According to conventional wisdom winning hearts and minds is one of the most important goals for defeating terrorism. However, despite repeated claims about U.S. efforts to build popular support as part of the war on terror during the first seven years after 9/11, a steady stream of polls and surveys delivered troubling news. Using a counterinsurgency and social movement informed approach, I explain why the United States performed poorly in the race for Muslim hearts and minds, with a specific focus on problems inherent in the social construction of terrorism, the use of an enemy-centric model while overestimating agency, and the counterproductive effect of policy choices on framing processes. Popular support plays wide-ranging roles in counterterrorism, including: influencing recruitment, fundraising, operational support, and the flow of intelligence; providing credibility and legitimacy; and, sanctifying or marginalizing violence. Recognizing this the U.S. emphasized public diplomacy, foreign aid, positive military-civilian interactions, democracy promotion, and other efforts targeting populations in the Muslim world. To explain the problems these efforts had, this thesis argues that how Americans think and talk about terrorism, reflected especially in the rhetoric and strategic narrative of the Bush administration, evolved after 9/11 to reinforce normative and enemy-centric biases undermining both understanding of the underlying conflicts and resulting efforts. U.S. policy advocates further misjudged American agency, especially in terms of overemphasizing U.S. centrality, failing to recognize the importance of real grievances, and overestimating American ability to implement its own policies or control the policies of local governments. Finally, the failure to acknowledge the role of U.S. policies counterproductively impacted contested framing processes influencing the evolution of mobilization. The resulting rhetoric and actions reinforced existing anti- American views, contributed to the perception that the war on terror is really a war on Islam, and undermined natural counter narratives.

Approved for public release; distribution in unlimited. / Alternate Military Strategy for the War on Terrorism calls for addressing the war as a global insurgency. Addressing the war on terrorism as a Global Insurgency provides an alternative strategic framework for prosecuting the campaign. This study is intended to determine the utility of analyzing the war on terrorism using an insurgency/counterinsurgency conceptual framework. Additionally, the recommendations can be applied to the strategic campaign, even if it is politically unfeasible to address the war as an insurgency. The study is broken down into five chapters: an introduction, explanation of Dr. McCormick’s Counterinsurgency model used for analysis, application of the model to a historical case, application to the war on terrorism, and conclusions. The first half of the study is intended to provide a thorough understanding of Dr. McCormick’s model. This is done by, first providing an overview of the model and, second, applying the model to a historical case: the insurgency in Lebanon following the Israeli invasion in 1982. The second half of the study addresses the current U.S. lead war on terrorism. The counterinsurgency model is applied to the war on terrorism based on the al Qaeda Network and the United States’ vision and mission for the conflict. Ten on terrorism are drawn from the analysis. The final chapter addresses the utility provided by the insurgency/counterinsurgency framework as applied to the war on terrorism. / Major, United States Army

For an introductory macroeconomics course, the discussion of historical relevance helps foster important learning connections. By comparing the Great Depression to the 2008-2009 recession, a macroeconomics instructor can provide students with connections to history. This paper discusses the major causes of each recession, major fiscal policy and monetary policy decisions of both recessions, and the respective relevance in teaching the relationship of each policy to gross domestic product. The teaching points addressed in this paper are directed towards an introductory college-level macroeconomics course, incorporating a variety of theories from historical and economic writers and data from government and central bank sources. A lesson plan is included in an appendix to assist the instructor in implementing the material.

