1. Crawford Twelve problems with war on terror

2. Crawford Twelve problems with war on terror 1. What constitutes self-defense? Reaction to any threat to our economic well-being? What would be the implications of that in an era of globalization? "Access to key markets and strategic resources"? Does the distinction between self-defense and aggression become eroded?

3. Crawford Twelve problems with war on terror 1. What constitutes self-defense? Reaction to any threat to our economic well-being? What would be the implications of that in an era of globalization? "Access to key markets and strategic resources"? Does the distinction between self-defense and aggression become eroded? 2. If there is no advance evidence of a terrorist attack, how can preemption be justified? Is fear supposed to be sufficient? Doesn't preemption necessarily become preventive war?

4. Crawford Twelve problems with war on terror 1. What constitutes self-defense? Reaction to any threat to our economic well-being? What would be the implications of that in an era of globalization? "Access to key markets and strategic resources"? Does the distinction between self-defense and aggression become eroded? 2. If there is no advance evidence of a terrorist attack, how can preemption be justified? Is fear supposed to be sufficient? Doesn't preemption necessarily become preventive war? 3. If we refuse to negiotate with terrorists, how can we say that war is a last resort? If "the best defense is a good offense", has the last resort principle been abandoned?

5. Crawford Twelve problems with war on terror 1. What constitutes self-defense? Reaction to any threat to our economic well-being? What would be the implications of that in an era of globalization? "Access to key markets and strategic resources"? Does the distinction between self-defense and aggression become eroded? 2. If there is no advance evidence of a terrorist attack, how can preemption be justified? Is fear supposed to be sufficient? Doesn't preemption necessarily become preventive war? 3. If we refuse to negiotate with terrorists, how can we say that war is a last resort? If "the best defense is a good offense", has the last resort principle been abandoned? 4. The problem of good-guy/bad-guy thinking.

6. Crawford Twelve problems with war on terror 1. What constitutes self-defense? Reaction to any threat to our economic well-being? What would be the implications of that in an era of globalization? "Access to key markets and strategic resources"? Does the distinction between self-defense and aggression become eroded? 2. If there is no advance evidence of a terrorist attack, how can preemption be justified? Is fear supposed to be sufficient? Doesn't preemption necessarily become preventive war? 3. If we refuse to negiotate with terrorists, how can we say that war is a last resort? If "the best defense is a good offense", has the last resort principle been abandoned? 4. The problem of good-guy/bad-guy thinking. 5. Isn't it more a case of crime than of war?

7. 6. Counterterrorism as war removes all limits to war: anyplace and anytime, forever. At home as well as abroad, leading to stifling of domestic criticism as treasonous.

8. 6. Counterterrorism as war removes all limits to war: anyplace and anytime, forever. At home as well as abroad, leading to stifling of domestic criticism as treasonous. 7. Counterterrorist military action doesn't meet likely success or proportionality conditions. It is likely to be counterproductive: more hardening than shock and awe, it turns out.

9. 6. Counterterrorism as war removes all limits to war: anyplace and anytime, forever. At home as well as abroad, leading to stifling of domestic criticism as treasonous. 7. Counterterrorist military action doesn't meet likely success or proportionality conditions. It is likely to be counterproductive: more hardening than shock and awe, it turns out. 8. Problem of discrimination: if terrorists are indistinguishable from civilians of the same population, how can discrimination be practiced? Is it possible when states that "harbor" terrorists are equated with them?

10. 6. Counterterrorism as war removes all limits to war: anyplace and anytime, forever. At home as well as abroad, leading to stifling of domestic criticism as treasonous. 7. Counterterrorist military action doesn't meet likely success or proportionality conditions. It is likely to be counterproductive: more hardening than shock and awe, it turns out. 8. Problem of discrimination: if terrorists are indistinguishable from civilians of the same population, how can discrimination be practiced? Is it possible when states that "harbor" terrorists are equated with them? 9. If counterterrorist war has no limit in time or space, the ultimate consequences cannot be calculated: this means we cannot know that the proportionality condition of jus ad bellum has been met.

11. 6. Counterterrorism as war removes all limits to war: anyplace and anytime, forever. At home as well as abroad, leading to stifling of domestic criticism as treasonous. 7. Counterterrorist military action doesn't meet likely success or proportionality conditions. It is likely to be counterproductive: more hardening than shock and awe, it turns out. 8. Problem of discrimination: if terrorists are indistinguishable from civilians of the same population, how can discrimination be practiced? Is it possible when states that "harbor" terrorists are equated with them? 9. If counterterrorist war has no limit in time or space, the ultimate consequences cannot be calculated: this means we cannot know that the proportionality condition of jus ad bellum has been met. 12. Just war theory is too permissive: should be more devoted to preventing war. Feminist view opposed to prevailing binary view.

12. 6. Counterterrorism as war removes all limits to war: anyplace and anytime, forever. At home as well as abroad, leading to stifling of domestic criticism as treasonous. 7. Counterterrorist military action doesn't meet likely success or proportionality conditions. It is likely to be counterproductive: more hardening than shock and awe, it turns out. 8. Problem of discrimination: if terrorists are indistinguishable from civilians of the same population, how can discrimination be practiced? Is it possible when states that "harbor" terrorists are equated with them? 9. If counterterrorist war has no limit in time or space, the ultimate consequences cannot be calculated: this means we cannot know that the proportionality condition of jus ad bellum has been met. 12. Just war theory is too permissive: should be more devoted to preventing war. Feminist view opposed to prevailing binary view. As an alternative to war: protection, disruption, addressing root causes.