This thesis is an analysis of the foreign policy of the Bush administration and the degree to which it is a part of the greater tradition of common American foreign policy. From a theoretical perspective, the work is essentially realist, although the inclusion of some conventional constructivism is aimed at adding to the analysis. These different theoretical approaches are reconciled by the positioning of the role of ideas as an intervening variable in a neoclassical realist logic, which treats the distribution of power in the international system as the independent variable and the foreign policy outcomes as the dependent variable. In empirical terms, the work identifies the collapse of the USSR and the absence of a replacement major power as the key determinant of American foreign policy during this period, and the events of 9/11 as the specific and immediate catalyst for the development and implementation of the Bush doctrine. But in conjunction with these material factors, and crucial to the direction of American foreign policy during this period, is the salience of neoconservatism in the administration, which this work classifies as a form of 'realist idealism'. With this in mind, the structure is divided into sections on International Relations theory; American grand strategy; the origins of 9/11 and the Bush doctrine; issues of missile defence and nuclear strategy; the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq; the containment of Iran and North Korea; and an examination of major power relations in the post 9/11 era. The generic premise of this work is that the US always has and always will base its foreign policy on calculations of its own vital national interest. In terms of the future of American diplomacy, this work predicts there will be a shift from the 'War on Terror' back to a greater emphasis on major power relations and a rise in the salience of China, Russia and India in world politics. It also notes that the US will develop its relationship with countries in South East Asia and also Australia due to the economic and material resources in these locations and also their geopolitical significance

This thesis takes the post-9/11 Anglo-American torture debate as the territory for its analysis of the multiple and overlapping ways that cultural representations are implicated in political discourses regarding the practice of political torture by Western liberal democracies in the twenty-first century. Firstly, it makes the historical-political claim that the post-9/11 torture debate reveals the continuing existence and influence not only of colonial discourses and representations but of colonial political constellations and colonial forms of violence. Drawing on Giorgio Agamben’s work on the state of exception, I argue that despite claims of the newness of the post-Cold War geopolitical paradigm, political torture in the twenty-first century takes familiar concentrationary and disciplinary forms. Further, specific colonial discourses continue to frame contemporary debates about political torture; using the Algerian War of Independence as a lens, the thesis demonstrates this continuity through original readings of The Centurions (1960), The Battle of Algiers (1966), and The Little Soldier (1960/63). The dominant way that torture has been discussed in the context of the post-9/11 Global War on Terrorism is in terms that justify or normalise it. This thesis reads the revitalisation of colonial discourses in the second series of 24 (2002-3) as evidence of this. Further, it argues that anti-torture human rights texts such as Rendition (2007) have provided inadequate resistance to justificatory discourse. Nonetheless, narratives that successfully oppose political torture are possible, and this thesis sketches the beginnings of a canon of them: drawing on the phenomenological ethics of Emmanuel Levinas to perform readings of representations of Abu Ghraib – Standard Operating Procedure (2008) – and Guantánamo Bay – The Road to Guantánamo (2006), Guantánamo: Honor Bound to Defend Freedom (2004) and Guantánamo (2004) – the project explores the ways that ethical address, testimony, and an activist focus on facts can produce meaningfully resistant anti-torture narratives.

The submitted prior output works form an analysis of the reasons for the overall failure of a decade on international efforts and measures in anti terrorist financing since the 9/11 attacks. The covering document deals with three perspectives, highlights the impact of such works and integrates them with current and relevant developments. The analysis is drawn from three perspectives. The three perspectives are, the inherent legal difficulties of promulgating anti terrorist and anti terrorist finance measures; the strategic oversight in identifying and realising the full significance of certain modus operandi of terrorist financing; and the strategic mindset of government policy makers and law enforcement intelligence in the area of certain types of financial crime and in the implementation of counter measures against terrorist financing. The inherent legal difficulties are dealt with by showing the basic difficulties of defining terrorism, and then the post 9 /11 measures and the impediments to achieving the objective of intelligence exchange between law enforcement agencies and between law enforcement and the banking institutions,and the particular issue of charities and NGOs compounding such difficulties. The strategic oversight of modus operandi for terrorist financing are dealt with through three examples of potential underestimations of a particular modus operandi, and an over focussing of another. Paradoxically, one of the underestimated potential modus operandi appears to provide its own exception to its trend in that a related but far more applicable modus operandi was highlighted by the studies. The third perspective, that of strategic mindset of policy makers and law enforcement leads on from the modus operandi in that it identifies part of the reason for understating one such modus operandi was due to the post 9/11 reaction and measures having their origins in past anti money laundering strategies, without recognising differences between money laundering and terrorist financing. Furthermore, later in the decade, as strategic intelligence identified trends, one such trend was utilised in error to support a flawed premise regarding the assessment of the continuing global capability of al Qaeda to finance and co-ordinate extremist groups and to fund their attacks. Finally an overall conclusion is formulated. In terms of impact, it is respectfully submitted that the cited works have all contributed and enhanced knowledge in the area of terrorist financing. Particular impact has been made in the specific areas of, 9 the overlooking of the true significance of the role of cash couriers, highlighted in the study of 2007, the report of which was disseminated to the trustees of sponsoring organisation, including Brigadier Ed Butler, former commander 16 Airborne Assault Brigade Helmand Province Afghanistan and Professor Paul Wilkinson, Emeritus, Professor of International Relations and former Director of the University of St Andrews Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence' " the vulnerabilities of Islamic banking, the study of which was received by the commissioning organisation and then disseminated to the Swiss National Bank and Swiss government ministers.

No description available.

