Search

Since the 1990s, US policy in Azerbaijan has gone through several important shifts in the areas of energy, security and democracy promotion. How can we make sense of these decisive shifts in the orientation of US policy? In this paper, I identify major shifts in US policy in Azerbaijan based on relative weight given to energy, security and democracy issues. I divide US policy into four different time periods: 1994 to 2001, 2001 to 2007, 2007 to 2015 and 2015 to present. I analyze the changes that took place in US policy in the dimensions of energy, security and democracy. Then, I provide plausible explanations that can account for shifts in US policy. To do so, I utilize foreign policy analysis theory that focuses on domestic and international parameters that bring major foreign policy shifts. My explanation is not monocausal, and focuses on several factors that have influenced US policy in Azerbaijan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the alleged conspiracy by the U.S. and U.K. governments to invade Iraq in 2003, the national security state in both countries has been subjected to intense scrutiny by news organizations around the world. This scrutiny has been fueled in part by what some describe as the development of a “networked fourth estate” (Benkler 2011) involving ad hoc alliances between professional journalists, citizen journalists, hackers, and leakers. On the surface, this attention challenges radical conceptions of a “power elite” remaining in the shadows and impervious to accountability exercised through the media. Amid cultural chaos (McNair 2005) and seemingly ubiquitous displays of adversarial journalism without fear or favor, how far are powerful interests still able to control the agenda and manipulate outcomes? The article presents findings in relation to a single case study involving critical coverage of the national security state and a particular aspect of containment that emerged. It concerns how the controversies were resolved through an apparent spectacle of accountability that suggested a resolution eschewing the need for further scrutiny or sanction. The paper further contends that this element of story “closure” warrants renewed attention in the study of news framing and ideological power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sociologists and political scientists have long fretted over the dangers that a politicized military poses to democracy. In recent times, however, civil–military relations experts in the United States accepted retired or indeed still serving generals and admirals in high-ranking political posts. Despite customary revulsion from scholars, the sudden waivers are an indicator that military participation in momentous national security decisions is inherently political without necessarily being partisan, including when civilian authority defers to a largely autonomous sphere for objective military expertise. Military politics is actually critical for healthy civil–military collaboration, when done prudently and moderately. Janowitz and Huntington, founders of the modern study of civil–military relations, understood the U.S. military's inevitable invitation to political influence. Here, we elaborate on two neglected dimensions, implicit in their projects, of military politics under objective civilian control based on classical virtues of civic republicanism: Aristotle's practical wisdom and Machiavelli's virtú. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following public revelations of interference in the United States 2016 election, there has been widespread concern that online disinformation poses a serious threat to democracy. Governments have responded with a wide range of policies. However, there is little clarity in elite policy debates or academic literature about what it actually means for disinformation to endanger democracy, and how different policies might protect it. This article proposes that policies to address disinformation seek to defend three important normative goods of democratic systems: self-determination, accountable representation, and public deliberation. Policy responses to protect these goods tend to fall in three corresponding governance sectors: self-determination is the focus of international and national security policies; accountable representation is addressed through electoral regulation; and threats to the quality of public debate and deliberation are countered by media regulation. The article also reveals some of the challenges and risks in these policy sectors, which can be seen in both innovative and failed policy designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States prides itself on freedom of speech and information. However, foreign adversaries have weaponized these prized freedoms against the United States. The First Amendment, the Privacy Act, and other U.S. laws designed to protect Americans' civil liberties paradoxically constrain the United States' ability to combat information warfare by its enemies. This Article argues that the United States must reform laws and doctrine concerning speech, information, and privacy to protect the democratic process and national security. By exploring the example of the Russian threat to the U.S. electoral process, this Article will illustrate how foreign adversaries wield the United States' own laws against it. It will also explain how justifiable concerns with infringement on civil liberties have hindered the United States' response. The Article concludes with recommendations on how courts, legislatures, and policymakers should balance First Amendment and privacy rights with national security interests to combat information warfare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The International Military Education and Training program is the United States security assistance program that provides professional military education to officers from foreign militaries. As a tool of soft power, the program has the potential of helping the United States achieve its foreign and national security goals. Despite the potential benefits of the program, research on its effectiveness is limited. The present study contributes to the literature by inquiring into what benefits toward acquiring an understanding of democratic values and the United States society are expressed by foreign officers who have participated in the program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses aspects of national security in the U.S. since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. Topics include aspects of the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which allows the president to use all appropriate and necessary force against those nations, persons or organizations involved in the said attack and any future acts of international terrorism, Carl Schmitt's criticism of liberalism and democracy, and former President Barack Obama's drone warfare program.

The article focuses on the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) opposition to the U.S. policy towards the Vietnam War in 1961-1975. It discusses IPS's call for a reduction in U.S. foreign aid to nations guilty of human rights abuses and its contribution to the debate over war, democracy and bureaucracy. It looks at IPS's efforts to eliminate the divide between theory and activism, and IPS intellectuals's arguments over the rising fortunes of technocrats within the bureaucracy. It also examines IPS calls for direct involvement of U.S. citizens in governance.

How the U.S. military establishment interacts with other parts of the American government and the people impacts American national power. Because civil–military relationships are influenced by the context of the environment and the “kind of war” being waged, there are a variety of ways that military and civilian leaders can work together to improve the nation’s security. This article proposes an alternative civil–military relations model called pragmatic civilian control. It integrates Samuel Huntington’s objective civilian control theory with traditional American political philosophy and concepts established by Morris Janowitz, while accounting for current geopolitical conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]