This study explores and evaluates the effectiveness of the Counterterrorism (CT) policies of Pakistan, particularly, the National Action Plan (NAP) and military operations in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Tribal districts in the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland. In this study, I argue that there is dearth of literature on the evaluation of effectiveness of CT policies particularly in the case of Pakistan. Using Eric Van Um & Daniela Pisoiu's Model of Effectiveness (2015), with concepts like Output effectiveness, Outcome effectiveness and Impact effectiveness, in this dissertation I argue that NAP and military operations in Tribal districts have been partially effective as it restored the government writ in different parts of the country and resulted in a steep decline in terrorist incidents. However, the plan is not highly effective as the threat of terrorism and extremism still exist. I also argue that the hard or military aspects of the NAP was executed soon after the plan was announced, however, to implement the soft aspects of the plan a lot still needs to be done. Nevertheless, CT polices of Pakistan failed to take into consideration the social and cultural aspects of Tribal districts. Therefore, I also contend that NAP and military operations in the Tribal districts resulted into socio-cultural...

Since 9/11, counterterrorism policies have been one of the crucial policy issues facing the United States. After the attacks on the United States, counterterrorism in this country transformed. Fifteen years later, counterterrorism is typically organized as a one-size fits all approach. This approach generalizes all terrorist threats, trying to target terrorism as a whole. This thesis explains how this is an improper approach to counterterrorism. Instead, policies should be case-specific and created in regards to the specific characteristics embodied by each terrorist organization. These characteristics include history and ideology, organizational and leadership structure, finances, and tactics and targets. These characteristics have been proven to comprise the composition of a one-of-a-kind terrorist organization. Each group expresses these characteristics differently, even if they share the same geographical location or religious background. Through research utilizing academic journal articles, current events, government publications, and published books, it is discovered how the unique characteristics displayed by Islamic Fundamentalist groups have counterterrorism policy implications. In order to portray this, this thesis analyzed characteristics of Al Qaeda, ISIS, and the Taliban. Through these case-studies, it was shown how distinct these groups are from one another and how these differences should be accounted for in counterterrorism policies. Once these differences are implemented into individualist counterterrorism policies, the United States can provide effective policies that target specific aspects of each terrorist organization instead of trying to combat terrorism as a whole.

