Thesis (M.A.)--Eastern Illinois University, 2010. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 93-102).

Cloaked in the ambition of the "war on terror" and buoyed by the unwavering post-9/11 support, the United States engaged in a bombing campaign in Iraq followed by an invasion in March 2003. In preparation for the 2003 invasion, the United States built a complicated case for war based on several problematic bodies of evidence and then presented this evidence to the American people and the international community; this disputed evidence was collected to justify the invasion of Iraq. The tenets of the case for war included: the connection of Saddam Hussein to the events of 9/11, the threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and the unknown motives and future actions of an evil dictator. The United States is now over five years into the war, and the overarching sentiment among the American people is that the war in Iraq was based on faulty information and that "evidence" used to justify the war was either mostly unfounded or even fabricated. Given this problematic evidence to support the official justifications for war, the research question is "Why did the United States still invade Iraq in March 2003?" Clearly, there is not a definitive answer to the research question. The variables for engaging in war are very complex. Often times the benefit of time passage will allow scholars to obtain a more focused understanding of "why" a sovereign power engaged in a particular war. We are not yet at a point where we can write definitively about "why" the US invaded Iraq in 2003. However, it is possible to present an analytical case regarding the reasons used in the time leading up to the US invasion of Iraq. In this thesis, the evidence has been explored, and the result is a presentation, an assessment of the evidence to make a case for why the US invaded Iraq. Many different political opinions and theories have been advanced to explain why the United States entered this war. Several credible scholars and journalists have made meaningful contributions to the study of this war and the justifications used by the White House for it. It is possible to provide a preliminary framework for understanding why the United States invaded Iraq by using current events literature, official documents and other available sources to document the war in the absence of the official, classified documents. Based on an assessment of available evidence, this thesis proposes that one of the primary reasons for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 centers on oil; the US was interested in protecting its oil interests and what the White House saw as US geo-strategic position in the Middle East. / Master of Arts

Orientalism in Bush administration and its influence over military intervention in Iraq Abstract Master's thesis focuses on the presence of orientalist elements in the Bush administration and their influence over the justification and execution of the military intervention in Iraq. These elements are orientalist construction of identities, civilizational mission, concept of oriental Muslim and concept of oriental woman. For this purpose, three research questions were formulated. 1) How the identity of Iraq was constructed to justify the intervention? 2) How the identity of USA was constructed to justify the intervention 3) Whether the Bush administration carried elements of orientalism, how did they present themselves and what amount of influence did they have over justification and execution of the military intervention in Iraq? The Fairclough three-dimensional model of critical discursive analysis was chosen in order to answer research questions. Analysis was focused on official speeches of three key representatives of Bush administration (G.W. Bush, D. Cheney, C. Powell) within the time period from the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001 until the actual military intervention to Iraq on March 20th 2003. Based on the analysis the presence of orientalist construction of identities and civilizational...

Master of Science / Department of Agronomy / Nathan Nelson / Phosphorus and sediment runoff are the primary cause of eutrophication in Cheney Lake, the primary water source for Wichita, Kansas. Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as no-till farming practices and nutrient management can be implemented to reduce phosphorus runoff on high-risk agricultural fields. Past efforts have established BMP use in this watershed, although the effectiveness of these efforts has not been evaluated. The goals of this project were to identify any existing water quality trends in the Cheney Lake watershed, estimate the current distribution of erosion in the watershed, and evaluate the placement of BMPs with regards to field-scale erosion risk. Parametric, multi-linear regression and non-parametric, seasonal Mann-Kendall analyses were used to identify trends in the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP) of grab samples from the North Fork Ninnescah River. A Geographic Information System (GIS) model based on the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) was used to estimate watershed-scale erosion, prioritize agricultural land for BMP placement, and evaluate existing placement of BMPs within the Cheney Lake watershed. No detectible trends were identified in the water quality data due to stream variability, frequency of sampling, or absence of actual improvement in water quality. Additional sampling must be done to detect any trends in the future. BMPs were implemented on 13% of prioritized field area, and 11% of non-prioritized field area. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) fields were placed on 14% of prioritized field area, and 5% of non-prioritized field area. No-till practices were implemented on 13% of prioritized field area, and 18% of non-prioritized field area. The top 20% eroding fields were identified given current conditions, and account for approximately 56% of the watershed-wide erosion. The GIS method has demonstrated utility in evaluating past erosion control measures for the watershed and in informing future decisions concerning BMP placement.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Michigan State University. Dept. of English, 2007. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on Apr. 7, 2009) Includes bibliographical references (p. 215-220). Also issued in print.

