The Vietnam War was one of the most traumatic events ever to afflict the US Military. From the ashes of this defeat, the US Military sought to renew itself. As part of this process of renewal, the US Army in particular engaged in serious soul searching as to how, and under what circumstances, the United States ought to commit itself to war. The answers that were derived from this soul searching are known collectively as the Powell Doctrine, named after General Colin L. Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-1993). The elements of the Doctrine are as follows: the need for “overwhelming” force; the need for public and Congressional support; the need for clear objectives; the need for a clear “exit strategy”; and force should only be used in the “vital national interest.” This thesis will advance four principal arguments: first, that the evolution of the Powell Doctrine cannot be understood without reference to the US experience in Vietnam; second, that the various elements of the Powell Doctrine have a logical relationship to one another which means that the Doctrine as a whole should be considered as a single, integrated body of thought; and, third, that Colin Powell, in his Foreign Affairs article, is simply giving public articulation to an intellectual climate that had already become influential before his ascent to the Chairmanship of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And that, whilst the Powell Doctrine does deserve to be called a doctrine in the military sense of the word, this is not a full explanation of the conditions Powell has laid down as they encroach upon profoundly political issues. And thus, whilst the Powell Doctrine does deserve the title “doctrine,” it is also an attempt to formulate a coherent set of principles to inform US “National Security” policy in areas that go beyond those traditionally seen as being of military concern.

US foreign policy during the Cold War has been analysed from a number of perspectives, generating large bodies of literature attempting to explain its origins, its development and its conclusion. Within the discipline of International Relations these debates have tended to be led by scholars focusing on events at the system level. However, there are still many questions left only partially explained. In large part this is because these accounts restrict themselves to a single level of analysis, either the international system, or the structure of the state and society. The first level of analysis, focusing on the role of individuals, has largely been excluded from International Relations. It is often left to historians to incorporate the role of individual decision makers into their studies. The problem for international relations students, however, is that their arguments run the risk of determinism. They come close to advocating that the course of history is shaped by these external forces and there is little if no room for alternate courses to be steered. They have, intentionally or otherwise, removed human agency and choice from the equation. This thesis argues that structural theories, and any approach that limits itself to one level of analysis, are inadequate to explain the development of US foreign policy. Instead, it is necessary to incorporate the first level of analysis in order to bring human agency back into International Relations and provide a more detailed explanation of US foreign policy. The present study proposes an analytical framework which incorporates presidential agency into a multi-level analysis of US foreign policy during the Cold War. Drawing on Foreign Policy Analysis, International Relations theory, presidential studies and the historiography of US foreign policy, this thesis constructs a multi-level case study comparison of the foreign policies of Presidents Truman and Reagan. It argues that the worldview of the president is central to agenda setting in US foreign policy making and that the management style of the president influences both decision-making and the implementation of US foreign policy. Evidence to support this is drawn from detailed empirical analysis of Truman’s foreign policy of containment in Korea and Reagan’s foreign policy of rollback in Nicaragua.

While news media coverage of political protest is by no means a new topic of research for media scholars, few studies have attempted to unpack how and why protesters and protests have been legitimised within news media coverage, rather than covered with the expectation of violence occurring (Halloran et al. 1970), marginalised (Gitlin 1980), cast as threats to the social order (McLeod 1995), or denied the status of legitimate political players (Shoemaker 1984). This research project is an attempt to do just that. Therefore, this dissertation examines whether newspapers from the United Kingdom and United States accorded the opposition movement against then president Hosni Mubarak with favourable news coverage during the 2011 Egyptian Revolution. A content analysis of 611 newspaper articles from both British and American publications was conducted to determine whether the anti-Mubarak opposition was covered favourably, in addition to revealing what other dominant themes were present within the reporting. This study revealed that the anti-Mubarak opposition protesters were covered favourably by an overwhelming margin within both British (65 percent) and American (66 percent) newspaper articles, and put a particular emphasis on the political motivations galvanising the protests. Conversely, then-president Hosni Mubarak and the Egyptian government, and the Egyptian police and security services were portrayed as repressive actors within the reporting on the revolution. Furthermore, the anti-Mubarak opposition was featured most frequently as the first source within the reporting from either nation's newspapers. Another dominant theme emerging from the content analysis, and that was subsequently examined within the empirical chapters of this project, was that geopolitical considerations were frequently included within coverage from both British (60 percent) and American (76 percent) newspapers. Few studies have attempted to assess the prominence and role of geopolitics within the reporting of international politics (Myers et al. 1996). In summation, this research project questions the normative assumptions made about the relationship between the news media and protesters being antagonistic, and to understand how and why protest is granted legitimacy within media coverage of political crises.

This thesis looks at the nature of civil-military relations in the post-Cold War and the post-9/11 era through the theoretical lens of social constructivism. The study looks at the inter-relationship between the respective civil-military relations and US-Mexican bilateral ties from a constructivist perspective, with the aim of deconstructing the ideational structures of civil-military relations within the state and the state based international system to promote stronger organic structures for civilian control over the state agents of violence. The aim of thesis is to provide a theoretical model to both unite the theoretical rationale for the humanisation, indeed demilitarisation, of security concerns within the Western Hemisphere and in particular the US and Mexico. Hence, creating a novel theoretical model for the understanding and explanation of civil-military and bilateral relations.

The 1990s in the United States saw a particular cultural anxiety manifested in the crisis of masculinity, in which American men were perceived to be suffering from a loss of power and diminished authority. As President Clinton heralded a final push towards the millennium and the creation of a better, brighter future for the nation, concerns emerged over the ability of straight, white, middle-class men to access this same future. In this pre-millennial period, fatherhood is presented as the solution to this state of masculine crisis. Hollywood in particular invests in this notion of masculine crisis and the need for rehabilitation through fatherhood, indulging in one of the key tenets of Lee Edelman’s theory of reproductive futurism: that of the future being realised through an investment in the child. This thesis examines a number of Hollywood films produced between 1989 and 2001, with the aim of demonstrating how fatherhood is persistently constructed as the key to masculine survival during a period of considerable anxiety over the future.