The competing values of national security and civil liberties have been contested as conflicting ideas during times of national emergencies and war, in which the canonical knowledge asserts that the temporary secession of civil liberties is sometimes necessary to protect national security. After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack there has been increased pressure on the U.S. government to provide safety and security, which has required Americans to accept certain restrictions on their freedoms, leading to debates about whether liberty or security should be prioritized. The increasing popularization of securitization in post 9/11 discourse justified by a perpetual state of emergency via the War on Terror, has reinforced the racialization of reified "others," specifically Muslims or people who are perceived to be descendent from the Middle East. The conceptualization of Middle Easterners as 'terrorists' and 'threats' to be securitized has been constructed by political elites and media narratives to garner support for security measures leading to the diminished civil liberties of those stereotyped as "terrorists." Using the theoretical approach of racialized "othering" and the minority threat perception, this research seeks to analyze public opinion on counterterrorism policies when the race/ethnicity and ideological motivations of perpetrators in a hypothetical terrorist attack scenario are manipulated. To investigate this premise, an online survey experiment distributed through Amazon MTurk was conducted to gather public opinion data on counterterrorism policies. Regression analyses were conducted from the 314 respondents to evaluate support amongst various social groups for the counterterrorism policies and whether or not this support was affected by the presence of either American-born, White, men motivated by the teachings of far-right extremism or American-born, men of Middle Eastern descent motivated by the teachings of Islamic extremism. Respondents were asked to evaluate two counterterrorism policies, one that required ceding the civil liberties of the public at large, and the other required ceding the civil liberties of suspected terrorists specifically – which is also referred to as the 'punitive' policy throughout the research. Overall, respondents were more likely to support the policy requiring ceding civil liberties in general, than the punitive policy that would take away the civil liberties of suspected terrorist. When factoring in survey type, respondents in general were more likely to support the punitive policy when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey and were also the most likely to support the policy requiring the public to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. The willingness to cede civil liberties increased for Black and Asian respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey, while willingness to cede civil liberties decreased for White respondents taking the same survey. In general, conservatives were more likely to cede their civil liberties than liberals, and liberals were more likely to view counterterrorism policies as ineffective. When accounting for the effects of survey type on ideology, the results show that conservatives were the least likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey, while liberals were the most likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. / Master of Arts / This thesis explores the role of issue framing, and threat perception on terrorism and its effects on public perception of the liberty vs. security paradigm by way of support for counterterrorism policies. Specifically, this research aims to assess whether support for counterterrorism policies by social group (focusing on race and ideology) varies when the race/ethnicity and ideological motivations of the perpetrators are manipulated in a hypothetical terrorist attack scenario. In order to test this effect, a survey experiment was conducted to gather public opinion data on counterterrorism policies which emulated the liberty/security trade-offs within the Patriot Act. The survey was distributed through the online platform Amazon MTurk which garnered 314 responses. Regression analyses were conducted to evaluate support amongst various social groups for the counterterrorism policies and whether or not this support was affected by the presence of either American-born, White, men motivated by the teachings of far-right extremism or American-born, men of Middle Eastern descent motivated by the teachings of Islamic extremism. Using the theoretical approach of "othering" and the minority threat perception that contributes to desires for increased social controls and levels of punitiveness among the public, this research evaluates respondents' willingness to cede their own civil liberties as well as their support for punitive policies that take away the civil liberties of the perpetrators based on the survey/stimuli respondents received. Overall, respondents were more likely to support the policy requiring ceding civil liberties, than support the punitive policy that would take away the civil liberties of the perpetrators. When factoring in survey type, respondents in general were more likely to support the punitive policy when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey and were also the most likely to support the policy requiring the public to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey. The willingness to cede civil liberties increased for Black and Asian respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey, while the willingness to cede civil liberties decreased for White respondents with the presence of the White/Far-right extremism survey. In general, conservatives were more likely to cede their civil liberties than liberals, and liberals were more likely to view counterterrorism policies as ineffective. When accounting for the effects of survey type on ideology, the results show that conservatives were the least likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the White/Far-right extremism survey, while liberals were the most likely to cede their civil liberties when taking the Middle Eastern/Islamic extremism survey.

The thesis analyzes how the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush used force in response to incidents of international terrorism. Key players in each administration and whether they advocated a law enforcement approach or a war paradigm approach to counterterrorism are examined. In addition, Koh's pattern of executive initiative, congressional acquiescence, and judicial tolerance forms a theoretical lens through which to compare and contrast administrations. An assessment of the role of Congress in making the administrations' counterterrorism policies confirms the vitality of this pattern, and suggests future administrations will adhere to it. During the George W. Bush administration, Koh's pattern of executive initiative (led by personalities like Vice President Cheney), congressional acquiescence, and judicial tolerance combined with the 9/11 tragedy and pervasive fears of another attack to create a 'perfect storm' known as the 'war on terror'. The research also analyzes to what extent the four administrations were constrained by international legal norms on the use of force, i.e. articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter. On the domestic side, the thesis analyzes the extent to which American legal norms on the use of force constrained the administrations. Although the lack of compelling constraints on the use of force is present in all four administrations, the thesis indicates that the George W. Bush administration embodied an extreme example of this trend.

The thesis analyzes how the administrations of Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush used force in response to incidents of international terrorism. Key players in each administration and whether they advocated a law enforcement approach or a war paradigm approach to counterterrorism are examined. In addition, Koh¿s pattern of executive initiative, congressional acquiescence, and judicial tolerance forms a theoretical lens through which to compare and contrast administrations. An assessment of the role of Congress in making the administrations¿ counterterrorism policies confirms the vitality of this pattern, and suggests future administrations will adhere to it. During the George W. Bush administration, Koh¿s pattern of executive initiative (led by personalities like Vice President Cheney), congressional acquiescence, and judicial tolerance combined with the 9/11 tragedy and pervasive fears of another attack to create a ¿perfect storm¿ known as the ¿war on terror¿. The research also analyzes to what extent the four administrations were constrained by international legal norms on the use of force, i.e. articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter. On the domestic side, the thesis analyzes the extent to which American legal norms on the use of force constrained the administrations. Although the lack of compelling constraints on the use of force is present in all four administrations, the thesis indicates that the George W. Bush administration embodied an extreme example of this trend.