Analyzing the New War Concept with the Context of 11 September Attacks and Terrorism

Year 2023, , 889 - 905, 26.05.2023

Nükhet Güntay

https://doi.org/10.18069/firatsbed.1079596

Abstract

The terrorist attacks to the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington DC on September 11, 2001 reinforced comments that it was the beginning of a new era. In the 21st century, war and terrorism exert increasing power in international affairs and are accepted as sources of destabilization of international security. In this regard, concept of “new war” is on the agenda of international relations and terrorism is evolving in a new direction in this process. In this study, it aims to reconsider the development process, transformation, and important moments in the history of international relations in order to explain the new concept role played by terrorism on a global basis. In this context, the dimension of the reflection of terrorism in term of the transformation of the concept of new war in international relations is discussed by using the case study method and the September 11 attacks and the subsequent process. The determinations and the conclusion are related to the continuity of the phenomenon of terrorism within the concept of new war. Different border and international conflicts also show that terrorism is among the main factors that will feed different problems. Likewise, within the scope of this study, terrorism, as seen on September 11, shows that war has a moer destructive and threatening potential and that war is shaped according to the new order rather than traditional methods.

Keywords

War, Cold War, New War, Globalization, Terrorism

11 EYLÜL SALDIRILARI VE TERÖRİZM EKSENİNDE YENİ SAVAŞ KAVRAMININ ANALİZİ

Abstract

11 Eylül 2001’de teröristlerin New York’taki Dünya Ticaret Merkezi’ne ve Washington DC’deki Pentagon’a saldırısı, yeni bir dönemin başlangıcı olduğu yönündeki yorumları kuvvetlendirmiştir. 21. yüzyılda savaş ve terörizm, uluslararası meselelerinde artan bir güç uygulamakta ve uluslararası güvenliğin istikrarsızlaşmasının kaynakları olarak kabul edilmektedir. Bu bağlamda “Yeni Savaş” kavramı uluslararası ilişkiler gündeminde bulunmakta ve terörizm de bu süreç içerisinde yeni bir yöne doğru evrilmektedir. Bu çalışma, yeni savaş kavramı ve terörizmin küresel bazda oynadığı kalıcı rolü açıklamak için uluslararası ilişkiler tarihindeki gelişim süreci, dönüşümü ve önemli anları yeniden ele almayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu kapsamda örnek olay yöntemi kullanılarak 11 Eylül saldırıları ve sonraki süreç akademik çalışmalar incelenmesiyle ele alınarak uluslararası ilişkilerde yeni savaş kavramının dönüşümü açısından terörizmin yansımasının boyutu ele alınmaktadır. Yapılan tespitler ve ulaşılan sonuç yeni savaş kavramı içinde terörizm olgusunun sürekliliği ile ilgilidir. Farklı sınır çatışmaları ve uluslararası anlaşmazlıklar da göstermektedir ki terörizm farklı sorunları besleyecek ana faktörler arasındadır. Keza bu çalışma kapsamında, 11 Eylül’de görüldüğü gibi terörizm, savaşın daha yıkıcı ve tehdit edici bir potansiyele sahip olduğunu ve savaşın geleneksel yöntemlerden ziyade yeni düzene göre şekillendiğini göstermektedir.

