Abstract The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the way George W. Bush used moral metaphors to intensify the language in his statements on Operation Iraqi Freedom. Three moral metaphors are presented within two different models that are applied on the data. The collected material for the metaphors is constituted of cognitive linguistic books from prominent linguists, such as George Lakoff, Alan Cruse and William Croft, and the data is collected from the official White House website. The scientific method used in this study has been qualitative text analysis where the hermeneutic approach has been an essential part of it. The main question: In what way did George W. Bush use moral metaphors in his statements to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom?, resulted in use of moral metaphors that sermons people’s moral values, depict Saddam Hussein’s characteristics as immoral, activate people’s moral priorities to help the Iraqi people, and addresses both conservatives and liberals in America. The conclusion of my study is that President Bush deliberately intensified the language in his statements through moral metaphors to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom. Keywords: Cognitive Linguistics, Metaphor, Figurative Language, Operation Iraqi Freedom, War on Terror, George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, USA, Iraq, Qualitative Text Analysis, Hermeneutics.

The aim of this master thesis is to analyze political regime of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and to find out some possible effects, which could have had an influence on its stability and survival in the last 25 years. The Jordanian political regime had gone through several crises in the examined years. Not only did it survive all of them but also became stronger. Which factors caused the survival of the regime? In the first part of the thesis we typologize the regime from three possible perspectives (institutional, formalistic and legitimation). The second part deals with an analysis of factors, which enable the survival of Jordanian political regime. The emphasis is given on the role of institutions.

No description available.

Thesis (MA (Political Science))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The United States of America (USA) has a new president in the White House - a president whose rhetoric appears to distance himself from the policies of the previous administration. This also appears to hold true for his approach with regard to nuclear nonproliferation. The overarching research aim of this study is to explore whether the Obama administration’s policy with regard to nuclear non-proliferation will differ significantly from that of the Bush administration. The broader subject of nuclear non-proliferation will be subdivided into three themes, namely: disarmament, proliferation by non-nuclear states and nuclear terrorism. In order to sketch the international context within which the USA’s policy must be viewed, an overview of the nuclear non-proliferation regime is provided. This will be followed by an exploration of disarmament, proliferation by nonnuclear states (with Iran and North Korea as case studies) and nuclear terrorism. In each case, a comparison between the Bush administration and the Obama administration’s policies will be done. Finally, an analysis will be done of the main similarities and differences between the two administrations’ approaches, with a focus on the use of hard, soft and smart power. The study concludes that the primary difference between the Bush and Obama administration’s approaches is that Bush pursued only one policy option (hard power) at a time, while Obama intends to use many different policy options (smart power) at the same time, with a focus on increasing the use of soft power. This sort of pragmatism may just be what the USA needs right now in order to address the problem of nuclear proliferation. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die Verenigte State van Amerika (VSA) het ‘n nuwe president in die Withuis – ‘n president wie se uitsprake hom van die beleide van die vorige administrasie blyk te distansieer. Dit wil ook voorkom asof dit van toepassing is op sy benadering tot kernwapen versperring. Die oorhoofse navorsingsdoelwit van hierdie studie is om te ondersoek of die Obama administrasie se beleid ten opsigte van kernwapen versperring aansienlik van die van die Bush administrasie gaan verskil. Die breër onderwerp van kernwapen versperring kan in drie temas opgedeel word, naamlik: ontwapening, proliferasie deur nie-kernwapenstate, en kernwapen terrorisme. Ten einde die internasionale konteks te skets waarin die VSA se beleid moet geskied, begin die studie met ‘n oorsig van die kernwapen versperring regime. Dit word gevolg deur ‘n ondersoek van onderskeidelik ontwapening, proliferasie deur nie-kernwapenstate (met Iran en Noord-Korea as gevallestudies) en kernwapen terrorisme. By elkeen van die drie temas word ‘n vergelyking tussen die Bush administrasie en die Obama adminstrasie se beleide getref. Laastens word ‘n analise van die hoof verskille en ooreenkomste tussen die twee administrasies se benaderings onderneem, met die klem op die gebruik van harde, sagte en slim mag. Die bevinding van die studie is dat die hoof verskille tussen die Bush en Obama administrasies se benaderings behels dat Bush slegs een beleidsopsie (harde mag) op ‘n slag nagevolg het, terwyl Obama beoog om terselfdertyd van verskillende beleidsopsies (slim mag) gebruik te maak, met veral ‘n fokus op ‘n toename in die gebruik van sagte mag. Die soort pragmatisme mag dalk net wees wat die VSA tans nodig het om die probleem van kernwapen proliferasie aan te spreek.

Approved for public release, distribution is unlimited / Throughout history, threats emerging from Iran's frontiers have significantly influenced its security policies towards Iraq. Given Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, Iran's security environment has changed a great deal. Does Iran have a strategy for post-Saddam Iraq and, if so, what is it? With few exceptions, Kenneth Waltz's Realpolitik and balance-of-power theories have guided Iran's security policy decisions. The combined effects of Iran's formative history, individual and institutional agendas, and national interests form the foundation for a Realpolitik strategy aimed at preventing a resurgent "anti-Teheran" government in Iraq. Pragmatism, consensus, influence, and competition appear to be the watchwords for an assertive strategy built upon military prudence and cross-border, multi-disciplined engagement. Iran is putting its internal political and economic house in order so as to achieve greater effectiveness in the pursuit of its national interests vis-a-vis Iraq and the United States. While an alliance is unlikely, there is alignment with the U.S.-led coalition's strategic interests in Iraq. / Major, United States Marine Corps

