Search

Begin New Search Topic Security Content Type Policy Brief Publishing Institution MIT Center for International Studies

1. Immigration and Insecurity: Post-9/11 Fear in the United States

Author:
John Tirman
Publication Date:
06-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The attacks of September 11, 2001, transformed the landscape of global security, none more than borders and immigration. The topography of citizenship, belonging, and suspicion instantly changed for Arab and Muslim communities in the United States. They drew the sharp attention of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence services, and that continues. But the public's focus has swung south to scrutinize the U.S.-Mexican border as a source of insecurity. For the most part, the alarms about immigrants as threats are exaggerated. And the policy choices driven by these concerns—much larger border security measures in particular—are costly in a globalized economy and unnecessary for security in any case.
Topic:
Security, Migration, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Arab Countries, North America, and Mexico

2. Budgets to Make America Safer

Author:
Cindy Williams
Publication Date:
06-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Since September 2001, federal budgets for national security have climbed more than 50 percent in real terms. Unfortunately, much of the added money reflects “business as usual” rather than programs aimed at making the nation safer from today's threats. Compared with past decades, national security spending makes up a relatively small share of the U.S. economy. Nevertheless, with the federal debt growing rapidly and as large numbers of baby boomers approach retirement age, many observers expect future federal budgets to be tight. Thus it is critically important to ensure that national security funds go to projects that make the nation more secure. This article examines broad changes in national security budgets since September 2001. It first reviews the three categories of federal spending for national security. It then examines how budgets in those categories have changed since September 2001. It ends with a look at alternatives that seem more relevant in an era of international mass-casualty terrorism.
Topic:
Security, Economics, and Politics
Political Geography:
America and North America

3. The War on Terror and the Cold War: They're Not the Same

Author:
John Tirman
Publication Date:
04-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Since the autumn of 2001, following the shocking attacks of September 11th, President Bush and his advisers have repeatedly likened the war against terrorism to the confrontation with Nazi Germany in the Second World War and the long struggle with Soviet communism in the Cold War. But the current anti-terrorist campaign and the related war in Iraq are significantly different from those earlier contests. Where resemblances occur, they are not comforting to our political values. And the comparative lessons that the U.S. Government is proffering are not the ones that are relevant to dealing with terrorism.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Politics, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States

4. Human Bombs: Rethinking Religion and Terror

Author:
Nichole Argo
Publication Date:
04-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Suicide terror has become a daily news staple. Who are these human bombs, and why are they willing to die in order to kill? Many observers turn to Islam for an explanation. They cite the pre-ponderance of Muslim bombers today, indoctrination by extremist institutions, and the language used in jihadi statements.
Topic:
Security, Politics, Religion, and Terrorism

5. A Double Standard on Nuclear Weapons?

Author:
Hugh Gusterson
Publication Date:
04-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
There has long been a widespread perception among U.S. defense intellectuals, politicians and pundits that, while we can live with the nuclear weapons of the five official nuclear nations for the indefinite future, the proliferation of nuclear weapons to nuclear-threshold states in the Third World, especially the Islamic world, would be enormously dangerous. This orthodoxy is so much a part of our collective common sense that, like all common sense, it can usually be stated as simple fact without fear of contradiction. It is widely found in the media and in learned journals, and it is shared by liberals as well as conservatives.
Topic:
Security, Nuclear Weapons, Politics, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States

6. We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran

Author:
Barry R. Posen
Publication Date:
03-2006
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
The intense concern about Iran's nuclear energy program reflects the judgment that, should it turn to the production of weapons, an Iran with nuclear arms would gravely endanger the United States and the world. An Iranian nuclear arsenal, policymakers fear, could touch off a regional arms race while emboldening Tehran to undertake aggressive, even reckless, actions.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States and Iran

7. The Hidden Cost of Homeland Defense

Author:
Benjamin Friedman
Publication Date:
11-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Conventional wisdom says that none of us are safe from terrorism. The truth is that almost all of us are. The conventional belief is that in response to terrorism, the federal government has spent massive sums on homeland security. The fact is that the increased federal spending on homeland security since September 11 pales in comparison to increases in the U.S. defense budget. But homeland security has costs beyond spending, costs that conventional thinking rarely considers. U.S. homeland security policy conjures up a flawless enemy that could strike at any moment, in any place. That policy institutionalizes the fears terrorists created and harms liberal values.
Topic:
Security, Economics, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States and North America

