system of education with the aim of using them in their planned attacks in future.[63]
The War on international terrorism has been regarded as the defining aspect of President George W. Bush’s tenure in office. It is widely known that the US did not seek to start a war with the Islamist extremists. Instead, the new administration found itself having to deal with a challenge that had not been initially envisaged. When George W. Bush assumed office, the expectation was that the country would enjoy relative peace and security following its success in the Cold War that had lasted for over 50 years.[64]
After President George W. Bush had won the election for his first term in office, the nation was enjoying relative tranquility in relation to the issue of security. This aspect had been made possible by the demise of the Proxy War that had dogged the US for close to 50 years as well as the denouement of the Warsaw Pact. For this reason, the common belief that the US had the chance to build the long-lasting internal peace that would, in turn, create an even more stable world.[65] This aspect explains the assumption that the new era of peace and prosperity that Americans had craved had finally been attained.
However, it should be noted that it is during this period that America’s greatest threat to national security, Al-Qaeda, started to take hold in the Middle East. At the time, its threat to the US was not perceived as critical although there were clear warnings such as the bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Consequently, American foreign policy focused on dealing with global problems such as humanitarian concerns, ethnic strife, small interstate conflicts and the Israeli-Palestinian war.[66] Although some of these conflicts were significant, they were not deemed dangerous to American national security as well as its survival. The other international commitments that the US was involved in included resolving the Desert Storm strife in 1990-91, overseeing the expansion of NATO, and peacekeeping in the Balkan region.
The 9/11 attacks changed the whole spectrum of US foreign policy altogether. Suddenly, the focus shifted from the maintenance of world order to the declaration of war on terror.[67] In the course of the next three years, the war became a global campaign championed by the US and facilitated by a substantial number of willing nations who were willing to support the US in its quest to fight radical Islamism. One of the core aims of the war was to defeat the terrorist networks that had a global presence by weakening their sanctuaries, command, means of communication, financiers as well as the entities that provided them with material support. The second aim was to ensure that these groups are denied backing, help, and safe havens by making sure that states knew their duty in fighting this threat within the boundaries. Additionally, President Bush’s war on terror sought to reduce the precipitating conditions that terrorists used as the basis of their activities by encouraging the international community to focus its efforts and resources towards those areas that bore the greatest risk.[68] Finally, the war on terror was designed to defend the US and its allies through the protection of their sovereign lands and widening their defense strategies to locate and neutralize the terror threats beforehand.
Once the US had outlined its aims regarding the war on terror, the UN Security Council and NATO supported the US invasion of Afghanistan following the Taliban’s refusal to hand extradite the terror attack mastermind, Osama Bin Laden. The initial response to 9/11 was the use of air strikes and a limited number of soldiers on the ground with the objective of destroying Al-Qaeda’s training bases. In waging the war against the Taliban, the US argued that the invasion was necessary for the purpose of self-defense)[69]. However, the fight on terror was not limited to military action alone. Instead, the US government also engaged in a diplomatic mission where it sought to obtain foreign assistance based on the fact that this was a challenge facing the whole world. In the US’s thinking, the excessive use of force was necessary for crushing the terrorists expediently and bringing the war to an end in the shortest time possible.
However, this aspect did not materialize as the war against terrorism has continued up to date. What has been experienced is the rise of violent Islamic radicalism where individuals are indoctrinated to repulse Western values. The extremists believe that the US operates as a hegemony that views its culture as being superior to other cultures especially Islam. This aspect has seen a rise of fundamentalism in the Asian countries where the fighters are encouraged to join the Jihad to save Islam. As such, the terrorists are given cause to pursue.[70]
Shortly after the Afghanistan invasion, President Bush also convinced the UN Security Council that Iraq’s dictator Saddam Hussein was a terrorist sympathizer. He also claimed that there was reliable intelligence to indicate that Saddam Hussein was building capacity to manufacture weapons of mass destruction.[71] As such, it was necessary to the US and its allies to invade Iraq to locate the weapons of mass destruction and prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. Consequently, the US invaded Iraq meaning that the US was involved in two wars.