Prior to September 11, 2001, a calculated image problem related to America’s defence strategy in the Near East and its foreign policy of exceptionalism culminated in its unfavourable perception in the Muslim world. To counter this setback, leading think-tanks recommended that US public diplomacy must lead the way in order for America to reclaim its positive image. During the Bush administration, this guidance was applied through the expansion of public diplomacy measures such as the State Department’s “Brand America” campaign and the “Shared Values Initiative”. Whilst they were successful at applying secular approaches to engaging international Muslim audiences, both campaigns failed to reach the core of Islamic society. This study contends that to reach this core, the crucial requirement must be to apply direct communicative engagement with local networks in order to restore trusted relations. In defining a new way forward, this study breaks new ground by examining the origin of this problem for America from the angle of communication. By acknowledging the many setbacks caused by various public diplomacy measures, we examine the prospects for the State Department in applying the post-secular communication strategy, Interfaith Diplomacy, to enrich political communication between US diplomats and key religious players in the Muslim world. Findings reveal that communication training under an Obama administration is essential for improving US-Muslim world relations, and this requires the recruitment of a Religion Attaché Officer Corps within the United States Foreign Service. A new Religion Attaché, equipped with a background in broad religious affairs and communication training in Interfaith Diplomacy, is likely to make significant headway in counteracting the tension caused by the US-Muslim world communication problem.

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.

The thesis analyses US foreign policy toward Italy in the postwar period by considering the multi-faceted nature of the relationship between the countries. It looks at the motivations and challenges facing American visions of a stable anti-communist Italy, as well at the hopes and limitations facing Italian interlocutors in their interaction with the US hegemon. In analysing the overlaps and dissimilarities between policy toward the country and broader approaches in Europe, it explores how the Cold War shaped the US attitude toward Italy and how Italy influenced American conceptualisation of the Cold War. With particular focus on the attempt to bolster anti-communist groups before the first Italian national election in April 1948, it charts the emergence of a perception of success within the Truman Administration vis-à-vis the effectiveness of its efforts to prevent a communist ascension to power. Confident that they had shaped the election outcome, US officials considered intervention as an inaugural case of ‘Political Warfare,’ which was defined as the use of ‘all means short of war’ to achieve national objectives. Such perceptions were significant for how American officials considered events in Italy during the previous years, while it held important ramifications for the future, problematic, trajectory of US-Italian relations and ongoing American efforts to engage in organised Political Warfare.

This thesis provides the first analysis of occupational therapy and art therapy from an art historical viewpoint. Based on archival material, it examines how modern artists, art pedagogues, schools and museums theorised, implemented and publicised therapeutic art-making practices. It focuses on four case studies in Britain and the US (1937-1946): occupational therapy by László Moholy-Nagy at the School of Design, founded as the New Bauhaus (Chicago); art therapy by Arthur Segal (London and Oxford); Northfield Military Hospital (Birmingham); and The Arts in Therapy exhibition series at the Museum of Modern Art (New York). Elucidating the concepts, practices and display of therapeutic art across these institutions, this research presents new intersections between modern art and medicine. It contributes to the history of art, the history of healing, and the growing medical humanities concerned with their entanglement. Therapeutic approaches defined art as an experiential process, shifting emphasis away from objects, with focus on the psychological and physiological effects on makers rather than what they produced. Consequently, this thesis expands art historical remits by presenting narratives of art that are culturally, socially and politically situated but that predominantly concern ideas, processes and effects on individuals rather than objects, images and performances by them.

This dissertation examines the use of motion-picture film by the American Prosecution before and during the 'Trial of the Major War Criminals' at the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal (IMT) in Germany, 1945-1946. My research is based on never before used material including newly discovered film, official papers, and private letters. I argue that investigating the use of film, more than any other medium, enables us to comprehend the American Prosecution's vision of justice after the Second World War. I focus on three crucial themes: the political, juridical and moral concerns of the American planners and prosecutors. Although much historical scholarship focuses on American designs to 're-educate' Germans, I show that the American planners of Nuremberg felt that the education of Americans was also essential. The trial was designed to draw a distinction between Nazi 'barbarism' and 'Western civilization' and presented an opportunity that Americans used to promote their political values at home as well as abroad. They used film to affirm and showcase - to millions of their fellow citizens - some of the values and methods of liberal democracy. The American planners and prosecutors viewed the Nazi defendants as responsible representatives of the German people and used the controversial doctrine of 'conspiracy' to facilitate the new principle of individual accountability in international law. Additionally, they also proclaimed that planning and waging 'aggressive' war had constituted, years before the Nazis came to power, criminal activity. Yet representing 'conspiracy' and 'aggression' with film graphically exposed the limits of law in dealing with unprecedented injustice. The particular form of spectacle arising from the American use of film at Nuremberg has remained overlooked by scholarship in a variety of relevant fields. The American Prosecution staged a form of morality play with film. The aim, however, was not the redemption of the Nazi defendants; it was, rather, only to condemn and punish them. The Americans confronted the defendants with images of atrocity, as well as images of themselves. This technique functioned as a theatrical device in which onlookers felt that they could examine the defendants for signs (or the absence) of remorse. This spectacle enabled the presentation of a particularly powerful moral case against the defendants and the Nazi ideology they had espoused. This dissertation, therefore, offers a new contribution to our understanding of the visual culture of legal procedure by using an historical case-study of transitional justice after the Second World War.