Search

This paper explores the relevance of Cold War security theory to a world in which states focus on asymmetric threats rather than on nuclear-armed superpower rivalry. It assesses how well theories of compellance help in modeling the strategic interactions of states and organized, violent, nonstate actors fighting for political goals. This paper discusses asymmetric threats as a top U.S. security concern, highlights the threats posed by asymmetric adversaries such as insurgencies and terrorist groups, considers theories of compellance and crisis bargaining in the context of state-nonstate conflict, models the compellent strategic interactions of the state and nonstate actors in a counterinsurgency campaign, and examines several cases for an empirical evaluation of the theoretical argument. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the evolution of financing and program trends of the U.S. Export-Import Bank, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Trade and Development Agency from the early 1990s through 2005. Employing data from the annual reports of these organizations, the paper will explore the degree of coherence in overall U.S. trade and investment policy and the relative degree of influence exerted by economic and trade considerations on the one hand and foreign policy and national security considerations on the other hand. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States, the most efficient and dependent user of space based systems, both economically and militarily, is also the most vulnerable to any disruption to access to and use of space. The need to defend satellites and guarantee access to space has become a fundamental U.S. national security interest. How the United States pursues these interests will define conflict or cooperation in space, and impact global economic and political developments in the coming years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was established in 1961 as an autonomous organization independent of US political and military functions. Until the G.W. Bush Administration's 2001 declaration of a Global War on Terror, USAID had maintained its autonomy for nearly forty years. This paper examines USAID's loss of autonomy that occurred as a result of the Bush Administration's Global War on Terror and the Administration's newly established goals of US foreign assistance programs that emphasize national security and democracy rather than humanitarian aid. This shift in policy has resulted in coordinated efforts between the State Department and USAID with umbrella oversight from the newly created position of Director of Foreign Assistance. The coordinated effort between the two agencies has eliminated USAID's autonomy by transforming the agency's leadership, mission, organizational culture, and foreign aid appropriations to reflect the objectives of the Bush administration's Global War on Terror. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American peacekeeping mission in Iraq has become a major theme in the political sparing amongst the 2008 presidential candidates. Predictably, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have taken every opportunity to attack the GOP candidate John McCain for his unflagging support of the Iraq war. Most notably, McCain has been lampooned for his now famous 100 years in Iraq comment. The reality is that regardless of successful reconstruction, peacekeeping troops will be indefinitely committed to Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq so long as the US grand strategy requires. As with any mission or strategy, success is ultimately determined by evaluating whether or not the stated goals of said mission or strategy have been fulfilled. For a variety of reasons, the specter of an unending troop presence in Iraq has come to symbolize the failure of President Bush's plan to make America safe. Unfortunately, many Americans' criticisms of the mission in Iraq lack the appropriate level of analysis. The reality of the engagements in both Iraq and Afghanistan is they are merely functions of a larger grand strategy aimed at thwarting global terror. In order to illustrate that the presence of peacekeeping forces in Iraq and Afghanistan is not necessarily contingent upon successful reconstruction, this paper will examine the theoretical basis and prescription for US national security, what precisely a peacekeeper is, and three cases (the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq) of US grand strategy in action. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American security umbrella that extends over the GCC is often quickly attributed to a "defense for the free flow of oil" arrangement between the United States and the kingdoms of the Gulf. Such an explanation may accurately describe the current state of affairs, but it does little to explain how or why the GCC has come to rely on the US for defense. The GCC was formed for the very purpose of security and subsequent events of the 1980s and 90s further underscored the need for a regional security alliance. The GCC has also spent exorbitant amounts of money on procuring the most modern and advanced weapon systems available over the last two and a half decades. Given the necessity and apparent will to defend itself, why has the GCC failed to develop an integrated military force or cooperative security policy? This paper will examine some of the factors that have prevented the GCC from doing so. The GCC's ultimate ability to act in concert on defense and security has been hampered by early ambiguity in articulating its actual mission, a poor showing in response to the invasion of Kuwait, diverging interests and threat perceptions and internal distractions among the individual member states. Bilateral security cooperation with the US continues to be the order of the day and a return to GCC-centric cooperation appears unlikely until other nations of the region can be brought into a security relationship and the US resumes an over-the-horizon approach towards the Gulf. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perceptions of security matter and the way in which persons internalize what security is and is not affects policy making as well as how everyday citizens interact and engage in their daily routines. While most would agree that being "secure" matters, not all persons understand security in the same way. Indeed, the security dialogue continues to evolve over time and it is clear that perceptions of security are no longer limited to physical protection from harm. Instead the security menu continues to expand and grow. Many factors can affect perceptions of security and one of these factors is the environment one grows up in. Growing up in a war-torn region or one in which poverty is pervasive is likely to mold one's perceptions of security differently than, for example, growing up in a wealthy, industrialized country. In turn, these perceptions have a real impact on how people at both the elite and mass level approach their everyday activities, who they interact with, and what they want in life more generally. This paper seeks to better understand how perceptions of security vary cross-nationally. We specifically focus on youth's perceptions of security in Brazil, Cyprus, Israel, and the United States using data generated in cooperation with the GlobalEd Project at the University of Connecticut (www.globaled.uconn.edu). Our goal is to better understand how perceptions of security differ across nations and how these perceptions interact with policymaking. If today's youth are tomorrow's leaders, than it is crucial to understand how such individuals view security, how these perceptions differ across nations, and what this means for the future of global politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars remain divided over the debate about the effectiveness of America's new homeland security measures. One side of the debate, championed by Benjamin Friedman, asserts that adequate measures have been taken to ensure the security of American citizens. This group further argues that, since security threats will always be present, the United States should not spend excessively on costly measures that cannot be relied upon for increased security. The opposing side of the debate, articulated by Stephen E. Flynn, argues that the American government has not done enough to prevent future terrorist attacks to safeguard the general public. This faction also affirms that homeland security measures need to be improved in order to address future natural disasters adequately. Ultimately, it can be demonstrated that the existence of this debate can be explained by the fact that, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the United States has approached homeland security in a way that has been consistent with American strategic and political culture. The American response to the new security threat took the form of a Congressional response that aimed to create institutions and a private-industry initiative that sought to profit from the need to purchase new "security solutions". The reaction was also consistent with the trend of seeking a response that aims to demonstrate that measures have been put in place to protect vital American interests, while at the same time minimizing personal sacrifice. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines films and documentaries that treat the National Security State as a threat to democracy in America. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a Washington D.C based think tank that produced a 1997 document generally credited as the template for the "Bush Doctrine." The PNAC advocated the transformation of America's foreign and national security policy. The organization asserted that US decision makers needed to execute an immediate shift away from the antiquated "containment doctrine" toward a new international policy focused upon preemption, regime change, nation building, and unilateralism. I suggest that the American Political Development (APD) subfield has much to offer in the way of explaining how beauracractic actors, such as those in the PNAC, under certain conditions, can act as autonomous policy entrepreneurs and epistemic communities in order to influence the direction of American policy. My research will trace the members of the PNAC and their intellectual and policy networking activities between 1991 and 2001. I recognize that human agency lies at the interstices between systemic conditions, knowledge, and national actions. I offer an approach that will examine the role this network of knowledge-based experts (epistemic community) played in articulating the cause-and-effect relationships of complex problems, that helped decision makers identify American interests, frame issues for collective debate, and propose policy alternatives. Specifically, I will track the action of PNAC members with an emphasis upon both public and private policy advocacy. I wish to conduct interviews with critical members and have them account for the process tracing I uncover. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]