Assessing the Effectiveness of High-Profile Targeted Killings in the “War on Terror”

J. Carson
{"title":"Assessing the Effectiveness of High-Profile Targeted Killings in the “War on Terror”","authors":"J. Carson","doi":"10.1111/1745-9133.12274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research Summary \nSince the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing “war on terrorism,” the U.S. government has engaged in a series of controversial counterterrorism policies. Perhaps none is more so than the use of targeted killings aimed at eliminating the senior leadership of the global jihadist movement. Nevertheless, prior research has yet to establish that this type of tactic is effective, even among high-profile targets. Employing a robust methodology, I find that these types of killings primarily yielded negligible effects. \n \nPolicy Implications \nGiven the immense controversy surrounding the policy of targeted killings, it has become that much more vital to assess whether such measures are effective. This study's findings, that most of these high-profile killings either had no influence or were associated with a backlash effect, have important implications for future counterterrorism efforts. All in all, the U.S. government's investment in the policy of targeted killings seems to be counterproductive if its main intention is a decrease in terrorism perpetrated by the global jihadist movement.","PeriodicalId":158704,"journal":{"name":"Criminology and public policy","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology and public policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12274","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Research Summary Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the ensuing “war on terrorism,” the U.S. government has engaged in a series of controversial counterterrorism policies. Perhaps none is more so than the use of targeted killings aimed at eliminating the senior leadership of the global jihadist movement. Nevertheless, prior research has yet to establish that this type of tactic is effective, even among high-profile targets. Employing a robust methodology, I find that these types of killings primarily yielded negligible effects. Policy Implications Given the immense controversy surrounding the policy of targeted killings, it has become that much more vital to assess whether such measures are effective. This study's findings, that most of these high-profile killings either had no influence or were associated with a backlash effect, have important implications for future counterterrorism efforts. All in all, the U.S. government's investment in the policy of targeted killings seems to be counterproductive if its main intention is a decrease in terrorism perpetrated by the global jihadist movement.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估“反恐战争”中高调定点清除的有效性
自2001年9月11日的恐怖袭击和随后的“反恐战争”以来,美国政府采取了一系列有争议的反恐政策。或许,最具代表性的做法莫过于使用定点清除手段,以消灭全球圣战运动的高级领导人。然而,先前的研究还没有确定这种策略是有效的,即使是在高调的目标中。采用一种可靠的方法,我发现这些类型的杀戮产生的影响基本上可以忽略不计。鉴于围绕定点清除政策的巨大争议,评估这些措施是否有效变得更为重要。这项研究发现,这些引人注目的杀戮大多数要么没有影响,要么与反弹效应有关,这对未来的反恐努力具有重要意义。总而言之,如果美国政府的主要意图是减少全球圣战运动所犯下的恐怖主义,那么它在定点清除政策上的投资似乎会适得其反。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond the eternal criminal record: Public support for expungement Editorial Introduction to the Special Issue on Policing Civil Commitment and Risk Assessment in Perspective Illuminating the Black Box of Implementation in Crime Prevention Housing as the Tip of the Iceberg in Successfully Navigating Prisoner Reentry
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1