He also describes how the existing counterinsurgency literature primarily focuses on two frameworks: classical and modern (or global) counterinsurgency.Using the war in Afghanistan as an example, he compares and contrasts the strengths, weaknesses, and potential offsetting effects of modern counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies, arguing that in order for the United States to be successful in its battle against Al-Qaeda’s brand of international terrorism, it must take its struggle from the open battlefields of counterinsurgency into the shadowy world of counterterrorism.

And, unhappily, it seems just as possible to comment now, as I did at Davos two years ago, that the most visible product of the war on terrorism so far has been nothing more, or less, than more war and more terrorism.One man's terrorist, they say, is another's freedom fighter.Terrorism is a global phenomenon that is complicated to define and explain. A Palestinian who took up arms against Isreali occupation is deemed a freedom fighter in the Palestinian circles but from the frame of reference of an Israeli, he is a terrorist.However, these efforts in Interpol and many of its member agencies to target terrorism as a crime may not necessarily harmonize with the political, diplomatic, and legal activities against terrorism conducted at the level of the governments of national states.This article looks at international harmonizing efforts to fortify the legal battle against cybercrime, categorizing the actions into four aspects: professional law-enforcement efforts, regional efforts, multi-national efforts, and global international efforts.