Cultural narratives have long played a valuable role in mediating difficult and politically sensitive topics. Investing metaphorical tropes with cultural significance offers audiences the opportunity to consider new perspectives and prompt important discussions. One of these tropes that has become ever more prominent in the last decade is that of the vampire. This thesis is concerned with the questions of how the figure of the vampire is used in modern narratives, and how it has changed from previous incarnations, particularly in American narratives. The rise of the modern vampire coincides with the aftermath of 9/11 and it is this link that is primarily explored here. Through an examination of three texts, Being Human, True Blood and The Strain, these chapters construct an argument for the vampire as a key figure in post-9/11 narratives and imbued with a religious significance. Being Human establishes the difference between the UK and US interpretation of the figure through a direct comparison of an original series and its American remake. This highlights the religious aspect to the figure, along with reinforcing the Americanisation of the vampire, discussed in relation to the series. With this established, the argument moves on to True Blood, looking at patriotism, terrorism and the presentation of the ‘other’ onscreen in the series. Particularly, it posits the vampire in True Blood as being representative of the Muslim other, providing a unique method for discussing post-9/11 issues of religion and identity. The argument then moves on to looking at The Strain, which presents a more explicit link between vampires and 9/11, and argues for a need for narratives that do this. By looking at theoretical research on the issues raised in the texts, particularly those of trauma and faith, it highlights a change in perspectives. Ultimately, the exploration of these texts shows a valuable use of the vampire in working through the trauma of 9/11, a need for an American vampire and the importance of religion (in its many forms) in cultural narratives.

Current understanding of the post-9/11 US civil-military power relationship is clouded by the existence of various competing propositions as to whether civilian policymakers, military leaders or a combination of both have had the greatest influence in determining military strategy in Iraq. Motivated by the empirical and theoretical deficiencies of the post-9/11 US civil-military relations literature, this thesis traces the evolution of the shifting power relationship between civilian policymakers and military leaders in the formulation and implementation of US military strategy during Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and explores the circumstances within which different balances of civil-military power occur. Using the policymaking process as an analytical framework, OIF is deconstructed into a series of decision points from 2001 to 2008 and the relative balance of civil-military power is identified at each according to one of five variations: Civilian Dominance; Shared Dominance Civilian; Shared Dominance; Shared Dominance Military; or Military Dominance. Using both qualitative and quantitative research methods, the thesis tests and explores the importance of six independent variables in explaining variations in the relative balance of civil-military power: civil-military preference divergence; civilian assertiveness; military assertiveness; civilian unity; military unity; and information advantage. In presenting a comprehensive analysis of civil-military power relations throughout OIF, the thesis offers a more nuanced response to the question of who controls US military strategy and demonstrates which independent variables hold the greatest potential for explaining variations in the relative balance of civil-military power. Analysis of the relationships between the dependent and independent variables reveals associations of varying strengths, thereby both confirming and challenging a number of the assumptions contained within the existing literature. By rooting contemporary research in the broader study of US civil-military relations, the thesis provides empirical clarity to the post-9/11 period as well as offering theoretical insight into the civil-military relationship beyond the limits of OIF.

This study reconstructs the main strategic narratives of the war on terrorism, as they appeared in American editorials. The study analyses 1002 selected editorials from five major news outlets in America. The analysis is structured around six salient events in the war on terrorism: the 9/11 attacks, the Iraq invasion, President Bush’s re-election, the Iraqi surge, Barack Obama replacing Bush, and Osama bin Laden’s death. The study also tests critical hypotheses from the literature on media, war and support. Are the media left to echo the rhetoric of the elites as wars break out? Or do media organizations develop independent news frames about wars as they progress? This study finds that the literature rightly favors the persuasive power of elite rhetoric early on in conflicts. Yet, important exceptions to this pattern are found. The study challenges the notion of elite rhetoric dominating news coverage through the case of The Wall Street Journal’s editorializing of war with Iraq. The Journal supported war with Iraq before the Bush administration. They called for toppling Saddam Hussein right after the 9/11 attacks. Therefore, the Bush administration adopted the Journal’s position, and not the other way around. Additionally, the study argues that Obama ended the war on terrorism, and the study considers the killing of Osama bin Laden to demarcate the end of America’s war on terrorism. The study also documents the emergence of a torture narrative that hijacked the war on terrorism, rendering it of limited use to Obama. The media were crucial in developing this narrative. This also challenges elite rhetoric domination. The study concludes that the home front is of increased importance due to new media realities. The dissertation shows that right after 9/11, the news outlets were overwhelmingly unison in their support for the war on terrorism. They openly called on Americans to sacrifice and support the war. With the Iraq war, unity and public support was fractured along ideological lines, resulting in a War at Home.

The objective of this thesis is twofold. First, by employing the norm ‘life’ and ‘death’ cycles grounded in constructivist scholarship, the research aims at determining to what extent the domestic norm against assassination in the United States has been weakened in the light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the advent of new technologies, namely Predator drones. To that end, the study conceptualizes the norm and provides a historical look of targeted killings as a foreign policy tool. It traces and evaluates normative assumptions about assassination as a tool of state policy from the 1970s to the end phases of Barack Obama presidency, concluding that there has been substantial erosion to this normative prohibition. Secondly, the presented thesis also attempts to make a more theoretical contribution by observing mechanisms by which the normative change transpired, demonstrating that in the case of targeted drone strikes, the government relied on quasi-secrecy in order to avoid overt justification. The study concludes that there is a strong link between government initiated quasi-secrecy – a tool that was applied deliberately and strategically, and successful legitimization of a practice that otherwise might have appeared highly controversial.