The objective of this study is to assess the growing role of Special Forces in modern warfare, with specific reference to the United States of America. The main question that the study seeks to address is what are the implications of the growing role of Special Forces in modern warfare? The study also seeks to ascertain why exactly this growth is occurring and whether or not this will have a bearing on the future of not only the manner in which the US conducts conflict but also global conflict as a whole. In order to address these issues the study will look at conventional and unconventional warfare and forces; the roles and missions of Special Forces and the composition of US Special Forces; the role of US Special Forces in modern warfare prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; and the role of the US Special Forces in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. An analysis of conventional and unconventional warfare as concepts, as well as the forces that constitute conventional and unconventional forces was first done in order to provide some perspective into what these concepts and forces are and more specifically, what differentiates them. Specific reference was made here to the United States’ approach to warfare from the days of the American Revolution up to and including the end of the Cold War. Emphasis is placed on the growing role of US Special Forces throughout the study and this is achieved through the use of four major case studies, namely the 1991 Gulf War; Somalia (1992-1993); the Balkans (1995-2001); and the 2001 ‘Special Forces war’ in Afghanistan. The case studies that dealt with the 1991 Gulf War, Somalia and the Balkans elucidated the growing role of both unconventional warfare and specifically US Special Forces and Special Mission Units since the end of the Cold War. The case study of the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan provided the culmination of the shift from conventional to unconventional warfare and the execution of the campaign as a ‘Special Forces war.’ The study demonstrates that since the end of the Cold War in the 1990’s, unconventional warfare has increasingly become more ubiquitous and can be said to be replacing, or at least equalling in stature, conventional warfare. This has the possibility of dramatically affecting how warfare is executed both currently and more importantly, in the future. The study went on to show that unconventional warfare is not akin to conventional warfare, especially with regard to the forces needed to respond to such conflicts and that Special Forces are the forces most applicable and most effective in dealing with unconventional warfare. The study confirms that Special Forces are the solution to the growing prominence of unconventional warfare and that countries, and specifically the United States can more effectively counter the threat of unconventional warfare and unconventional forces by shifting Special Forces from a supporting component to conventional forces to a supported component. This would require a massive shift in alignment both for the United States as well as other major states’ militaries but as the study has shown, this is pertinent given that unconventional warfare and forces will most likely remain the primary threat that states and militaries will now face / Dissertation (MSS)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

English summary This dissertation focuses on the apocalyptic fiction of Thomas Pynchon and analyses various representations of the apocalypse as "revelation" or "unveiling of truth" in its various aspects and manifestations (i.e. paranoia, angels, etc.) in the novels V., The Crying of Lot 49 and Gravity's Rainbow. The theme of apocalypse as a revelation concerning the true nature of the world has a key role to play in the above mentioned novels as well as significance for Pynchon's protagonists. This is so despite the fact that such revelation is depicted as illusory and mostly unattainable, since these novels are all based on the premise that there is no ultimate truth, and therefore, there is nothing that can be revealed. Pynchon's characters get only a revelation of individual truth, and thus theirs is a private apocalypse. When analysing the role of the apocalypse in Western culture, it is also important to analyse the role of millenarian expectations as well as the supposed communication process between God and people, a process depicted as being mediated by angels. The interpretation of God's message can never be precise and perfect, since its meaning is distorted during the communication process. On the rhetorical level, this distortion is equal to metaphor, which in turn causes feelings of paranoia...

