A frequent assumption of the American-led ‘war on terror’ and its accompanying discourse originated largely with the George W. Bush Administration, and that there was a counterterrorism policy revolution in the U.S. political arena. Challenging these assumptions, through a genealogical analysis of U.S. terrorism and counterterrorism discourses, this book demonstrates a distinct continuity (and lack of change) of U.S. counterterrorism policy, from Ronald Reagan, to Bill Clinton, and through to George W. Bush. The book focuses on President Clinton’s discursive construction of ‘new terrorism’, or ‘catastrophic terrorism’, and the counterterrorism practices implemented by the Clinton Administration, while simultaneously comparing it with President Reagan’s and President George W. Bush’s approaches to counterterrorism. It shows how the war on terror can be traced to earlier periods, and that the so-called Bush revolution was largely built upon the existing framework established by President Reagan and President Clinton. Prior to the 2001 terrorist attacks, Clinton had expanded Reagan’s first ‘war on terrorism’ discourse and constructed the ‘new terrorism’ discourse, characterised by the notions of borderless threats, ‘home-grown’ terrorism, WMD-terrorism, cyberterrorism, and rogue states. Clinton’s ‘new terrorism’ discourse provided a useful framework for George W. Bush to discursively respond to the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. Aiming to uncover the myth of President George W. Bush’s foreign policy revolution and contribute to a deeper historical understanding of the U.S.-led war on terror, it will be of great use to postgraduates and scholars of US foreign policy, security studies and terrorism studies.

During the 2016 presidential election, many younger voters repudiated Hillary Clinton because of her husband’s support for mass incarceration, banking deregulation and free-trade agreements that led many U.S. jobs to be shipped overseas. Warmonger: How Clinton’s Malign Foreign Policy Launched the Trajectory from Bush II to Biden, shows that Clinton’s foreign policy was just as bad as his domestic policy. Cultivating an image as a former anti-Vietnam War activist to win over the aging hippie set in his early years, as president, Clinton bombed six countries and, by the end of his first term, had committed U.S. troops to 25 separate military operations, compared to 17 in Ronald Reagan’s two terms. Clinton further expanded America’s covert empire of overseas surveillance outposts and spying and increased the budget for intelligence spending and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA offshoot which promoted regime change in foreign nations. The latter was not surprising because, according to CIA operative Cord Meyer Jr., Clinton had been recruited into the CIA while a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, and as Governor of Arkansas in the 1980s he had allowed clandestine arms and drug flights to Nicaraguan counter-revolutionaries (Contras) backed by the CIA to be taken from Mena Airport in the western part of the state. Rather than being a time of tranquility when the U.S. failed to pay attention to the gathering storm of terrorism, as New York Times columnist David Brooks frames it, the Clinton presidency saw rising tensions among the U.S., China and Russia because of Clinton’s malign foreign policies, and U.S. complicity in terrorist acts. In so many ways, Clinton’s presidency set the groundwork for the disasters that were to follow under Bush II, Obama, Trump, and Biden. It was Clinton—building off of Reagan—who first waged a War on Terror ridden with double standards, one that adopted terror tactics, including extraordinary rendition, bombing and the use of drones. It was Clinton who cried wolf about human rights abuses and the need to protect beleaguered peoples from genocide to justify military intervention in a post-Cold War age. And it was Clinton’s administration that pressed for regime change in Iraq and raised public alarm about the mythic WMDs—all while relying on fancy new military technologies and private military contractors to distance US shady military interventions from the public to limit dissent.

A reference for those researching the historical and contemporary details of more than 170 issues confronting American society. The entries in this book cover several social issues - including economic, scientific, environmental, criminal, legal, security, health, and media topics.

The signal events opening the global war on terrorism were the attacks of September 11. The world media began to focus on one of the terrorist groups, al-Qaeda, a well-funded terrorist organisation headquartered in Afghanistan or Pakistan with offshoots in many countries. America has turned out to be the primary target of Al-Qaeda. America's first response was the attack on Afghanistan and the establishing of a puppet government. Next America attacked Iraq under the guise of a response to terrorism although no connection has been proven or even alleged except by hardcore neocons aligned with certain elements in the Washington power establishment. This new book pierces the veil of disinformation with frank assessments of the progress or lack thereof of the war on terrorism.

Debunks media myths that hinder the success of the U.S. military in the War on Terror, including the claim that Bin Laden was trained by the CIA and the story that Halliburton has earned billions from the war.

Provides essays, primary source documents, and research tools that explore terrorism and security around the world. Includes an annotated bibliography, a chronology, and a glossary.

Frank Furedi's claim that the social attitude of the West inadvertently invites acts of terrorism is an unsettling thought, but one that must be addressed in open discussion. He argues that what we really need to worry about is not what terrorist do, but our reaction to it.

Contrary to widely held views of Ronald Reagan as a reflexive man of action, John Arquilla's sharply revisionist study argues that he was drawn to and driven by ideas. In Mr. Arquilla's view, Reagan during his presidency articulated important new concepts that fundamentally reshaped American foreign policy. He saw the effort simply to contain Soviet expansion as too defensive in nature, so he replaced it with a doctrine designed to help others free themselves from totalitarian rule. He objected to the notion of mutual nuclear deterrence on practical and ethical grounds, a stand that led him to negotiate arms reductions as well as explore the possibility of missile defense. On these issues, as Mr. Arquilla shows, Reagan overturned a long-standing consensus of public and expert opinion, helping achieve a favorable end to the cold war and the arms race that came with it. Yet there were also areas in which Reagan s policies played out less successfullyhis inattention to the consequences of nuclear proliferation by smaller powers like Pakistan; his indecision in launching a preventive war against terrorism in the mid-1980swith consequences that continue to haunt us today.