The determination of the fighters both in Iraq and Afghanistan meant that the war on terror became a protracted venture. The situation on the ground became volatile such that it was difficult for the US to pull out of the war since it could not guarantee peace and security in these nations. However, one notable success of this war on terror was that Iraq’s dictatorial leader, Saddam Hussein was finally apprehended and brought to justice. In Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden had been repulsed and gone into hiding.[72] For this reason, his influence in planning and conducting terror attacks was reduced to a certain extent.
When President Obama came into office, one of his main agendas was to facilitate a peaceful transition in both Iraq and Afghanistan .[73] This aspect meant that he had to reduce the number American soldiers in the battleground and hand over power to the Iraqi and Afghan authorities. However, it should be noted that these countries were deeply divided, and their authorities lacked the capacity to take over from the US troops. In Iraq, a civil war broke out between the two largest communities in the country, the Sunni and the Shiite. This civil war spilled over to neighboring Syria in which its leader Bashar Assad was facing an insurgency. Assad’s crude methods in dealing with the insurgency provided the breeding ground for the birth of the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS). The rise of ISIS was in part helped by the killing of Bin Laden, which meant that Al-Qaeda’s influence was on the decline.[74]
ISIS is a more sophisticated terror organization in comparison to Al-Qaeda. This fact emanates from the fact that they are highly skilled, and possess high weapons because they control oil fields in Syria. ISIS also recruits foreign fighters and has adopted more radical principles and modes of operation. For instance, Al-Qaeda always emphasized on the minimization of Muslim, women, and children casualties during their attacks.[75] However, ISIS is non-discriminatory in its quest to use fear to advance its extremist cause. ISIS also utilizes foreign fighters in Western countries that are referred to as lone wolfs who are employed to carry out atrocities on its behalf on Western targets. Some of the techniques they use include suicide bombers and open shooting of innocent civilians. The atrocities are carried out on soft targets such as airports, metro stations, concerts and other areas of public gatherings. As such, President Obama’s formidable threat concerning national security has been dealing with ISIS. Compared to President Bush, Obama has been seen to avoid a scenario where he utilizes a boots-on-the-ground approach to handling the terror threat posed by ISIS. Instead, he has sought to ensure that a legitimate government is put in place in Syria which would bring an end to the Syrian civil war and spell an end to ISIS, which thrives on the chaos caused by the civil war.[76]
From this study, the US invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 became the biggest, most protracted, and the highest utilization of US armed power since the Gulf war in Vietnam. As such, the US got its first exposure to being an occupying power in a Middle Eastern country in addition to it being the first major war the US has engaged in the aftermath of the Cold War. One of the notable aspects of the fight against terrorism is the element that it can be explained by suing the various theories of international relations.[77]
According to realism, a State’s choice of engaging in war is born from the involuntary participation in long-lasting endeavors of gaining power and security. This aspect is precipitated by a global political setting in which every state is wary of the actual possibility of other countries being hostile.[78] As a result, leaders often weigh the cost of waging a war and its benefits in relation to their state’s power and security. Consequently, the change from a bipolar world order to a unipolar US military dominance after the Cold War dictated the change in America’s approach to global politics. As such, the use altered its policy from dissuasion and repression of threats to defensive warfare against aggressive reprobate states. This aspect means that the US became more reliant on the military as opposed to cooperative security. From a realist perspective, the unparalleled US power means that any US President would regard bilateral organizations as deterrents as opposed to being a means of assistance.[79]
From the outset, President Bush’s administration reiterated its desire to maintain a global hegemony. In his West Point speech, he stated that the US was committed to consolidating and growing its military capability beyond any possible challenge.[80] Based on this strategic goal, effecting a regime change in Iraq can be viewed as a quest to increase America’s reputational and emblematic power beyond challenge especially after the 9/11 attacks that might have depicted the US as being vulnerable. Additionally, since Bush declared that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was one of his top agendas, the US would have appeared weak in case in other conclusion was reached apart from a Saddam Hussein ouster from power. For this reason, his administration made war a certainty because of national security objectives of safeguarding the country’s reputation.[81]
