![]() A new conceptual framework could bound the seemingly divergent security concerns in this landscape and help rationalize policy making. The large landscape beyond the GPC fence line that features violent actors beckons for a reorganization that breaks down the somewhat artificial but long-established boundaries separating policy responses to terrorists, transnational criminals, cross border gangs, insurgents, paramilitary forces, militias, warlords, and drug traffickers. Twenty years after the attacks of September 11, 2001, it may be time for policymakers to re-conceptualize how they handle terrorism and other violent substate (non-GPC) concerns by grouping together terrorism and like threats. ![]() 3 The widely acknowledged importance of Russia and China-as well as other state actors-in the national security mix has not been accompanied by a reimagining of sub-state violent threats long dominated by terrorism. Threats from Russia and China deeply shaped both the 2017 National Security Strategy 1 a and the 2018 National Defense Strategy, 2 and GPC continues to influence major U.S. ![]() national security establishment have shifted away from terrorism toward addressing great power competition (GPC). In the last several years, the priorities of the U.S. The framework might help order the non-GPC threat landscape for decision makers, facilitate comparative understanding of violent threats to the United States, and drive better-informed prioritization within national security. national security establishment has taken up great power competition (GPC) as its primary concern recently, and terrorism has slipped from the top position, it is time for the security policy community to place terrorism within a new conceptual framework, one that combines terrorists, violent criminals, drug traffickers, insurgents, and others under the heading of violent non-state actors (VNSA).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |