ix, 99 p. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number. / This study examines how the news media and U.S. officials within the Bush administration utilized rhetoric and specific words over others to frame the violence and civil unrest in Iraq following the U.S. invasion. This study incorporates a mixed methods approach to framing analysis. It seeks to advance framing research into the role of the media in presenting dominant frames set forth by powerful political elites. By examining Department of Defense news briefings, this study critiques the officials' framing of the violence and unrest in Iraq. Likewise, through a content analysis of two newspapers' coverage of the Iraq War, it examines the frequency of certain key terms as it attempts to locate the emergence of dominant rhetorical frames, particularly "insurgency." Results reveal that officials framed Iraq's insurgency as part of the war on terror and the insurgency frame emerged in print during the periods of study. / Committee in charge: Prof. John Russial, Chair; Prof. Patricia A Curtin; Prof. Carl Bybee

Orientador: Paulo José dos Reis Pereira / Banca: Reginaldo Mattar Nasser / Banca: Deisy de Freitas Lima Ventura / O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais é instituído em parceria com a Unesp/Unicamp/PUC-SP, em projeto subsidiado pela CAPES, intitulado "Programa San Tiago Dantas" / Resumo: Entre março de 2003 e junho de 2004, os Estados Unidos da América, em conjunto com a Grã-Bretanha, ocuparam o Iraque e obtiveram o status de Autoridade Provisória emitido pelo Conselho de Segurança da Organização das Nações Unidas (CSONU) na Resolução 1483 para reconstruir o Estado iraquiano após a derrubada do Regime Baath. Pela primeira vez desde o final da segunda Guerra Mundial, uma potência ganhava status de força ocupante pela Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU), sem ser um mandato da ONU propriamente, como usualmente nas operações de paz (Peacekeeping operations) regidas pelo órgão internacional. A invasão do Iraque em 2003, contou com um consenso no pensamento político norteamericano no qual os EUA teriam a responsabilidade e o dever de derrubar o regime de Saddam Hussein, que supostamente cometia crimes contra humanidade, representava uma ameaça à segurança internacional. Em grande medida, a fórmula norte-americana para a invasão e ocupação do Iraque consistiu em justificar suas ações em termos de "razão humanitária" e legitimá-las por meio de mecanismos jurídicos. A execução do plano de ocupação do Iraque contou com um papel fundamental de membros da elite iraquiana da oposição ao Regime Baath em apoio a agenda das potências anglo-americanas. Entretanto, se esse inédito processo de statebuilding for analisado deixando de lado essas premissas humanitárias, ao contrário do que fazem as análises mainstream de política externa dos EUA, pode-se identificar possíveis benefícios político-econômicos consequentes a esse projeto de reconstrução do Iraque. A partir da análise dos documentos oficiais da Coalizão de Autoridade Provisória (CAP) e o questionamento às premissas liberais internacionalistas que pautaram a justificativa e posteriormente as críticas aos resultados da administração ... (Resumo completo, clicar acesso eletrônico abaixo) / Abstract: Between March 2003 and June 2004, the United States of America (US), together with Britain, occupied Iraq and obtained the status of Provisional Authority granted by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1483 to rebuild the Iraqi state after the overthrow of the Baath Regime. For the first time since the end of World War II, an international power gained occupying power status through United Nations (UN), without being a UN proper mandate, as usually in peacekeeping operations governed by the international body. The 2003 invasion of Iraq had a consensus in American political though that the United States would have the responsibility and duty to overthrow Saddam's regime, which allegedly committed crimes against humanity, posed a threat to international security. To a large extent, the American formula for the invasion and occupation of Iraq consisted in justifying its actions in terms of "humanitarian reason" and legitimizing them by means of legal mechanisms. Implementation of the Iraq occupation plan had a key role for members of the Iraqi opposition elite to the Baath Regime in support of the Anglo-American powers agenda. However, if this unprecedented statebuilding process is analyzed by leaving aside these humanitarian premises, unlike the mainstream US foreign policy analysis, one can identify possible political-economic benefits that result from this reconstruction project in Iraq. Based on the analysis of the official documents of the Provisional Authority Coalition (CPA) and questioning the internationalist liberal premises that guided the justification and later criticism of the results of CPA administration, we were able to identify possible political-economic benefits to the US and its corporations during The 14 months of occupation. Particularly in the energy, agriculture, security services and infrastructure ... - (Complete abstract click electronic access below) / Mestre

The Horse Latitudes is a collection of stories that documents one infantry squad's time in Baghdad, Iraq. The missions are long stretches of boredom, broken up by flashes of violence. The single sniper shot fired. An IED loosely buried in the roadside, waiting. A schoolyard of kids throwing fist-sized rocks at gun-trucks. The enemy is vast and changing. The downtime is a combination of homesickness, RPGs, and mortar fire. These men suffer through the war, heat, and each other. These stories look into the fire-fights and their aftermath to get to soldiers' struggles within themselves: how to fight a faceless enemy, what it means to serve, how one soldiers, what makes a man, what makes a good man, what will it mean to die here, and what does it mean not to. This collection dismisses what we think we know about war -- violence, camaraderie, masculinity, enemy, victory -- in order to tell a harder, truer story.

This dissertation seeks to explain why states sometimes produce disintegrated wartime grand strategies; doing so is of both scholarly and policy importance because wartime grand strategy is a key component of military effectiveness, and therefore has a vital role to play in military victory or defeat. To do so, this dissertation explores the link between militarism, civil-military bargaining, and the formation of integrated—or disintegrated—grand strategy. I hypothesize that civilians and military leaders possess divergent preferences over the use of force that are exogenous to any one conflict, and represent enduring, rational preference divergences between civilian and military positions on the use of force. Under conditions of militarism, defined as high levels of societal admiration for the military, the civil-military bargaining space will be distorted in favor of military preferences, with the military having more power in the civil-military negotiating process due to its potentially outsized ability to shape public opinion compared to civilians. This will lead to the formation of disintegrated grand strategy—one which does not balance civilian and military preferences—which has been shown in the literature to be linked to reduced military effectiveness. I provide evidence for my hypotheses in the form of two case studies which are examined via process-tracing methodology—the United States performance in the 1991 Gulf War, and the United States performance in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I conclude that under conditions of militarism, states produce disintegrated wartime grand strategies.

The origins of the just war theory date back to medieval times, with the early Catholic scholars, Augustine and Aquinas, and have continued into modem times, with revisions of the theory by Elshtain and Walzer. So why is a new just war theory needed? The primary problem with the old theories is not the concept of the theory itself, but the questions that prior theories of just war leave unanswered. The just war theory of today continues to be unspecific, and does not deal with contemporary issues, such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; and discrimination between combatants and noncombatants in an age of airborne warfare. In the years since September 11 th, and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq sans the support of the United Nations, the concept of the just war has gained prominence in political theory and commentary. In a twofold manner, this thesis deals with the problems left unanswered by current just war theory. First, a new just war theory is proposed, which addresses many of the abovementioned issues that remain unsolved by former theories. Second, this theory is tested through application to the 1991 Persian Gulf War; the decade after the war in which economic sanctions were placed against Iraq; and the three-year period directly after the September 11th attacks, in which the world again entered into conflict with Iraq. The classic just war theory template is used, with the war and the decade-long period following it classified under the traditional jus ad bellum (just cause ),jus in bello (just conduct), and conclusion categories. The post September 11th period is dealt with using the jus ad bellum template, as a precursor to the 2003 Iraq War. This thesis tests the applicability of the new just war theory in the face of modem wartime considerations, such as advanced weapons technology, wartime military conduct, military occupation, and civilian welfare. The new just war theory has been designed to take these issues into consideration, and as such, it accommodates the just limitations of war (what a state can and cannot do in the course of a conflict), while still defining what is and is not a just cause to go to war. There is also new consideration given to the conclusion of the war, and specifically, the rights and responsibilities of both the occupied and the occupying parties, as well as the issue of rebuilding and recovery in the country or countries involved in the conflict. These are considerations that are new to war, and were not considered previous to the past century of conflict. As such, older just war theories do not adequately discuss these responsibilities, and the new theory strives to fill this gap.