The aspect of symbolism and reputation can also partly explain the reasons as to why the US chose Iraq as their target as opposed to Iran, Libya, and North Korea. In these three countries, their secret Weapons of Mass Destruction programs were more advanced in comparison to Iraq during the invasion. For this reason, they were considered more dangerous to US interests and its allies meaning that an attack on one of them would have been catastrophic to American objectives. This aspect also explains why the US opted to overlook the ongoing inspection of weapons that was being conducted by the UN in Iraq in 2002.[82]
Another aspect that informed the US invasion of Iraq from a realist perspective is the countries geostrategic location. Iraq is endowed with a substantial amount of oil resources that the US feared it could use against its welfare. For this reason, the idea of having military bases in Iraq was regarded as valuable in helping the US extend its influence in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa. This move will assist in the substitution of the less secure bases in Saudi Arabia that were set up after the Gulf War in 1999.[83]
On the other hand, liberalists believe that the decisions of war are dictated by a State’ internal attributes especially their form of government and the influence if international law. For this reason, the world peace is dependent on the propagation of democracy and trade and the capacity of international institutions to control conflicts.[84] According to Kantian liberalism, it is rare to find one democracy fighting another. As such, a coalition of democracies advocates for the use of force when it involves the removal of dictatorships and instituting democracies in their place.
Although democracies are not prone to fighting each other, it is widely acknowledged that they often find themselves in conflict with nations that do not have a democratic form of governance.[85] One of the elucidations provided for this aspect is that democracies are often wary of non-democratic nation’s inclination to capitalize on their democratic counterparts’ slower mobilizing approach to striking the first blow. This view is reinforced by the fact that the non-democratic nations often lack openness in their dealings as well as little government regulation. In light of this understanding, President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq was due to the fear that Iraq would lie to the UN weapon inspectors and clandestinely create a weapon of mass destruction for an attack against the US or its allies.[86]
However, the liberal objectives of the Iraqi invasion are complicated by the fact that during the campaigns, President Bush was against the policy of nation building abroad. For this reason, the 9/11 attacks may have caused a massive shift of strategy in Bush’s administration that supported the utilization of force to install democracy in Asia.[87] As such, the attacks which were orchestrated by individuals of non-democratic nations in the Middle East prompted the US to view democratization in Iraq as having the capacity to have a knock-on effect on other countries in the region. Conversely, there are reservations regarding the liberal views regarding the decision to invade Iraq. The reservations emanate from the fact that the US bypassed the UN in a move that is inadmissible in international law. Additionally, the US used in Iraq the issue of human rights violations in the country as the moral basis of their decision. However, it has been noted that there were no gross violations going on at the time.[88] For this reason, the liberal perspective has its shortcomings in explaining the actual reasons that led to the war on terror.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis of the historical and theoretical analysis of the war on terror it is clear that its conclusion is far from over. This aspect can be explained by the fact that President Bush’s administration underestimated the implications of their invasion in the Middle East. The initial expectation was that the democratization of Iraq could trigger democracy throughout the region. Instead, the effect has been a breakout of civil wars that create an anarchic environment that breeds even more vicious extremism. The rise of ISIS has seen the fight on terror transform into a war of cultures that pits Muslim-Arabic values against the Western ones. It has been highlighted that cultural wars are difficult to bring to an end when compared to ideology wars such as communism against capitalism. For this reason, the biggest probability is that violent extremism has become a persistent challenge to global security.
It is clear that the US invasion of Iraq was not warranted in the first place. It is clear that President Bush was playing power politics by invading Iraq, a weaker enemy when countries such as Iran and North Korea had greater WMD capability. For this reason, he used the issue of national security to justify the invasion in a move that is seen as a diversionary tactic from his incompetence in preventing the 9/11 attacks. Additionally, he was bent on restoring America’s reputation as the world’s hegemonic power beyond challenge and the war on terror provided a symbolic platform to achieve this objective.