Keywords

Savaş, Soğuk Savaş, Yeni Savaş, Küreselleşme, Terörizm

References

• Abadie, A. (2006). Poverty, political freedom, and the roots of terrorism. The American Economic Review, 96 (2), 50-56.
• Abrahms, M. (2006). Why terrorism does not work? International Security, 31 (2), 42-78.
• Abrahms, M. (2008). What terrorists really want: Terrorist motives and conterterrorism strategy. International Security, 32 (4), 78-105.
• Abrahms, M. (2014). Deterring terrorism: A new strategy. Perspectives on Terrorism. 8 (3), 2-15.
• Andreas, P. (2003). Redrawing the line: Borders and security in the Twenty-First century. International Security, 28 (2), 78-111.
• Armitage, D. (2017). Civil war time: From Grotius to the global war on terror. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 111, 3-14.
• Bakker, E. (2012). Forecasting terrorism: The need for a more systematic approach. Journal of Strategic Security, 5 (4), 69-84.
• Baylis, J. (1998). European security in the Post-Cold War era: The continuing struggle between realism and utopianism. European Security, 7 (3), 14-27.
• Berger, M. T. & Weber, H. (2009). War, peace and progress: Conflict, development, (in)security and violence century. Third World Quarterly, 30 (1), 1-16.
• Brown, D. et al. (2013). Correspondence: Just war theory and the 2008-09 Gaza invasion. International Security, 38 (1), 160-173.
• Byman, D. L. (2006). Friends like these: Counterinsurgency and the war on terrorism. International Security, 31 (2), 79-115.
• Caplan, H. (2003). War and terrorism insurance: Plans for long-term international stability and affordability. The Geneva Papers on Risj and Insurance, 28 (3), 426-447.
• CBRN-E Days. Genel Bilgi. (Erişim:01.02.2022), https://www.cbrn-e.org/genel-bilgi/
• Chomsky, N. (1987). International terrorism: Image and reality. Crime and Social Justice, 27/28, 172-200.
• Cimbala, S. J. (2017). Nuclear proliferation in the Twenty-First Century: Realism, rationality, or uncertainty? Strategic Studies Quarterly, 11 (1), 129-146.
• Conway, M. (2007). Cyberterrorism: hype and reality. Potomac Books, 1-23.
• Cronin, A. K. (2002/03). Behind the curve: Globalization and international terrorism. International Security, 27 (3), 30-58.
• De Castro, R. (2004). Addressing international terrorism in Southeast Asia: A matter of strategic or functional approach? Contemporary Southeast Asia, 26 (2), 193-217.
• Dexter, H. (2008). The ‘New War’ on terror, cosmopolitanism and the ‘Just War’ revival. Government and Opposition, 43 (1), 55-78.
• Don, B. W. et al. (2007). Network technologies for networked terrorists: Assesing the value of information and communication technologies to modern terrorist organizations. RAND Homeland Security, 1-69.
• Fragile States Index (2017). Fragile States Index methodology and cast framework. (Erişim: 13.01.2022), https://fragilestatesindex.org/methodology/
• Fragile States Index (2021). Measuring fragility. (Erişim: 12.01.2022), https://fragilestatesindex.org/
• Frantz, D. (2001). A nation challenged: The financing; ancient secret system moves money globally. The New York Times. (Erişim: 02.01.2022), https://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/03/world/a-nation-challenged-the-financing-ancient-secret-system-moves-money-globally.html?searchResultPosition=1
• Gartzke, E. (2013). The myth of cyberwar: Bringing war in cyberspace back down to Earth. International Security, 38 (2), 41-73.
• Gavin, F. J. (2009/10). Same as it ever was: Nuclear alarmism, proliferation, and the Cold War. International Security, 34 (3), 7-37.
• Global Terrorism Database, (Erişim: 03.01.2022), https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/search/Results.aspx?page=2&casualties_type=&casualties_max=&count=100&expanded=no&charttype=line&chart=regions&ob=GTDID&od=desc#results-table
• Gunaratna, R. (2017). Strategic counter-terrorism: A game changer in fighting terrorism? Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses, 9 (6), 1-5.
• Harshe, R. (2001). Globalisation and terrorism. The Indian Journal of Political Science, 62 (3), 441-445.
• Hartog, J. (2021). Turning up the heat: Climate change, fragility and conflict. The Fund for Peace, (Erişim:09.01.2022), https://fragilestatesindex.org/2021/05/20/turning-up-the-heat-climate-change-fragility-and-conflict/
• Hasham, M. (2001). New century, new war. The World Today, 57 (10), 12-13.
• Johnson, D. D. P. & Toft, M. D. (2013/14). Grounds for war: The evolution of territorial conflict. International Security, 38 (3), 7-38.