This dissertation considers the relation between literary documents and public identities, and how U. S. culture is reflected and transfigured by poetry in the United States after 1960. Concerned with epideictic communication in public contexts, this study looks at how private interventions in public spaces can shape attitudes toward cultural phenomena. A secondary concern elucidates the ways literary texts are valued in English departments, bearing critical reflection on rhetorical, literary, and creative pedagogy. Insofar as the epideictic mode prepares individuals for a decision-making process in current democratic situations, this dissertation considers recent examples of strategic public engagements, and provides rhetorical readings of key situations in American social and cultural life since 1960 to illustrate how such methods can bring rhetoric and literature together in contemporary public contexts. The first of these studies inspects the correspondence and poetry of Robert Duncan and Denise Levertov during the Vietnam War over the uses of poetry as a public document. Public identity and U. S. social practices are explored in the following chapter with the 1970s and ’80s poetry of Lorenzo Thomas and Edward Dorn, whose poems participate in the articulation of tensions between private and public life. Chapter 4 argues that Charles Olson’s poems and letters appearing in the editorial pages of The Gloucester-Daily Times in the 1960s effectively helped bring civic attention to the transformation of public space in Gloucester, Mass. While he interpreted the changes he perceived in Gloucester through literary and historical theories, he framed them within rhetorically motivated communication strategies to deliver new perceptions of what constituted civic value. Chapter 5 concludes by examining more recent attempts by poets to influence public reflection on crucial events that led to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through digital media, public performance, and civic encounters mediated by fugitive texts. The opening and final chapters introduce my methodology and present the problem of poetry in public contexts, and advocates for reflection within English departments on the rhetorical value of literary texts. / text

Submitted by DANIEL MARTINS SILVA null (daniel_m105@hotmail.com) on 2016-06-13T12:09:12Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertação-Final-2016.pdf: 1232731 bytes, checksum: a3b1a459a153bdc0df5be33dcfc2b83a (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Juliano Benedito Ferreira (julianoferreira@reitoria.unesp.br) on 2016-06-15T19:30:27Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 silva_dm_me_mar.pdf: 1232731 bytes, checksum: a3b1a459a153bdc0df5be33dcfc2b83a (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2016-06-15T19:30:27Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 silva_dm_me_mar.pdf: 1232731 bytes, checksum: a3b1a459a153bdc0df5be33dcfc2b83a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2016-05-17 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Entre o fim do governo George W. Bush e o primeiro mandato do governo Barack Obama os Estados Unidos iniciou sua participação na Parceria Transpacífica (PTP). A fim de entender as motivações norte-americanas para este acordo regional de comércio, a dissertação trabalhou com a hipótese de que a evolução do novo regionalismo asiático, a partir dos anos 2000, teve um peso significativo na estratégia estadunidense de comércio. Destacam-se a ASEAN+3 e a ASEAN+6, grupos liderados pelo Japão e China para incrementar a integração econômica do Leste Asiático. Diante da emergência desta configuração, os Estados Unidos estiveram excluídos do processo. Para averiguar esta afirmação utilizamos a plataforma Inside Trade, entrevistas e notícias de jornais relevantes; arquivos da Casa Branca (relatórios dos principais órgãos decisórios e discursos); relatórios anuais e outros documentos do USTR; além de arquivos do Departamento de Estado (em especial do Escritório de Assuntos do Leste Asiático e Pacífico). A análise do material empírico revelou que o receio de exclusão dos Estados Unidos e da predominância da China como ator político no comércio intra-asiático foram questões frequentemente levantadas pelo empresariado e policy-makers da política comercial norte-americana. Além de circunstâncias regionais, o envolvimento dos Estados Unidos no acordo se explica pelo seu interesse em moldar as regras que conformam o regime global de comércio. Demonstramos que expandir a presença política do país na Ásia-Pacífico e constranger a emergência chinesa eram tarefas fundamentais para alcançar este objetivo. / Between the end of George W. Bush’s government and Barack Obama’s first term, the United States began its participation in Transpacific Partnership (TPP). In order to understand american motivation for this regional trade agreement, our hypothesis supported that new asian regionalism dynamics had a weight in US trade policy strategy. We highlitgh ASEAN+3 and ASEAN+6, groups leading for Japan and China to increase economic integration of East Asia. In this configuration, the United States had been excluded. Aiming to check this, we use the “Inside Trade” platform, interviews and news of important newspapers; the White House archives (reports of the main agencies and discourses); annual reports and other documents from USTR; also US Department of State’s archives (especially the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs). The empirical analysis reveal that fear of United States’ exclusion and the China’s predominance as political actor in intra-asian trade were often raised by business and policy makers of US trade policy. Beyond regional reasons, US envolvement is explained by its interest to shape the rules conforming global trade regime. We demonstrate that raising US political presence and constraining chinese emergence were fundamental tasks to achieve this goal.

