Terrorism Literature, sociology homework help

Current Terrorism Literature Review

Through our personal reading we often come across something that really hits home or is worth passing on to colleagues.

Your task is to select one of these papers/items you have read (resources outside of the current course textbooks. Search the web, peer reviewed journals, magazines, newspapers, etc., for literature that directly pertains to terrorism). Post the review (copy & paste inside this Forum box) indicating the title of the literature, where it was located, the proper citation, and relevance to this particular course and the theories we have explored.

Literature Review Guidelines for Prof Greer’s Courses

The format of a review of literature will vary from discipline to discipline and from assignment to assignment. In this course, the following parameters apply.

• Reviews must be a minimum of 750 words.
• Keep reviews limited to one (1) book/article/etc.
• Follow APA 6th edition style guidelines when citing the literature.
• Place citation, name, course number, and date in upper left corner.
• Reply to at least two other reviews. 250 words minimum.

———————————————————————————————————–

Example Format:

Full Citation (APA):

Student Name:

Course #:

Date:

Introduction:

Brief intro to the book/article topic or theme.

Body:

Brief intro to why you selected this work. Briefly compare and contrast to other books you may have read (including but not limited to course textbooks)

Conclusion:

State why you recommend this book.

---

Example Review:

Full Citation: Bird, J. (2004). Analysis of intelligence support to the 1991 persian gulf war: enduring lessons. Strategy Research Project, United States Army War College. Carlisle, PA.

Name: John Doe

Course #: SCMT 319
Date: January 1, 2010

One of Richard Hallion’s assertions in his work Storm over Iraq: Air Power and the Gulf War, was that intelligence capabilities were one of the weaknesses of the United States military during that conflict. I was interested in another point of view on the subject, as Hallion’s assertion did not quite ring true. So I scoured the Internet to find a work on this topic. That search led me to Lieutenant Colonel Bird’s research project at the USAWC’s website. Lieutenant Colonel Bird served in Operation Desert Storm as the commanding officer of a Military Intelligence Company. Bird’s thesis is that there were lessons to be learned from the intelligence collection and analysis efforts during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and that many things went right. His work looks at these efforts at the division through the theatre level. Lieutenant Colonel Bird (2004) contends that “the national intelligence community responded quickly with decisive, aggressive, and perhaps most importantly, innovative intelligence collection, analysis, production and dissemination…” (p. 2). In his work, Lieutenant Colonel Bird shows how this was accomplished through HUMIT/Counter Intelligence, SIGINT and IMINT. He breaks down each of these in turn into such topics as interrogation Operations, SIGNIT organization and systems and tactical imagery reconnaissance. It is within this framework that Lieutenant Colonel Bird’s paper addresses carious issues. This work did address the issue of conflicting Battle Damage Assessment and Intelligence Analysis Training, arguably the two most controversial intelligence issues to come out of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. This work addresses the various intelligence issues that arose from the 1991 Gulf War. It presents both the positive and negative lessons learned in a concise and assessable manner. It made for an excellent introduction on Intelligence capabilities during the 1991 Gulf War.