• Jordan, J. (2014). Attacting the leader, missing the mark: Why terrorist groups survive decapitation strikes. International Security, 38 (4), 7-38.
• Kaplan, J. (2007). A review of: “Mia Bloom, dying to kill: The allure of suicide terrorism”. Taylor & Francis Online. (Erişim: 03.02.2022), https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546550601000314
• Karlin, M. E. (2004). Understanding terror networks (Review). John Hopkins University Press, 24 (2), 201-202.
• Kydd, A. H. & Walter, B. F. (2006). The strategies of terrorism. International Security, 31 (1), 49-80.
• Lieber, K. A. & Press, D. G. (2013). Why states won’t give nuclear weapons to terrorists. International Security, 38 (1), 80-104.
• Lijn, J. (2011). Crystal balling future threats 2020-2030: Security foresights of “Actors” and “Drivers” in perspective. Defense& Security Anaylsis, 27 (2), 149-167.
• Mares, M. (2018). Right-wing terrorism and violence in Hungary at the beginning of the 21st century. Perspective on Terrorism, 12 (6), 123-135.
• Martin, M. (2009). Hundi/Hawala: The problem of definition. Modern Asian Studies, 43 (4), 909-937.
• Mishal, S. (2003). The pragmatic dimension of the Palestinian Hamas: A network perspective. Armed Forces & Society, 29 (4), 569-589.
• Moshchelkov, E. N. (2003). International and national security in the world community in the Twenty-First century: Outlines of New Realities. Connections, 2 (1), 95-98.
• Mundy, J. (2011). Deconstructing civil wars: Beyond the wew wars debate. Security Dialogue, 42 (3), 279-295.
• Neumayer, E. & Plümper, T. (2009). International terrorism and the clash of civilizations. British Journal of Political Science, 39 (4), 711-734.
• Newman, E. (2004). The ‘New Wars’ debate: A historical perspective is needed. Security Dialogue, 35 (2), 173-189.
• Obama, B. (2007) Renewing American leadership. Foreign Affairs, 86 (4), 2-16.
• Pape, R. A. (2003). The Strategic logic of suicide terrorism. The American Political Science Review, 97 (3), 343-361.
• Peperkamp, L. (2016). The blurry boundaries between war and peace: Do we need to extend just war theory? ARSP: Archiv Für Rechts-Und Sozialphilosophie/Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy, 102 (3), 315-332.
• Rapoport, D. C. (2001). September 11 and the history of terrorism. Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence, 1-18.
• Record, J. (2003). Bounding the global war on terrorism. Strategic Studies Institute, 1-56.
• Rogers, Z. (2021). The promise of strategic gain in the digital information age: What happened? The Cyber Defense Review, 6 (1), 81-106.
• Rosenthal, J. (2004). New rules for war? Naval War College Review, 57 (3/4), 91-101.
• Rybakov, V. (2003). On the issue of terrorism, or two sides of the same coin. Russian Politics&Law, 41 (2), 77-84.
• Sagan, S. D. & Weiner, A. S. (2021). The rule of law and the role of strategy in U.S. nuclear doctrine. International Security, 45 (4), 126-166.
• Sandler, T. (2011). Introduction: New frontiers of terrorism research: An introduction. Journal of Peace Research, 48 (3), 279-286.
• Savarese, L. F. & Witt, J. F. (2017). Strategy and entailments: The enduring role of law in the U.S. armed forces. The MIT Press, 146 (1), 11-23.
• Schweitzer, Y. & Winter, O. (2017). The war on terrorism in Sinai: A watershed. Institute for National Security Studies, 1-5.
• Shultz, R. et al. (2011). The sources of instability in the Twenty-First century: Weak states, armed groups, and irregular conflict. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 5 (2), 73-94.
• Slater, J. (2012). Just war moral philosophy and the 2008-09 Israeli campaign in Gaza. International Security, 37 (2), 44-80.
• Slaughter, A. (2005). Security, solidarity, and sovereignty: The grand themes of UN reform. The American Journal of International Law, 99 (3), 619-631.
• Smeets, M. (2018). The strategic promise of offensive cyber operations. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 12 (3), 90-113.
• Stohl, M. (2008). The global war on terror and state terrorism. Perspectives on Terrorism, 2 (9), 4-10.
• Trager, R. F. & Zagorcheva, D. P. (2005/06). Deterring terrorism: It can be done. International Security, 30 (3), 87-123.
• Vasquez, J. & Valeriano, B. (2010). Classification of interstate wars. The Journal of Politics, 72 (2), 292-309.
• Wilson Center (2011). “Rogue States” and the United States: A historical perspective. (Erişim: 12.01.2022), https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/rogue-states-and-the-united-states-historical-perspective