Scholars of human rights and constitutional law have described in great detail the abuses perpetrated by the armed forces and secret services of the United States in the context of the ‘war on terror’. There is copious literature explaining why these violations of fundamental human rights are not justifiable, and why they are not consistent with international treaties or that nation’s constitution. This thesis builds upon this research, but strikes out in a new direction. It does so by asking whether these abuses, combined with the changes to the legal order of the United States that made them possible, have produced a qualitative transformation of its constitutional structure. In particular, this thesis tracks the empowering of the executive. Increasingly, whenever it purports to act in the interests of national security, the executive claims the authority to act unilaterally in a manner that overrides even non-derogable rights. These novel constitutional reserve powers, which this thesis demonstrates were derived from President Nixon’s theory of the executive, were used to justify indefinite arbitrary detention, torture, mass surveillance without warrants, and extra-judicial execution. This thesis seeks to determine if the constitutional crisis inaugurated by this theory of executive supremacy over the laws has been terminated, or whether it has continued into the Obama Administration. If this theory is current within the executive branch, and especially if the violations of jus cogens norms has continued, it signifies a cross-party consensus about a paradigm shift in American constitutionalism. Accordingly, given the fact that the abuse of executive supremacy is what led to the development of the rule of law, this thesis will ask the question of whether the United States is being governed in accordance with its basic minimum norms. This thesis explores whether the executive is still subject to checks and balances from the legislature and the judiciary, such that it cannot violate non-derogable rights at will and with impunity. If the contrary proposition is true, it demonstrates that the crisis of the rule of law in the United States is ongoing, and this permanent state of exception demands significantly more scholarly attention. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LLD

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States has transferred close to a hundred individuals suspected of terrorism to foreign jurisdictions through a process known as extraordinary rendition. This is an infamous program that allows for the transfer of individuals to a foreign jurisdiction for interrogation, detention, or trial. While the use of extraordinary rendition attracts widespread controversy regarding its use and legality, it remains a vital tool for combating international terrorism. Evidence in this thesis lends support to extraordinary rendition program, but recognizes that while the program strengthens the country’s ability to gather vital intelligence to combat terrorism, there are methods to improve the program. The extraordinary rendition program requires an assessment of the totality of circumstances before a extraordinary rendition is permitted; reliance on diplomatic assurances from countries that hold a good human rights record; and subsequent monitoring of individuals rendered to foreign states to ensure that transfers comply with U.S. and international law. Evidence suggests that extraordinary rendition aids in the ability to gather sensitive intelligence and serves as a gathering tool used by American presidents to preserve freedom and peace; however, in the eyes of critics, this program represents a perversely autonomous and un-American legal maneuver that avoids due process. This thesis seeks to discuss common misconceptions associated with the extraordinary rendition program and identify the major points of controversy. The first part explores the history of the extraordinary rendition program and provides an understanding of its roots and procedures. The second part, discusses the executive branch’s attempts to conduct extraordinary renditions morally and responsibly, and examines the legal oversight and accountability gaps surrounding the program. Part three identifies the line of authority empowering the President to conduct extraordinary renditions. It also outlines the struggle of the legislative, judicial and executive branches to strengthen the extraordinary rendition program’s compliance with the rule of law by increasing oversight and accountability. Finally, Part four discusses the future of the extraordinary rendition program. The discussion presents possible solutions to correct oversight and accountability problems and suggests a multi-faceted approach that raises the bar for extraordinary renditions, thereby closing the oversight and accountability gaps.