A new law regulating homosexual relations was in the year of 2009 introduced in the parliament of Uganda, resulting in wide condemnation from the west. The bill proposed harsh penalties for homosexual behavior and gay advocacy, including, but not limited to, the death penalty and life imprisonment. Despite the damning critique from certain western countries the law garnered strong support among Ugandan nationals. To understand this discrepansy my thesis sets out to comprehend the reasoning behind the bill’s national popularity. Is it possible to make sense of a law that from a liberal western perspective could be considered nonsensical? To develop an understanding of the motivations behind the bill, this paper aims to identify and analyze frequently used arguments in support of the ”anti-gay law”. This analysis is primarily achieved through the implementation of a postcolonial perspective containing terminology inspired by Frantz Fanon, and Kristen Cheneys discussions regarding ”postcolonial amnesia”. More general aspects associated with postcolonial theory are also included and a ”liberal western perspective” is additionally implemented to empahasize the contribution of the postcolonial perspective. The study identified four different types of arguments that were commonly used in support of the bill. The first stated that homosexuality is a western phenomenon contrary to African values, the second claimed that homosexuality is a threat to the family, the third that it’s a sin in conflict with religious values, and it was lastly argued that homosexuality doesn’t qualify as one of the human rights. All of the aforementioned arguments were shown to be more comprehensible through the implementation of a postcolonial perspective. The branding of homosexuality as western and ”un-African” was for example demonstrated as explainable when viewed as a reaction to western hegemony and historical colonial exploitation, as well as a drive to create and uphold an independent national identity. A similar pattern is also identified in connection with the other arguments, and is primarily established through the reasonings of Frantz Fanon. Kristen Cheneys use of ”postcolonial amnesia” is also implemented to make sense of glaring paradoxes in the arguments supporting the law.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Santa Cruz, 2001. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 190-199).

xiv, 162 p. / In my dissertation I argue that the invasion of Iraq was a part of a larger project by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to reestablish the unconstrained use of U.S. military power after the defeat of Vietnam. The study presents the best evidence against the alternative explanations that the invasion of Iraq was the result of an overreaction to 9/11, the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction, a plan to spread democracy in the Middle East, a desire to protect Israel or a plan to profit from Iraqi oil. The study also challenges the leading explanation among academics that emphasizes the role of the neoconservatives in the decision to invade. These academics argue that neoconservatives, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, successfully persuaded the American President, George W. Bush, and his Vice President, Dick Cheney, of the necessity to eliminate Saddam Hussein by winning an internal policy battle over realists, such as Secretary of State Colin Powell. With their narrow focus on neoconservatives and realists, scholars have largely overlooked a third group of hawkish policy makers, the primacists. This latter group, centered on Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney, had a long standing goal of strengthening the U.S. military and presidential powers in order to pursue U.S. primacy. This goal manifests itself in the invasion of Iraq, a country in the heart of the geopolitically important, oil-rich region of the Persian Gulf. I demonstrate that it was the primacists, not the neoconservatives, who persuaded the President to go to war with Iraq. Through historical process tracing, especially through a close look at the careers of the major policy actors involved and their public statements as well as declassified documents, I provide strong evidence that these leaders wanted to pursue regime change in Iraq upon taking office. The invasion of Iraq would extend the War on Terror, providing an opportunity to pursue their long-held policy of strengthening the power of the presidency and transforming the military into a high-tech and well-funded force. / Committee in charge: Jane Kellet Cramer, Chairperson/Advisor; Lars S. Skålnes, Member; Daniel J. Tichenor, Member; Val Burris, Outside Member