SWJ Book Review

Review of "Enemies Near and Far: How Jihadist Groups Strategize, Plot, and Learn" by Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and Thomas Joscelyn.

Book review of Andrea J. Nichols, "Sex Trafficking in the United States: Theory, Research, Policy, and Practice by 2022 SWJ–El Centro Intern Mae Key-Ketter.

This timely book review of Tricia L. Bacon and Elizabeth Grimm, "Terror in Transition: Leadership and Succession in Terrorist Organizations" is essential reading for understanding terrorist organizations and leadership succession.

Book review of Mark Galeotti, "The Very: Russia's Super Mafia." The text provides a valuable overview of Russian organized crime and its influence on Russia's political system.

Review of Victor Asal, Brian J. Phillips and R. Karl Rethemeyer, "Insurgent Terrorism: Intergroup Relationships and the Killing of Civilians" by SWJ–El Centro Associate Daniel Weisz.  Using data from the "Big, Allied, and Dangerous II" database, the book seeks to explain why insurgent groups sometimes kill civilians.

Book Review of Jacqueline L. Hazelton's "Bullets Not Ballots: Success in Counterinsurgency Warfare" by Steven Metz, Professor of National Security and Strategy at the US Army War College and a nonresident fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

Review of "Los servicios de inteligencia en México, ayer y hoy [The Mexican Intelligence Services, Yesterday and Today]" in English. This review examines the history and development of the Mexican intelligence services to provide a baseline for understanding contemporary intelligence challenges in Mexico.

In the SWJ Book Review, SWJ-El Centro Intern Issac Poritzky reviews Professor Michael Kenney's examination of radicalization in Great Britain, "The Islamic State in Britain: Radicalization and Resilience in an Activist Network."

Book Review of James H. Lebovic,"Planning to Fail: The US Wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. This text looks at the US wars in Vietnam (1965–1973), Iraq (2003–2011), and Afghanistan (2001-present [2021]) reviewing the conditions from withdrawal. In all three case, the decision-makers accepted terms of departure that their predecessors would have rejected at the start of tase respective conflicts.