8. Why Intelligence Isn't to Blame for 9/11

Author:
Joshua Rovner
Publication Date:
11-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
It did not take long for blame for the September 11 attacks to cascade onto the intelligence community. But it is not deserved, and the reasons for that are important.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
North America

9. Who Needs the U.N.?

Author:
Gary G. Troeller
Publication Date:
09-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
There has long been a feeling in the corridors of power in Washington that the United Nations is irredeemably flawed and condemned to ineffectiveness. It is viewed as an irritating constraint on U.S. power, or worse—expensive, wasteful, slow to act, and irrelevant.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States, Washington, and North America

10. Iran: Rogue State?

Author:
Ali Mostashari
Publication Date:
09-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Iran is now an important focal point for U.S. foreign policy. Yet many have argued that the United States lacks a coherent foreign policy on Iran, amounting to no more than an enormous list of “evils”: namely, that Iran exports its radical Islamist revolution, supports Hezbollah and Hamas and actively opposes the Middle East peace process, is building nuclear and biological weapons capacity, was involved in the bombings of the Jewish center in Buenos Aires and the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia, provides Al-Qaeda with safe passage and refuge, helps insurgents in Iraq, assassinates its own dissidents and oppresses its people, and so on.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Nuclear Weapons, and Terrorism
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Iran, Middle East, and Saudi Arabia

11. Filling the Army's Ranks for the Iraq War

Author:
Cindy Williams
Publication Date:
07-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Some two years into the occupation in Iraq, the U.S. Army faces a serious staffing challenge. As of May 30, 2005, the active-duty Army had missed its recruiting goals for four months in a row. If things do not improve substantially, the service will have only 10 percent of needed enlistees pre-signed for basic training at the beginning of 2006; normally it begins the year with about one-third of its trainees already committed to contracts.
Topic:
Security
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, and Middle East

12. The Iraq War: Do Civilian Casualties Matter?

Author:
Les Roberts
Publication Date:
07-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
A disturbing thing happened to me in Afghanistan last May while working on a project to install wells in villages. After a delightful month of working in a rural province, filled with welcoming leaders and offers of tea at every house, the mood suddenly changed. A young man walked up to my 42-year-old female American colleague and bashed her in the face. As we collected our interviewers and headed back to the vehicles, children from the village pelted us with stones. This violence against anything foreign played out in hundreds of locations across Afghanistan that day.
Topic:
Security, Civil Society, and Human Welfare
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Iraq, and America

13. All Weapons of Mass Destruction Are Not Equal

Author:
Allison Macfarlane
Publication Date:
07-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
In the United States, weapons of mass destruction have become the bête noir of the 21st century. They are now the justification for pre-emptive war, for an expansion of the cold war nuclear arsenal, and for the spending of billions of dollars on offensive and defensive measures. Since significant portions of U.S. foreign and domestic policy are based on this categorization, it is high time to reflect on whether these weapons pose such a lethal threat.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States

14. U.S. Military Power: Strong Enough to Deter all Challenges?

Author:
Barry R. Posen
Publication Date:
04-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
How strong is the U.S. militarily? Recent history would suggest very strong indeed—the U.S. armed forces are undefeated in two stand-up fights with Saddam Hussein, and one each with Slobodan Milosevic and the Taliban. The Grand Strategy of the Bush administration seeks to improve this already impressive position. “Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States.”
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Politics
Political Geography:
United States and Taliban

15. Why U.S. National Security Requires Mideast Peace

Author:
Stephen W. Van Evera
Publication Date:
04-2005
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
MIT Center for International Studies
Abstract:
Two myths have important, distorting effects on the Bush administration's policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. First is the optimistic belief that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only a minor obstacle to American foreign policy—a modest hindrance that will not prevent the United States from achieving its main foreign policy goals. Second is the pessimistic belief that a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians is infeasible, so a forceful U.S. push for peace will only waste effort on a fool's errand. These two assumptions have led the administration to adopt a passive policy toward the conflict, declining to offer firm U.S. leadership toward peace.
Topic:
Security and Foreign Policy
Political Geography:
United States, America, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine