Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article Link 15.1: Enders, W., & Su, X. (2007). Rational Terrorists and Optimal Network Structure. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 51(1), 33-57.

After the events of 9/11, U.S. counterterrorism became more proactive in that the Patriot Act allowed the authorities far more freedom to directly attack terrorist network structures. We argue that rational terrorists will attempt to thwart such policies and restructure themselves to be less penetrable. We model the trade-off between security and intragroup communication faced by terrorists. The model is used to derive the anticipated changes in network structure and the consequent changes in the type, complexity, and success rate of potential terrorist attacks.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 15.2: Roberge, I. (2009). Changing Course: Policy Reversals, Terrorist Financing and Title III of the USA Patriot Act. Public Policy and Administration, 24(3), 265-279.

Policy reversals represent a particular type of policy change. Reversals refer specifically to instances when a policy is adopted or discontinued despite previously adopted positions. In cases of reversals, decision makers have reassessed their core values usually because of substantive events in the policy parameter. Although reversals represent a stark redirection, they could not take place without prior institutionalization in the field. We use Title III of the Patriot Act, which deals among other things with money laundering and terrorist financing, to illustrate our point.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 15.3: Rosenbach, E. (2008). The Incisive Fight: Recommendations for Improving Counterterrorism Intelligence. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618(1), 133-147.

The intelligence community has evolved significantly since the failures of 9/11 and the inaccurate assessments on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Congressional action has resulted in multiple far-reaching reforms and tectonic organizational shifts. On the strategic level, however, counterterrorism intelligence policy has been muddled during the past eight years. The Bush administration, for example, called on the intelligence community to “bolster the growth of democracy.” The next president should cast aside political ideology and build on reform efforts to empower top-notch leaders. Strong new leaders in the intelligence community must energize the National Counterterrorism Center and provide the president with comprehensive and policy-relevant intelligence analysis. The United States cannot eliminate the global terrorist threat alone—the next president must boost cooperation with liaison security services. Finally, the intelligence community must bolster its operational capacity to find and detain terrorists around the world.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?