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

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 transformed the way in which Americans and their leaders viewed the world. The tragic events of that day helped give rise to a foreign policy strategy commonly referred to as the “Bush Doctrine.” At the heart of this doctrine lay a series of propositions about the need to foster liberal democracy as the antidote to terrorism. President George W. Bush proclaimed in a variety of addresses that democracy now represented the “single surviving model” of political life to which all people aspired. In the course of making this argument, President Bush seemed to relate his policies to an overarching “teleology” of progress. This discourse implied that the United States might use force to hasten the emergence of liberal norms and institutions in selected states. With a sense of irony, some commentators soon referred to the Bush administration’s position as “Leninist” because of its determination to bring about the so-called “end of history” today. Yet, surprisingly, these critics had little more to add. This thesis is an attempt to assess in greater depth the Bush administration’s claim to comprehend historical eschatology. Developing a concept termed “democratic vanguardism,” this study investigates the idea of liberal modernity, the role of the United States as a force for democracy, and the implications of using military intervention in the service of idealistic ends. It examines disputes among political theorists, public intellectuals and elected statesmen which help to enrich our understanding of the United States’ efforts under President Bush at bending history to its will.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / Symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are a common comorbidity in veterans seeking treatment of chronic musculoskeletal pain (CMP). However, little is known regarding the mutual influence of PTSD and CMP in this population. Using cross-sectional and longitudinal data from a randomized clinical trial evaluating a stepped care intervention for CMP in Iraq/Afghanistan veterans (ESCAPE), this dissertation examined the relationships between PTSD and CMP along with other factors including depression, anxiety, catastrophizing and health-related quality of life. The Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was conducted to identify key factors associated with baseline PTSD besides CMP severity. A series of statistical analyses including logistical regression analysis, mixed model repeated measure analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and cross-lagged panel analysis via structural equation modeling were conducted to test five competing models of PTSD symptom clusters, and to examine the mutual influences of PTSD symptom clusters and CMP outcomes. Results showed baseline pain intensity and pain disability predicted PTSD at 9 months. And baseline PTSD predicted improvement of pain disability at 9 months. Moreover, direct relationships were found between PTSD and the disability component of CMP, and indirect relationships were found between PTSD, CMP and CMP components (intensity and disability) mediated by depression, anxiety and pain catastrophizing. Finally, the coexistence of PTSD and more severe pain was associated with worse SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores. Together these findings provided empirical support for the mutual maintenance theory.

Iraq is a country of great cultural significance as it is where civilization first began. As a result of its lengthy occupation, it is virtually one large archaeological site. In spite of numerous warnings to the governments of both the United States and the United Kingdom, no efforts were made to protect the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad when the American-led coalition unlawfully invaded Iraq. Indeed, orders were given not to interfere with the looting. During the occupation that followed, the United States failed to take steps to protect Iraqi cultural property. In terms of international law, it was obliged to protect Iraq’s cultural property. The United States also chose to exacerbate its unlawful conduct by occupying archaeological sites and damaging them further by illegal construction. As a result many significant sites have been irreparably damaged or destroyed. Their conduct was the result of complete indifference to the Iraqi cultural heritage. Although their actions render them iin breach of international law, it is unlikely that the United States will ever be prosecuted for its actions. / Old Testament & Ancient Near Eastern Studies / M.A. (Ancient Near Eastern Studies)

Iraq is a country of great cultural significance as it is where civilization first began. As a result of its lengthy occupation, it is virtually one large archaeological site. In spite of numerous warnings to the governments of both the United States and the United Kingdom, no efforts were made to protect the Iraqi National Museum in Baghdad when the American-led coalition unlawfully invaded Iraq. Indeed, orders were given not to interfere with the looting. During the occupation that followed, the United States failed to take steps to protect Iraqi cultural property. In terms of international law, it was obliged to protect Iraq’s cultural property. The United States also chose to exacerbate its unlawful conduct by occupying archaeological sites and damaging them further by illegal construction. As a result many significant sites have been irreparably damaged or destroyed. Their conduct was the result of complete indifference to the Iraqi cultural heritage. Although their actions render them iin breach of international law, it is unlikely that the United States will ever be prosecuted for its actions. / Biblical and Ancient Studies / M.A. (Ancient Near Eastern Studies)