Traditional and Non-Traditional Security Perspectives on Counter-Terrorism

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국테러학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국테러학회보 / 4권 / 1호 / 5 ~ 29페이지
· 저자명 : Brendan M. Howe

초록

Generations of strategic analysts and policy advisers have relied on the concept of protagonists as single unitary rational actors when drawing up scenarios through which the decision-making environment of the target can be altered in favor of producing outcomes preferred by the agent. From a power-political perspective the costs of unfavorable decision-making outcomes can be increased either at the implementation means stage (defense), or at the post-action ends stage (deterrence). From liberal perspectives, rational states (or statesmen) can best be influenced through use of carrots rather than sticks, by divorcing wealth and welfare from territory, and transforming a zero-sum game into one of win-win economic cooperation. In this way conflict can be resolved. However, strategic actions and policies associated with these traditional approaches to international security have been found to come up short when dealing with the demands of an asymmetric war-fighting operating environment. This article first provides an overview of the policy implications of the two major strategic schools of thoughts and addresses their shortcomings with regard to dealing with terrorism. It then turns to the relationships between traditional, non-traditional/ new, comprehensive, and human security studies and the implications of the latter for countering terrorism. Finally it addresses the “Hearts and Minds” Paradigm, before concluding with consideration of the necessity of providing for human security and development in order to undermine support for terrorists.

참고자료

· 없음