Terrorism: How it is Unlike the Cold War

Second repose in the 2002 shew contest was won by Nicholas Kenney with the interest submission. The judges conceive that Kenney did an clarified communication channel of line of crediting the contend on terrorist act with the cool struggle to make the pass that U.S. opposed insurance indemnity in the mid- to long-term can non focus on terrorist act alone. Kenney suggests that the administrations insurance to date, in its portrait of terrorist act as an overarching opposition, runs the risk of applying a frosty struggle paradigm to a much variant situation. His thoughts provide an excellent basis for hike explorations of this theme. We would welcome much(prenominal) explorations for publication in future issues of the Statesn Diplomacy . \nSince phratry 11th the fight on act of terrorism has focused on crisis management. Our government had to localise how the attack happened, and consequently had to choose, plan and track down a spry and lethal army re sponse against the Taliban and pedestal in Afghanistan. This alleged(prenominal) Phase I of the fresh struggle on terrorism has concluded for the near part. Looking quondam(prenominal) Phase I to the mid-(months to years) to long-term (years to decades), American opposed constitution entrust modify from crisis management and military machine response to the catching and prevention of terrorism. \nIn accomplishing these goals, the war on terrorism should be a considerateness in formulating American abroad insurance policy, however not the dominant allele consideration. The war on terrorism should not define American foreign policy as anti-communism specify American foreign policy during the Cold struggle. Contrary to the pubic hair article of faith, the war on terrorism volition not gain a take up bipolar grammatical construction such as existed during the Cold warfare. Rather, a uni-polar manhood with America as hegemon get out continue, and American foreign policy should shell out the war on terrorism in a behavior that capitalizes on this man rather than resists it. The war on terrorism is not the Cold contend conk out II; it is a new and divers(prenominal) conflict, requiring a new and different focalise in American foreign policy. This essay will contrast the Cold War and the war on terrorism and line the foreign policy formulation consequences that break away from each denominate of contrast. \nThe supply Doctrine simply verbalize is this:Either you [other countries and sub-nationals] are with us [America] or you are with the terrorists. The Bush Doctrine will not stick out into the mid- to long-term phylogeny of the war on terrorism because it imposes a black and white, nigh(a) and evil wave-particle duality on complex situations. During the Cold War a dichotomy functioned well in the formulation of foreign policy because: 1) world power was divided up in a bipolar grammatical construction; 2) there were twai n dominant ideologies, which were obvious; 3) there were few problems of defining the enemy; and 4) the conflict was by and large conducted by rural area actors, either the principals or their proxies. In sum, in the Cold War the lines between proficient and evil, democratic and communist, the westside and the rest were clear.