Search

This study examines what motivates local emergency management officials to implement federal emergency management and homeland security policies within their own departments since the September 11 attacks. Pre-existing research claims there is confusion among local governments about potential changes to the role local emergency management services should play before, during, and after natural, accidental, or terror related incidents (Waugh 2007; Birkland and Waterman 2008; Lindsay 2008; Esinger 2006). Meanwhile, additional research claims the new federal disaster management policies (The National Response Plan, National Incident Management System, and Incident Command System) lack flexibility in implementation expectations, and there is limited cohesion among the layers of government, actors, and interests involved (Waugh 2006; Esinger 2004; McEntire 2004; Haddow 2005; Schneider 2005; Lester and Krejci 2007; Takeda and Helms 2006; Wise 2002; Newman 2002; Nicholson 2007; Department of Homeland Security 2008; Birkland and Waterman 2008; Edwards 2007). Assuming these researchers are correct, my study asserts that something must spur local actors to comply with federal policy demands in their daily operations. The study examines the effects of coercion, defined as actions taken by the federal government to force state and local implementers to comply with federal policy demands, which is nothing new in the policy arena (Posner 2007). Available federal grant dollars for emergency management and homeland security practices could make a dramatic difference to local emergency management operations, forcing these actors to comply with federal policy demands, even if it is in a begrudging fashion that deviates from traditional Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anti-Americanism is a phenomenon that has received increasing attention in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks and more recently with the invasion of Iraq. However, despite its wide use, anti-Americanism is used often as a polemic term, and then often inconsistently. We attempt to provide a clearer and more consistent definition of anti-Americanism. Then, using newly released Eurobarometer data from the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003, we observe the prevalence of anti-American attitudes among the peoples of Europe, and what leads to these attitudes. We find that ideology, nationalism, attachment to a supranational Europe, the security concerns of Europeans, and U.S. behavior on the international stage are all strong predictors of anti-American attitudes. We then draw inferences about the effects of anti-Americanism. We find that anti-Americanism leads to an erosion of support for NATO and increased support for a defense arrangement led by the European Union, with no noticeable effect for support of defense led by national governments. Furthermore, anti-Americanism is increasing in Europe, which implies this trend of decreasing popular support for NATO and increasing support for an EU-led defense will continue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents an institutional analysis of foreign policy making since September 11, 2001 in the U.S. Discussion on who is in charge of U.S. national security policy; Impact of the terrorist attacks on the balance of power; Information on developments that resulted from the terror attacks in September 11, 2001 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; Role of the executive branch with President George W. Bush and his advisors in leading the national security policy.