Additionally, the surge of far-right extremism in the US and Europe highlights the backlash to the failure of many of the counterterrorism measures taken over the last 10 years. It is also a demonstration of the endurance, unpredictability, and adaptability of the terrorism threat over the same period. The study demonstrates that the sentiments and fear surrounding terrorism have been largely utilized by right wing extremists to mainstream their radical Islamophobia into the social and political discourses in the US, UK, France, Netherlands, Germany, and other major democracies in the West. At the same time, the counterterrorism approaches adopted by the West have been responsible for the alienation of many Muslims in the Middle East and thus feeding into the narrative of groups such as ISIS that want to destroy Israel and the West. Although Islamophobia and far-right ideas are in the fringes, recent years have demonstrated an increasing resonance of their ideas with a cross-section of the Western population. Therefore, this goes against the primary pillar of counterterrorism, which considers Islam as a peaceful religion, and seeks to unite Muslims against the radical and extremist groups such as ISIS using Islam as a cover for their atrocities. The blanket hate of Islam and all Muslims expressed by far-right groups, if mainstreamed, might risk further alienating the Muslim community in the West and the Middle East, and thus making it more daunting to win the War on Terror.
Bibliography
[1] Alexander, Yonah, and Kenneth Myers, eds. Terrorism in Europe
[2] Berrebi, Claude, and Hanan Yonah. “Terrorism and philanthropy: the effect of terror attacks on the scope of giving by individuals and households.”
[3] Bloomer, Stephen, and Rachel Monaghan. “Understanding terrorism: a socio-economic perspective.”
[4] Coaffee, Jon. Terrorism, risk and the global city: Towards urban resilience.
[5] Casaca, Paulo. “The War on Terror.” In Terrorism Revisited, pp. 199-218.
[6] Coaffee, Jon. Terrorism, risk and the global city: Towards urban resilience.
[7] Casaca, Paulo. “The War on Terror.” In Terrorism Revisited, pp. 199-218.
[8] Hayden, Patrick, Tom Lansford, and Robert P. Watson, eds. America’s war on terror.
[9] Hayden, Patrick, Tom Lansford, and Robert P. Watson, eds. America’s war on terror.
[10] Ingram, Alan. Spaces of security and insecurity: Geographies of the war on terror.
[11] Taylor, Robert W., Eric J. Fritsch, and John Liederbach. Digital crime and digital terrorism.
[12] Hopkins, Peter. “Gendering Islamophobia, racism and White supremacy: Gendered violence against those who look Muslim.”
[13] Ingram, Alan. Spaces of security and insecurity: Geographies of the war on terror.
[14] Bloomer, Stephen, and Rachel Monaghan. “Understanding terrorism: a socio-economic perspective.”
[15] Johnston, Patrick B., and Anoop K. Sarbahi. “The impact of US drone strikes on terrorism in Pakistan.”
[16] Hopkins, Peter. “Gendering Islamophobia, racism and White supremacy: Gendered violence against those who look Muslim.”
[17] Hayden, Patrick, Tom Lansford, and Robert P. Watson, eds. America’s war on terror.
[18] Mudde, Cas. “Interviews About Right and Left Populism, Radicalism, Extremism and SYRIZA.” In SYRIZA,
[19] LaFree, Gary, Laura Dugan, and Erin Miller. Putting terrorism in context: Lessons from the Global Terrorism Database.
[20] Taylor, Robert W., Eric J. Fritsch, and John Liederbach. Digital crime and digital terrorism.
[21] Vieten, Ulrike M., and Scott Poynting. “Contemporary Far-Right Racist Populism in Europe.”
[22] Vieten, Ulrike M., and Scott Poynting. “Contemporary Far-Right Racist Populism in Europe.”