Som ett resultat av attackerna mot USA den 11 september 2001 förklarade dåvarande president George W Bush krig mot terrorismen den 20 september samma år. Sex dagar senare undertecknade Bush ett direktiv vilket auktoriserade den civila amerikanska underrättelsetjänsten Central Intelligence Agency att utföra riktat dödande mot fördefinierade individer i syftet att förhindra nya attacker från terroristnätverket Al Qaeda, talibanerna och associerade styrkor. Bush initierade det amerikanska bruket av så kallade ”drone strikes” i anslutning till krigsförklaringen med intentionen att eliminera misstänkta terrorister utan möjlighet till en rättvis rättegång, Obama-administrationen har valt att fortsätta utöva policyn. Syftet med studien är att fastställa huruvida USA:s juridiska rättfärdigande och bruk av folkrätt i relation till genomförandet av riktat dödande och användandet av obemannade luftfarkoster i kriget mot terrorismen kan betraktas vara förenligt med doktrinen för just war theory och gällande internationell rätt. Vidare undersöker studien effekterna av det amerikanska bruket av folkrätten i relation till civilbefolkningen och den internationella humanitära rätten. Relevant lagtext och krigsetikens sedvanerättsliga principer jämförs med USA:s bruk av folkrätt för att fastställa agerandets legalitet. Vidare påvisar studien att programmet för riktat dödande inte kan anses vara förenligt med just war theory och gällande internationell lag och att bruket av drönare hamnar i konflikt med gällande internationell rätt i relation till hur de används under kriget mot terrorismen. / As a result of the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001 then President George W Bush declared a war on terror. Six days later, Bush signed a directive which authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to carry out targeted killings against predefined individuals with the purpose to prevent any future attacks from the terrorist network Al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces. In conjunction with the declaration of war president Bush initiated the American practice of so-called "drone strikes" with the intention to eliminate suspected terrorists without access to a fair trial, the practice has continued under the mandate of the Obama-administration. The aim of this study is to examine whether the US legal justification for the use of targeted killings and unmanned aerial vehicles in the war against terrorism can be regarded as compatible with the doctrine of just war theory and applicable international law. Furthermore, the study examines the effects of the US practice on international humanitarian customary law in relation to the civilian population. The U.S. justification of targeted killing is compared with international law to determine the lawfulness from a legal perspective. Furthermore, the study demonstrates that the practice is not compatible with the doctrine of just war theory and applicable international law. The use of drones violates international customary law in relation to how they are used under the current conflict.

Guantánamo ist zum Symbol des Aufeinandertreffens verschiedener Wertesysteme geworden, bei dem die Frage nach den Rechten des Menschen im Mittelpunkt steht. In der Dissertation werden die komplexen Probleme dargestellt, mit denen das Völkerrecht durch die Herausforderungen des internationalen Terrorismus und speziell des Gefangenenlagers auf Kuba konfrontiert wird. Darüber hinaus wird die Frage untersucht, welche Rechte des Menschen fern der diplomatisch verhandelten internationalen Kodifikationen tatsächlich in den verschiedenen Kulturen der Welt anerkannt und gelebt werden. Zwar legen der Wortlaut und die Verbreitung der Menschenrechtsverträge die Vermutung nahe, dass in den Kulturen der Welt ein Konsens über die Rechte des Menschen zumindest im Kern existiert. Bei näherer Betrachtung zeigt sich aber, dass es verschiedene Menschenbilder - etwa freiheitlich-individualistische, kommunalistische und theozentrische - gibt, die zum Teil diametral zueinander stehen. Ein interkultureller Vergleich offenbart, dass häufig das jeweils andere Wertesystem abgewehrt und auch „die universellen Menschenrechte“ als westlich determinierte Werte mit Distanz betrachtet werden. Welche Begründungen für Menschenrechte in den Kulturen existent sind, welche Aufschlüsse die bisherigen Begründungsmodelle geben und inwieweit daraus ein Kern an Rechten dem Menschen überkulturell als angeboren begründet werden können, sind wichtige Fragen, die in dieser Dissertation behandelt werden. Es werden neue Ansätze untersucht, welche die Begründungsdefizite bisheriger Modelle womöglich auflösen und den rechtlichen Diskurs damit aktualisieren können. Denn kontroverse Menschenrechtslagen, wie die in Guantánamo, sind in Zukunft nur vermeidbar, wenn sich auf der Basis eines fortgeführten interkulturellen Dialoges eine gemeinsame Identität entwickelt und dadurch eine Gewalt zwischen den Kulturen verringert wird, die durch die Differenzen ihrer Werte entsteht. / Guantánamo has become a symbol for the clash of differing value systems. With widespread international concern and criticism of the treatment of the detainees - Islamic terror suspects - as grave