No description available.

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

This paper looks at traditions and modernities in terms of a spectrum representation and thus challenges the previously accepted notion of tradition and modernity as an either/or matter where tradition is seen to hold obstacles assumed to block progression towards modernity. With this in mind, it considers Ebrahim Hussein´s title for his play Wakati Ukuta (Time is a Wall) and Euphrase Kezilahabi´s novel Gamba la Nyoka (The snake´s skin) to illustrate the idea of multiple modernities where the relationship between tradition and modernity is seen in terms of tension between cultural homogenisation and cultural heterogenisation where various ´scapes´ containing traditions are inflected by historical, linguistic and political situatedness of different actors. Key themes are discussed in this paper displaying the indigenised ethnoscape of East Africa with various modernities and the different tensions this can produce in view of long-standing traditions. Individualism is the prevailing theme in the emergence of modernity. With this in mind, extramarital relationships, foreign behaviours, education and age/generational differences are discussed with reference to the two literary texts. These themes exemplify the thematic trajectory of the spectrum representation of traditions and modernities in Swahili literature, showing belonging to the present but also awareness of the past. This paper concludes that modernities should no longer be seen as a foreign invasion aiming to eradicate tradition but as metropolises that can be indigenised and incorporated into existing traditions. The observations in this paper demonstrate that the link between traditions and modernities is not a direct transition from one to the other but one of more complex affiliation. This paper lays foundations for broader research into this relationship and gives new insight into the illustration and critique of various texts.

<p>The aim of this paper is to try to explain how specific, foreign policy decisions are made, and why one state decides to use violence against another state. A qualitative method is used, and text and documents are analysed. The two theoretical points of departure are central within foreign policy analysis: realism´s theories on external threats and constructivism´s theories on ideas´ policy influence. The empirical case chosen is the US decision to use military violence against Iraq. The paper investigates whether the real threat from Saddam Hussein´s Iraq was the cause of the American military attacks, or whether the ideas of leading politicians in the USA were decisive for the decision to invade the country. The main theoretical assumption is that politicians´ ideas – rather than real, external threats – influence their actions. </p><p>The differences between President Clinton´s benevolent Iraq policy and President Bush´s aggressive Iraq policy can be summarized as a result of a combination of a changed external environment and differences in ideas on the use of military violence. The general conclusion is that politicians´ ideas – rather than real, external threats – influence their decision-making on specific foreign policy decisions.</p>

The aim of this paper is to try to explain how specific, foreign policy decisions are made, and why one state decides to use violence against another state. A qualitative method is used, and text and documents are analysed. The two theoretical points of departure are central within foreign policy analysis: realism´s theories on external threats and constructivism´s theories on ideas´ policy influence. The empirical case chosen is the US decision to use military violence against Iraq. The paper investigates whether the real threat from Saddam Hussein´s Iraq was the cause of the American military attacks, or whether the ideas of leading politicians in the USA were decisive for the decision to invade the country. The main theoretical assumption is that politicians´ ideas – rather than real, external threats – influence their actions.  The differences between President Clinton´s benevolent Iraq policy and President Bush´s aggressive Iraq policy can be summarized as a result of a combination of a changed external environment and differences in ideas on the use of military violence. The general conclusion is that politicians´ ideas – rather than real, external threats – influence their decision-making on specific foreign policy decisions.

This paper sets itself upon analyzing the Iraq War of 2003 through the lens of modern Just War Theory. We will begin with a curt summary of Iraq’s history, focusing particularly on its determinedly odious leader, Saddam Hussein. Thereon, we will be analyzing a pro-war security argument, the aim of which is to assess the threat of Hussein’s weaponry ambitions and what that threat meant to the world. Next, we will be going over the tenets of Just War Theory itself, tracing its history from Rome to the modern doorstep, and applying the security argument to its dictum. Afterwards, we move into the anti-war segment and shall unpack the subject of Iraq's oil resources and whether or not the United States' actions disqualify the intervention from achieving Just War status. Then, our next section shall be addressing the same question of potential disqualification, only this time from the angle of the war’s questionable legality. Finally, we shall conclude on the ultimate query of this paper: was the U.S. decision to intervene in 2003’s Iraq compatible with the modern principles of Just War Theory?

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2002. / AD-A405 987. Includes bibliographical references (p. 63-65). Also available online.

Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2002. / Thesis advisor(s): Glenn F. Robinson, Harold D. Blanton. Includes bibliographical references (p. 63-65). Also available online.

Thesis (Ph.D.) - University of Glasgow, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 698-731). Print version also available. Mode of access : World Wide Web. System requirements : Adobe Acrobat reader required to view PDF document.

abstract: One in six children in the developing world is engaged in Child labor. Child labor is considered an issue that violates children's rights in many countries and Iraq is no exception. In 2004, Iraq had 1,300,000 children between the ages of eight and sixteen years engaged in work (UNICEF.com, 2004). This study identifies the major causes of child labor in Iraq and investigates the consequences of this issue. In this thesis I draw on the comparison of former regimes in Iraq and Egypt and how those regimes were mistreating their citizens by making them live under poverty and oppression while they were receiving support from the U.S. Poverty is the major cause behind Iraqi children engaging in work. I used the data I collected in Iraq, in the city of Nasiriyah, of 28 working children to explain the relationship between poverty, students drop out of school, family attitude towards education and the child engagement in work. At the end of the thesis I offer a list of recommendations to try to address the problem of child labor in Iraq. The recommendations and regulations are for Iraqi government and the NGOs to take into consideration in trying to resolve and regulate the issue of child labor to rescue the children in Iraq from more exploitation in the future. / Dissertation/Thesis / M.A. Social Justice and Human Rights 2011