Reassessing the Kinetic Approach to Counter-Terrorism in the Post–Cold War Era

Abstract

This study investigates the kinetic approach to counter-terrorism, which prioritises military force and direct intervention as dominant tools in the post–Cold War security landscape. It critically analyses the effectiveness, ethical dilemmas, and operational challenges of this approach through case studies such as Operation Neptune Spear and drone warfare in Pakistan and Yemen. The paper underscores the necessity of combining kinetic measures with non-kinetic strategies to effectively manage the evolving nature of global terrorism while mitigating adverse outcomes such as civilian casualties, collateral damage, and the escalation of radical sentiments against the United States. Employing a qualitative research design based on extensive desk review, the study synthesises scholarly perspectives to evaluate the strengths and limitations of the kinetic approach, highlighting the importance of integrating complementary non-kinetic measures, such as intelligence coordination, counter-radicalisation initiatives, and socio-economic reforms, to tackle the root causes of extremism. The findings reveal that although kinetic counter-terrorism operations, including precision strikes and military interventions, succeed in achieving short-term tactical victories by dismantling terrorist networks and neutralising key targets, their long-term strategic sustainability remains weak. Consequently, the paper advocates for a balanced framework that merges kinetic and non-kinetic approaches to ensure enduring security and stability. The study concludes with policy recommendations and directions for further research on comprehensive counter-terrorism strategies.