violations of universal human rights. The dissertation illustrates the complex problems confronting international law by the aspects of international terrorism and especially the prison camp on Cuba. Furthermore, it examines the question, which rights beyond the international codifications are actually accepted within the cultures. The wording of the international human rights treaties and their dissemination assume a consensus on basic human rights. However differing and sometimes opposing cultural and religious conceptions exist. Some communities attach importance to a liberal and individual understanding, whilst others on the involvement and obligation of the individual into the community. Making it difficult to define and implement core human rights treaties, which can be applied universally regardless of cultural and religious beliefs. Therefore, the examination goes further than an analysis by means of international law. It discusses the question, which justifications of human rights are existing within the cultures, what the contents of the present paradigms of justification - to which also the international human rights refer - are, and how an inherence of a core of human rights can be derived beyond cultural relativity. Rights that would consider equal conditions of human interaction, and examine the correlation of identity, structural violence and the state of need of the human being. The actualization of the justification of human rights is vital in the legal discourse to assimilate the conceptions about the rights of man. Controversial human rights situations like Guantánamo can only be resolved and avoided in the future, with continued intercultural dialogue, understanding of a common human identity, and celebration instead of condemnation of the inherent richness of differing cultural and religious values.

Bei der dieser Studie handelt es sich um eine sozialwissenschaftliche Untersuchung der ersten Deutschen Islam Konferenz (DIK). Ausgangspunkt der Analyse ist die Beobachtung, dass sich der deutsche Integrationsdiskurs trotz des seit 2006 intensivierten Dialogs zwischen Staat und muslimischen Repräsentanten weiterhin als kontrovers darstellt und eine Reihe von integrationspolitischen Problemfeldern ungelöst sind. Vor diesem Hintergrund untersucht die Abhandlung die Funktion und Reichweite der DIK und ihre Implikationen für die Integrationspolitik in Deutschland. Die Betrachtung nimmt außerdem eine Einordnung der Islam Konferenz in die Integrationspolitik deutscher Bundesregierungen im Zeitraum von 1998 bis 2009 vor und ermöglicht es damit nicht nur, spezifische Policy-Charakteristika der Einrichtung zu identifizieren, sondern ebenso ihre Rolle im politischen Gesamtkontext unter Einbeziehung der islamistischen Terroranschläge vom 11. September 2001 zu erfassen. Die Betrachtung der ersten Islam Konferenz ist methodisch als quantitative Einzel-fallstudie konzipiert und hat mehrere Adressaten: die politischen Akteure, die autochthone deutsche Gesellschaft als auch die muslimische Gemeinschaft. Als Analysegrundlage fungieren neben einer detaillierten Dokumentenanalyse zwölf Expertenbefragungen mit Teil-nehmern und Beobachtern der DIK. Für die Untersuchung und Bewertung des Konferenzre-sultate kommen die Auswertungskategorien des akteurzentrierten Institutionalismus zum Einsatz, der den theoretisch-analytischen Bezugsrahmen der Studie bildet. Die zentralen Ergebnisse und Befunde der Untersuchung werden in Form von sieben zusammenfassenden Thesen dargestellt. Hierbei wird ein durchweg ambivalentes Bild des dreijährigen Dialogprozesses gezeichnet. / The present study is a social science-focussed research paper on the first German Islam Conference (DIK). The starting point of the analysis is the observation that the recent German integration discourse is still controversial and that a series of integration problems remain unresolved – despite the intensified dialogue between the national government and Muslim representatives. Against this background, the study analyses the function and scope of the DIK as well as its implications on Germany''s integration policy. The investigation reviews the Islam Conference in the context of the integration policy of the German Federal government in the period from 1998 to 2009, identifies specific policy characteristics of the institution, and evaluates the conference within the overall political context, including the Islamist terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. Form a methodical point of view, this analysation of the first Islam Conference is considered a quantitative individual case study addressed towards: the political actors, the autochthonous German society as well as towards the Muslim community. Apart from a detailed document analysis, the study is based upon twelve expert interviews among DIK participants and observers. For researching and evaluating the conference’s results, the evaluation categories of actor-centered institutionalism are used, which provides the theoretical and analytical framework of the study. The study''s crucial results and findings are represented in the form of seven summarizing theses. Here, a consistently ambivalent picture of the three-year dialogue process is drawn.

