to combatting the threat of a new form of terrorism. However, it must also be acknowledged that the model possesses numerous drawbacks; most notably its reliance upon the assumption of new terrorism. A primary failing of military policies and their acceptance of new terrorism can be said to be their over- emphasis of the extent of the terrorist threat. Liberal democracies are particularly susceptible to doing this, not only through counterterrorist measures but through the mediums of the free media as well. 98 Scholars such as Mueller, for example, argue that contemporary terrorism does not pose a serious threat to states or the international community. 99 Therefore, employing military tactics to such a threat may be argued to be inflating the real risk it poses. Furthermore, this could then be seen as an issue in regards to the opportunity costs of devoting resources to terrorism as a primary security threat. This argument relates to Crelinsten’s suggestion that employing military measures risks “playing in to terrorist’s hands”. 100 By this, Crelinsten argues that using military power and repressive behaviour as a method of combating terrorism could simply increase sympathy for terrorist causes and the threats terrorism poses in the long-term. This is supported by both Peter Bergen and Alec Reynolds who forewarned of the risk that the Iraq War could have instigated an escalation in
98 O’Kane, p. 190. 99 John Mueller, 'Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?', in The U.S. vs. al Qaeda: A History of the War on Terror , ed. by Gideon Rose and Jonathan Tepperman (New York: Foreign Affairs, 2011), pp. 158– 166. 100 Crelinsten, Counterterrorism , p. 78
37
Made with FlippingBook HTML5