Il tribalismo costituisce una caratteristica intrinseca delle società mediorientali, concorrendo insieme a cultura araba e religione islamica a comporne l’identità. In Iraq, da sempre, il tribalismo ha costituito sia una struttura organizzativa ed una modalità di relazione sociale, che una dinamica di potere. Durante il Mandato britannico e la monarchia, la manipolazione politica di cultura e strutture tribali ha rafforzato la legittimazione del governo; nella fase repubblicana, con l’emergere delle forze armate quale principale attore politico e l’impatto con la modernità, il tribalismo si è trasformato pur rimanendo radicato nella società. Nella fase iniziale del regime ba’thista, la cultura tribale è stata combattuta essendo considerata un retaggio arcaico. Senonchè, con le difficoltà legate alla guerra con l’Iran, l’invasione del Kuwait e il successivo embargo, il regime di Saddam Hussein sfruttò proprio il tribalismo sia come dinamica di presa e controllo del potere che come collante propagandistico e sociale. Nel vuoto politico seguito al crollo del regime, le tribù riemersero come “campo di battaglia” tra insurgency e forze della Coalizione. Con il Surge americano e la nascita della Sahwa quale reazione allo stragismo jihadista, le tribù hanno impresso una svolta che ha salvato il paese dalla guerra settaria. Anche al Maliki ha saputo abilmente avvantaggiarsi del fenomeno tribale. Oggi le tribù continuano a rappresentare sia una constituency imprescindibile per ogni partito politico, che una diversificata e trasversale forza politica attiva. / Tribalism is an intrinsic character of Middle Eastern’s societies, as it contributes, together with Arab culture and Islamic religion, to shape their identity. In Iraq, since ever, tribalism constituted an organizational structure and a pattern of social relations, as well as dynamic of power’s exercise. Under the British Mandate and the Monarchy, politic manipulation of tribal’s culture and structures strengthened government’s legitimation; during the Republican period, as the Army emerged as main political driver and the influence of Modernity, tribalism transformed itself even if its presence into the society was still very strong. In the initial phase of Ba’thist’s regime, tribal culture was opposed, since it was considered as an obsolete heritage. But, facing the difficulties stemming from the war with Iran, the invasion of Kuwait and the embargo, the regime of Saddam Hussein exploited tribalism as a dynamic of power’s control, as well as propaganda and social bond. In the political void ensuing to the collapse of the regime, the tribes surfaced as “battlefield” between insurgency and Coalition’s Forces. American Surge and the tribes’ intervention in the Sahwa, as a reaction to jihadist’s bloodbath, avoided a sectarian civil war. Also al Maliki was able to exploit the tribal system. Nowadays, tribes are still an invaluable constituency for every political party, as well as diversified and a cross-parties political force.

Since the creation of modern-day Iraq by the British Empire in 1920, the country’s state territorial structuring has been an ever-evolving source of political instability and conflict. Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups have been locked in a near constant struggle over questions of self-rule, shared rule, and secession. Consequently, the territorial model of federalism has never been far from political discussions, negotiations, and territorial disputes. Federalism was finally officially adopted in 2005, giving a new definition to Iraq’s territorial model. But while federalism seemed a natural means of managing Iraq’s long-standing ethno-sectarian divisions and was democratically ratified in a process that included most ethnic and sectarian groups, the model has failed to materialize, and territorial structure remains a major point of contention between the groups. The overarching aim of this dissertation is to shed light on two key questions. First, how have the dynamics between the major ethnic and sectarian groups of Iraq shaped the evolution of the country’s territorial structure from 1920 up to and beyond the federal constitution in 2005? Second, what can the trajectory of this evolution teach us about why federalism was adopted but has failed to materialize? I shall argue that Iraq’s territorial structuring over the past century has been systematically influenced by at least one of four “I”s: the groups’ ideas concerning territorial structuring, their conceptualizations of group identities, their definitions of group interests, and the influence of foreign actors. Focussing on the Shiite Arabs, the Sunni Arabs, and the Kurds, I will examine how these four factors have interacted to shape the territorial organization of Iraq over four key time periods: (i) the foundation of Iraq in 1920 to Saddam Hussein’s rise to the presidency in 1979, (ii) Saddam’s rule from 1979 to 2003, (iii) Saddam’s deposition in 2003 to the adoption of the federal constitution in 2005, and (iv) the post-constitutional period from 2005 to the present. I thus hope to explain how evolving inter-group dynamics over the past century have impacted the development of Iraq’s territorial structure, arguing that this sheds light on both the reference to federalism in the 2005 constitution and its subsequent failure to materialize. This dissertation thus demonstrates the powerful ways in which Iraq’s territorial structuring has been shaped by past trends in ethno-sectarian dynamics, putting us in a better position to understand the complexities of the country’s current territorial politics.

No description available.

The thesis: "The Causes of Iraqi War: Why the US Administration decided to invade Iraq in 2003" focuses on explanation why the administration of the USA made that step. The specification of the roots of war is based on five causes and seventeen subcauses according to the essay of Stephen Van Evera and other scholars, and the paper trough the methodology of text's analyzes investigates behavior, decision-making process and motivations of the US administration (the level of units) and some steps of the US president G. W. Bush (individual level) in the process leading to the war in Iraq. Concerning the causes of war, the paper introduces different concepts of the offense-defense balance and analyzes whether the balance was disrupted. Secondly, it examines the role of cumulative resources in Iraq like oil, territory and state structures and it shows how they influenced the decision. Third, it searches for the linkage among an emergence of a new threat and responses to it which mouthed to the acceptance of the concept of the first move advantage. Fourth, the thesis accounts for the roots of misperception, where they originate and how they operated in perception of the US administration of the Iraqi threat. Finally, the investigation of the last root of conflict explains why and how windows of...