Boko Haram is now the deadliest 'terrorist' organization operational in the world, by virtue of the sheer number of people the group have killed. Together with al-Shabaab, the two groups account for a substantial amount of carnage on the African continent. Analyzed here are the ideologies of these two infamous organizations. Utilizing information from breadcrumbs that they leave behind, in videos, media releases and various correspondence, this book searches for clues within the historical and contemporary social context that explain their existence. It explores the ideological roots the two organizations share and examines the goals and objectives of each group in order to calculate the nature of the threat posed in the broader international realm. It is argued that through applying strategic theory, and specifically the concept of strategic terrorism, it is possible to form a deeper understanding of two of the most dangerous militant organizations in operation today.

Constructive Sovereignty is an emerging international relations (IR) model intended to allow IR scholars to address changing international realities. Specifically, the model endogenizes phenomena such as non-state actors and globalization's increasing onslaught against state sovereignty. Constructive Sovereignty maintains that states are not the primary actors, their constituents are. Therefore preferences are not fixed as in state-centric models. Since states merely represent the preferences of their respective constituents, they will only adhere to and ultimately embed those international norms that their constituents will accept. However, rather than attempting to explain, describe and predict the adoption of such international norms via the influence of international organizations (as with liberalism's top-down approach), or via state- centric regimes (as with neo-liberalism's bottom-up approach), Constructive Sovereignty posits that ultimately change comes from the inside out.

As a scholar of terrorism, John Maszka has examined how politics, the media, and the War on Terror play off one another. His most startling claim is that the War on Terror is a war for natural resources - and that terrorism has little to do with it. Once the military became mechanized, oil quickly became the most sought-after commodity on the planet, and the race for energy was eventually framed as a matter of national security. Ironically, Maszka argues, the true threats to national security are the massive oil conglomerates themselves. Maszka delves into the repercussions of a government that capitalizes on an us versus them mentality, such as the demonizing of an entire religion, sensationalizing "radical" violent attacks, and loosely applying the word "terrorism." Because the United States' current approach to terrorism has led to the politicization and abuse of the term, Maszka suggests a need for a standardized definition of terrorism. Currently, too many acts of violence can be labeled terrorism, resulting in state and nonstate actors labeling their enemies as "terrorists," yet claiming their own acts of violence as legitimate and retributive. Maszka argues that much of the violence labeled as terrorism today is not terrorism at all. In an ambitious attempt to connect seemingly unrelated events in politics and the media, Maszka offers an unflinching portrayal of the hypocrisy underlying our foreign policy.