Suite aux attentats du 11 septembre 2001, la coopération entre les États-Unis et la Russie en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme s’est intensifiée en Asie centrale. Toutefois, les positions affichées de part et d’autre ne concordent pas toujours. Pour mieux comprendre le positionnement stratégique de ces deux États, cette recherche examine comment les administrations de George W. Bush et de Vladimir Poutine ont articulé leurs discours sur la lutte anti-terroriste dans cette région. À l’aide de la notion de culture stratégique, nous avons élaboré une grille de lecture afin d’analyser les représentations dominantes véhiculées dans leurs communications de ces deux administrations. Cette démarche essentiellement interprétativiste nous permet d’observer que ces représentations s’inscrivent dans une culture-type dite Hard Realpolitik en accordant une grande importance à la menace terroriste, au développement des capacités militaires nationales et régionales ainsi qu’aux orientations stratégiques préconisant l’emploi de la force militaire.

Comme la protection de l'environnement reçoit une attention croissante dans le discours politique actuel, il importe de se demander si ce phénomène représente une politique d'état bien définie ou un simple instrument stratégique. Ce mémoire cherche à répondre à cette question, en utilisant la théorie de la diversion conflictuelle. Cette théorie affirme que les chefs politiques éprouvant des problèmes internes appliquent une politique étrangère agressive contre les états non démocratiques. Ce comportement étatique est expliqué en se limitant à l'analyse des périodes de conflit, laissant ainsi un grand manque dans la recherche qui porte sur la diversion étatique pendant les périodes de non-conflit. Cette étude vise donc à déterminer si les instabilités internes peuvent être associées aux comportements de diversion étatique, et ce, en période non conflictuelle. De plus, cette recherche vise à démontrer que les valeurs écologiques sont utilisées comme instruments de politique étrangère. Pour ce faire, les discours politiques entre les États-Unis et la Chine de 1979 à 2004 sont analysés, en utilisant un modèle qualitatif et comparatif. L'hypothèse centrale prévoit que, durant les périodes de non-conflit, les États-Unis utilisent l'environnement pour attaquer la Chine. Ce comportement est surtout observé lorsque l'administration américaine souffre de troubles internes et lorsque l'opinion publique américaine est en faveur de la protection de l'environnement.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / The Iraq War and the War on Terror were pivotal issues in the presidential race for the White House in 2004. Competing frames about the meaning of September 11, 2001, terrorism, and American power were constructed by the rival candidates and established a limited debate that marginalized alternative interpretations of war and peace. It is likely that the dilemma over U.S. forces in Iraq and the War on Terror will continue to be a major issue in the upcoming 2008 Presidential Election. Therefore, the campaign speeches of the presidential candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, during the 2004 Election regarding terrorism were important to understanding the themes that initiated public debate in the U.S. about the conflict in Iraq and the War on Terror. In this document analysis, these candidates’ public addresses illustrated how the role of the U.S. power to combat terrorism shaped a particular perspective about the post-9/11 world. Ideas that challenged “official” debate about war and national security were excluded from mainstream media coverage of the campaign. In order to examine the narrow debate over terrorism and how alternative “ways of seeing” war have been and continue to be marginalized, this study compared how the candidates framed the war in contrast to anti-war voices. Cindy Sheehan, who is an emergent leader in the peace and social justice movement, and more “official” voices of dissent like Representative Dennis Kucinich, have criticized “official” framing of the war. Dissenting perspectives about the Iraq War and the War on Terror invite a different understanding about U.S. hegemony, terrorism, and the consequences of the War on Terror for foreign and domestic policies. The impact of the war upon domestic policy and national crises, such as the widely televised and heavily criticized federal response to Hurricane Katrina Summer 2005, were examined to explore how domestic crises undermine “official” framing of the Iraq War and the War on Terror and empower alternative understandings of war and peace.