Zeit/Geschichte: Amerikanische Alternate Histories nach 9/11 untersucht die Entwicklung kontrafaktischer Geschichtstexte, sogenannter alternate histories, vor dem Hintergrund des öffentlichen Diskurses in den USA nach dem 11. September 2001. Dabei konzentriert sich die Studie auf die formalen und generischen Eigenschaften neuerer „Mainstream-alternate histories“ seit den Terroranschlägen. Obwohl keiner der drei untersuchten Texte – Philip Roths The Plot Against America, Michael Chabons The Yiddish Policemen's Union sowie Quentin Tarantinos Inglourious Basterds – von den 9/11-Anschlägen handelt, geben doch alle drei Einblicke in die Beziehungen zwischen dem 9/11-Diskurs und jüngeren Entwicklungen im literarischen bzw. kulturellen Feld. Dabei erweist sich alternate history als ein Genre, das mit seiner thematischen, strukturellen und medialen Variabilität ermöglicht, 9/11-spezifische Veränderungen darzustellen und gleichzeitig den 9/11-Diskurs selbst zu beeinflussen. Die vorliegende Studie zeigt auf, wie sich die untersuchten Texte aktiv in den 9/11-Diskurs einschreiben, um nicht nur zeitgenössische Erfahrungen, Entwicklungen und Empfindungen, sondern auch Fragen nach Geschichte und Vergangenheitsdarstellungen zu beantworten.

The thesis examines the international law pertaining to the use of force by states, in general, and to the use of force in self-defence, in particular. The main question addressed is whether the use of force, which was purported to be in self-defence, by the United States, the United Kingdom and their allies against al Qaeda, the Taliban and Afghanistan, beginning on 7 October 2001, was lawful. The thesis focuses not only on this specific use of force, but also on the changing nature of conflict, the definition of terrorism and on the historical evolution of limitations on the use of force, from antiquity until 2006. In the six chapters which trace the epochs of international law, the progression of five inter-related concepts is followed: limitations on the resort to force generally, the use of force in self-defence, pre-emptive self-defence, the use of forcible measures short of war, and the use of force in response to non-state actors. This historical analysis includes a particular emphasis on understanding the meaning of the 'inherent right of self-defence', which was preserved by Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter. This analysis is then applied to the use of force against Afghanistan which occurred in 2001. Following the terrorist attacks of 11 September, the US and the UK notified the United Nations Security Council of their resort to force in self-defence under Article 51. Each element of Article 51 is analysed and the thesis concludes that there are significant doubts as to the lawfulness of that decision to employ force. In addition to the self-defence justification, other possible grounds for intervention are also examined, such as humanitarian intervention, Security Council authorisation and intervention by invitation. This thesis challenges the common assumption that the use of force against Afghanistan was an example of states exercising their inherent right to self-defence. It argues that if this particular use of force is not challenged, it will lead to an expansion of the right of self-defence which will hinder rather than enhance international peace and security. Finally, this thesis draws on recent examples to illustrate the point that the use of force against Afghanistan could become a dangerous precedent for the use of force in self-defence.