PUBLICATIONS
Fall 2011
"Muslim 'Homegrown' Terrorism in the United States: How Serious Is the Threat?"
International Security, issue 2, volume 36
By Risa Brooks
Despite a surge of arrests in 2009, evidence suggests that Muslim American terrorist activity—a phenomenon sometimes referred to as “homegrown” terrorism—is not on the rise. The 2009 arrest count is likely a combination of more aggressive law enforcement and an accident of data: several long-term plots led to arrests in 2009, and many of the plots involved groups, increasing the number of arrests per incident. In addition, many plots have been detected with the help of inside informants. It is therefore crucial not to overreact to statistics in a way that could alienate the Muslim community.
Fall 2003
"Making Military Might: Why Do States Fail and Succeed? A Review Essay"
International Security, issue 2, volume 28
By Risa Brooks
Risa Brooks reviews two books on regime type and military effectiveness: Arabs at War, by Kenneth Pollack, and Democracies at War, by Dan Reiter and Allan Stam.
March 2013
"Why America Should Not Retrench"
By Stephen Brooks, Former Fellow, International Security Program, 2003-2004, G. John Ikenberry and William Wohlforth, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security
The United States' extended system of security commitments creates a set of institutional relationships that foster political communication. Alliance institutions are first about security protection, but they also bind states together and create institutional channels of communication. For example, NATO has facilitated ties and associated institutions that increase the ability of the United States and Europe to talk to each other and to do business. Likewise, the bilateral alliances in East Asia also play a communication role beyond narrow security issues. Consultations and exchanges spill over into other policy areas. This gives the United States the capacity to work across issue areas, using assets and bargaining chips in one area to make progress in another.
Winter 2012/13
"Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment"
International Security, issue 3, volume 37
By Stephen Brooks, Former Fellow, International Security Program, 2003-2004, G. John Ikenberry and William Wohlforth, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security
After sixty-five years of pursuing a grand strategy of global leadership—nearly a third of which transpired without a peer great power rival—has the time come for the United States to switch to a strategy of retrenchment? This analysis shows that advocates of retrenchment radically overestimate the costs of deep engagement and underestimate its benefits. We conclude that the fundamental choice to retain a grand strategy of deep engagement after the Cold War is just what the preponderance of international relations scholarship would expect a rational, self-interested leading power in America’s position to do.
Winter 2005/06
"Correspondence: Striking the Balance"
International Security, issue 3, volume 30
By Stephen Brooks, Former Fellow, International Security Program, 2003-2004, Robert Art, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 1974-1977, 1978-1979; Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security, William Wohlforth, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security, Keir A. Lieber and Gerard Alexander
Some scholars argue that the balance of power theory that explained the bipolar and multipolar systems of the past is irrelevant in a unipolar world. These letters debate the possibility of expanding the traditional definition of "balancing" to account for policies that states are pursuing today.
Summer 2005
"Hard Times for Soft Balancing"
International Security, issue 1, volume 30
By Stephen Brooks, Former Fellow, International Security Program, 2003-2004 and William Wohlforth, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security
The development of the concept of soft balancing is an attempt to stretch balance of power theory to encompass an international system in which traditional counterbalancing among the major powers is absent.
Winter 2003/04
"A Double-Edged Sword: Globalization and Biosecurity"
International Security, issue 3, volume 28
By Kendall Hoyt, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2002-2005 and Stephen Brooks, Former Fellow, International Security Program, 2003-2004
Contrary to those who argue that economic globalization increases vulnerability to a bioterrorist threat—and for this reason should be restricted—Hoyt and Brooks contend that globalization is a “double-edged sword” that has the potential to increase but also decrease levels of vulnerability—for example, by facilitating the development of vaccines.
Spring 2002
"From Old Thinking to New Thinking in Qualitative Research"
International Security, issue 4, volume 26
By Stephen Brooks, Former Fellow, International Security Program, 2003-2004 and William Wohlforth, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security
After correcting what the authors state is Robert English’s “misunderstanding of [their] research design,” the authors elaborate their article’s contribution on “how to assess the causal implications of widely accepted findings” and the significance of this practice for qualitative research.
Winter 2000/01
"Power, Globalization, and the End of the Cold War: Reevaluating a Landmark Case for Ideas"
International Security, issue 3, volume 25
By Stephen Brooks, Former Fellow, International Security Program, 2003-2004 and William Wohlforth, Editorial Board Member, Quarterly Journal: International Security
The authors marshal evidence from recently released sources to argue that shifting material pressures resulting from changes in the structure of global production had a much greater influence on Soviet foreign policy in the 1980s than previously thought.
2010
Contending with Terrorism: Roots, Strategies, and Responses
By Michael E. Brown, Editorial Board Member and Former Co-Editor, Quarterly Journal: International Security, Owen R. Coté, Editor, International Security, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, Editor, International Security; Series Editor, Belfer Center Studies in International Security and Steven E. Miller, Director, International Security Program; Editor-in-Chief, International Security; Co-Principal Investigator, Project on Managing the Atom
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, scholars and policy analysts in national security have turned their attention to terrorism, considering not only how to prevent future attacks but also the roots of the problem. This book offers some of the latest research in terrorism studies. The contributors examine the sources of contemporary terrorism, discussing the impact of globalization, the influence of religious beliefs, and the increasing dissatisfaction felt by the world’s powerless. They consider the strategies and motivations of terrorists, offering contending perspectives on whether or not terrorists can be said to achieve their goals; explore different responses to the threat of terrorism, discussing such topics as how the United States can work more effectively with its allies; and contemplate the future of al-Qaida, asking if its networked structure is an asset or a liability.
The essays in Contending with Terrorism address some of the central topics in the analysis of contemporary terrorism. They promise to guide future policy and inspire further research into one of most important security issues of the twenty-first century.