[23] Anghie, Antony. “War on Terror and Iraq in Historical Perspective”
[24] Johnston, Patrick B., and Anoop K. Sarbahi. “The impact of US drone strikes on terrorism in Pakistan.”
[25] Boutton, Andrew, and David B. Carter. “Fair-weather allies? Terrorism and the allocation of US foreign aid.”
[26] Berrebi, Claude, and Hanan Yonah. “Terrorism and philanthropy: the effect of terror attacks on the scope of giving by individuals and households.”
[27] Casaca, Paulo. “The War on Terror.” In Terrorism Revisited, pp. 199-218.
[28] Wolff, Katharina, and Svein Larsen. “Can terrorism make us feel safer? Risk perceptions and worries before and after the July 22nd attacks.”
[29] Fisher, Daren Geoffrey. “Public Communication as Counter-Terrorism: An Examination of Zero-Sum Counter-Terrorism Assumptions.”
[30] Alexander, Yonah, and Kenneth Myers, eds. Terrorism in Europe (RLE: Terrorism & Insurgency).
[31] Nesser, Petter. Islamist terrorism in Europe: A history.
[32] Zhirkov, Kirill, Maykel Verkuyten, and Jeroen Weesie. “Perceptions of world politics and support for terrorism among Muslims: Evidence from Muslim countries and Western Europe.”
[33] Argomaniz, Javier, Oldrich Bures, and Christian Kaunert. “A decade of EU counter-terrorism and intelligence: A critical assessment.”
[34] Finseraas, Henning, and Ola Listhaug. “It can happen here: the impact of the Mumbai terror attacks on public opinion in Western Europe.”
[35] Ragazzi, Francesco. “Suspect community or suspect category? The impact of counter-terrorism as ‘policed multiculturalism’.”
[36] Peffley, Mark, Marc L. Hutchison, and Michal Shamir. “The impact of persistent terrorism on political tolerance: Israel, 1980 to 2011.”
[37] Taylor, Robert W., Eric J. Fritsch, and John Liederbach. Digital crime and digital terrorism.
[38] Anghie, Antony. “War on Terror and Iraq in Historical Perspective”
[39] 200-209.
Zhirkov, Kirill, Maykel Verkuyten, and Jeroen Weesie. “Perceptions of world politics and support for terrorism among Muslims: Evidence from Muslim countries and Wester
Andréani, Gilles. “The ‘War on Terror’: Good cause, wrong concept.”
[40] Barber, B. Fear’s Empire: War, terrorism, and democracy.
[41] Peffley, Mark, Marc L. Hutchison, and Michal Shamir. “The impact of persistent terrorism on political tolerance: Israel, 1980 to 2011.”
[42] Points, Key Selling. “The ‘War on Terror’.”
[43] Coaffee, Jon. Terrorism, risk and the global city: Towards urban resilience.
[44] Filer, Randall K., and Dragana Stanišić. “The effect of terrorist incidents on capital flows.”
[45] Kundnani, Arun. The Muslims are coming!: Islamophobia, extremism, and the domestic war on terror.
[46] LaFree, Gary, Laura Dugan, and Erin Miller. Putting terrorism in context: Lessons from the Global Terrorism Database.
[47] Abbas, Tahir, and Imran Awan. “Limits of UK counterterrorism policy and its implications for Islamophobia and far right extremism.”
[48] Mudde, Cas. “Interviews About Right and Left Populism, Radicalism, Extremism and SYRIZA.”
[49] Abbas, Tahir, and Imran Awan. “Limits of UK counterterrorism policy and its implications for Islamophobia and far right extremism.”
[50] Ogan, Christine, Lars Willnat, Rosemary Pennington, and Manaf Bashir. “The rise of anti-Muslim prejudice: Media and Islamophobia in Europe and the United States.”
[51] Ogan, Christine, Lars Willnat, Rosemary Pennington, and Manaf Bashir. “The rise of anti-Muslim prejudice: Media and Islamophobia in Europe and the United States.”
