Description
This project proceeds from an initial puzzle: why do great powers with differing regime types have varying counterterrorism architectures yet similarly sweeping mandates? Despite a proliferation in research on terrorism in the United States in the last two decades, research on state counterterrorism initiatives has remained comparatively underdeveloped. This paper reviews the present state of counterterrorism studies, and finds five key limitations: (1) a lack of consideration of the role of broader geopolitical strategy in counterterror initiatives and doctrine; (2) a failure to explore non-US initiatives; (3) a failure to explain the gap between a state’s rhetoric and practice of counterterrorism; (4) a failure to examine variation across cases; and (5) the treatment of counterterrorism as ideologically or institutionally neutral.
The paper argues that the wide range of actions being performed in the name of counterterrorism by the United States and its geopolitical rivals should be understood in the context of broader geopolitical strategy. The project concludes by proposing a comparative framework that can better account for variations in counterterror practices between states in an era of great power competition.
