From the Editors

Israel's policy of military reprisals has never seemed to follow any consistent pattern of tit‐for‐tat. On the one hand, not every violent incident was answered with a counterattack. On the other hand, when Israel responded, frequently it employed an excessive amount of force, which was disproportional to the Arab provocation. This behavior has not been the consequence of a premeditated and rational strategy. Instead, it appears to have been the result of a political dispute between alternative approaches regarding the use of military force. The following research analyzes the development of this controversy and how these differences of opinion were resolved.     

Warning of Terror: Explaining the Failure of Intelligence Against Terrorism

Many scholars and analysts have studied intelligence failure and surprise and developed theories to explain disasters such as the attack on Pearl Harbor. Others, especially since the 9/11 attacks, have examined the rising threat of terrorism and see it as posing a particularly difficult challenge for the intelligence community. But little work has been done to integrate the earlier literature on intelligence failure with the newer threat of terrorist attack. This article attempts such an integration, by examining the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut in 1983; it concludes that most studies of the Beirut bombing are mistaken in their assessment of the role played by intelligence in that disaster, and suggests that our understanding of intelligence failure against surprise attacks needs to be revised in the age of terrorism.