[52] Hafez, Farid. “Shifting borders: Islamophobia as common ground for building pan-European right-wing unity.”
[53] Hopkins, Peter. “Gendering Islamophobia, racism and White supremacy: Gendered violence against those who look Muslim.”
[54] Hayden, Patrick, Tom Lansford, and Robert P. Watson, eds. America’s war on terror.
[55] Ingram, Alan. Spaces of security and insecurity: Geographies of the war on terror.
[56] Cave, Margaret E., and Briana M. Roberts. “A ‘Moral’Crusade: Central-Eastern European Nationalism, Xenophobia, and Far-Right Extremism in Response to the ‘Refugee Crisis’.”
[57] Vieten, Ulrike M., and Scott Poynting. “Contemporary Far-Right Racist Populism in Europe.”
[58] Mohammadi, M.J. and Nourbakhsh, S.N., 2017. Examining the Social Basis of the Far-right Parties in Europe.
[59] Barber, B. Fear’s Empire: War, terrorism, and democracy. W.W. Norton & Co.2004.
[60] Andréani, Gilles. “The ‘War on Terror’: Good cause, wrong concept.” Survival 46.4 (2004): 31-50.
[61] Renshon, Stanley A., and Peter Suedfeld, eds. Understanding the Bush doctrine: Psychology and strategy in an age of terrorism.
[62] Barber, B. Fear’s Empire: War, terrorism, and democracy. W.W. Norton & Co.2004.
[63] Barber, B. Fear’s Empire: War, terrorism, and democracy. W.W. Norton & Co.2004.
[64] Betts, Richard K., ed. Conflict after the Cold War: Arguments on Causes of War and Peace.
[65] Anghie, Antony. “War on Terror and Iraq in Historical Perspective” Osgoode Hall LJ 43 (2005): 45.
[66] Chomsky, N. Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the post 9-11 world.
[67] Anghie, Antony. “War on Terror and Iraq in Historical Perspective” Osgoode Hall LJ 43 (2005): 45.
[68] Andréani, Gilles. “The ‘War on Terror’: Good cause, wrong concept.” Survival 46.4 (2004): 31-50.
[69] Cronin, A. K. Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a grand strategy.
[70] Andréani, Gilles. “The ‘War on Terror’: Good cause, wrong concept.” Survival 46.4 (2004): 31-50.
[71] Betts, Richard K., ed. Conflict after the Cold War: Arguments on Causes of War and Peace.
[72] Barber, B. Fear’s Empire: War, terrorism, and democracy. W.W. Norton & Co.2004.
[73] Cronin, A. K. Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a grand strategy.
[74] Anghie, Antony. “War on Terror and Iraq in Historical Perspective” Osgoode Hall LJ 43 (2005): 45.
[75] Chomsky, N. Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the post 9-11 world.
[76] Renshon, Stanley A., and Peter Suedfeld, eds. Understanding the Bush doctrine: Psychology and strategy in an age of terrorism.
[77] Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. International relations theories.
[78] Welch, M. Catchphrase: Realism and special operations forces in the war on terror.
[79] Van Rythoven, Eric. “The perils of realist advocacy and the promise of securitization theory: Revisiting the tragedy of the Iraq War debate.”
[80] Welch, M. Catchphrase: Realism and special operations forces in the war on terror.
[81] Andréani, Gilles. “The ‘War on Terror’: Good cause, wrong concept.” Survival 46.4 (2004): 31-50.
[82] Welch, M. Catchphrase: Realism and special operations forces in the war on terror.
[83] Cronin, A. K. Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a grand strategy.
[84] Chomsky, N. Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the post 9-11 world.
[85] Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki, and Steve Smith. International relations theories.
[86] Renshon, Stanley A., and Peter Suedfeld, eds. Understanding the Bush doctrine: Psychology and strategy in an age of terrorism.
[87] Chomsky, N. Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the post 9-11 world.
[88] Barber, B. Fear’s Empire: War, terrorism, and democracy. W.W. Norton & Co.2004.
Innovative Writers 