The elements of the war on terror are built upon an understanding that traditional counterterrorism policies are no longer applicable in the post-9/11 environment, as the 2002 National Security Strategy suggests. 88 Policing policies can be argued to have been rendered ineffective due to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and the effects and elements of globalisation. It is for these reasons that the military model develops a propensity towards pre- emptive policies and unilateralism. The increasing threat that terrorism poses requires “striking in advance of hostile action to prevent its occurrence and to avoid suffering injury” 89 whilst pursuing unilateralism to ensure a rapid and effective response. 90 By rejecting the efficacy of traditional policing policies, it may be suggested that the war model prioritises the killing of an intended target, over pursuing their detention. The assassination of Osama bin Laden can be argued to be evidence of this. In a sense, the military model understands the campaign against terrorist groups as having a finite end and one that can be brought about by military force. The war model of counterterrorism does possess certain benefits. A notable consideration could be seen as the efficacy of a military approach against state terrorists or those sponsoring terrorist organisations. It could be seen as a more effective method of enforcing the rule of law than attempting to employ methods of passive coercion. This view relates to that proposed by structural realists, such as John 88 White House, The National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington D.C.: President of The U.S., 2002), p. 15 <https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63562.pdf> [accessed 18 December 2016]. 89 Nacos, Terrorism and Counterterrorism , p. 262. 90 Ibid., p. 243.
34
Made with FlippingBook HTML5