Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2006. / Thesis Advisor(s): Donald Abenheim. "June 2006." AD-A451 305. Includes bibliographical references (p. 89-100).

How do states perceive threats? Why are material forces sometimes more prominent in shaping threat perception, whereas ideational ones are key in other instances? This study aims to move beyond the task of determining whether material or ideational factors offer a more plausible explanation by arguing that threat perception is a function of the interplay between material factors and state identity, the influence of which can run both ways. Based on ‘analytical eclecticism’, I develop a two-layered conception of security as both physical and ontological, in which the interaction of ideational and material forces can be analysed. Ontological security is intimately connected with identity; its pursuit, therefore, requires distinctiveness and differentiation from the ‘Other’ as well as a coherent and consistent identity narrative at the domestic level. Physical security, on the other hand, involves the identification of threats that constitute a danger to the survival of the state. While ontological and physical security spheres have distinct dynamics and processes, they constitute two interrelated layers. Accordingly, I argue that states can suffer from ontological insecurity while their physical security remains intact, and vice versa. In some instances, physical security and its corresponding material forces condition identity narratives while in other instances the causal arrow points in the other direction. To illustrate these processes, I present a ‘structured, focused’ comparison of Syrian and Saudi threat perceptions during three major wars in the region: the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the 2006 Lebanon War, and the 2009 Gaza War. While providing novel insights for explaining the dynamics of threat perception in the Middle East, this study contributes to the broader IR literature by proposing a conceptual framework that links the literature on Self/Other relations, ontological security, and realism in IR theory. This study thus demonstrates the potential utility of bringing IR theory and the Middle East as an area study into closer dialogue.

Orientador: Reginaldo Mattar Nasser / Banca: Carlos Gustavo Poggio Teixeira / Banca: Cláudia Alvarenga Marconi / 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: O objetivo desta dissertação é fazer uma investigação a respeito do impacto e influência que a diplomacia, em sua vertente multilateral, pode ter sobre a opção dos membros do governo dos EUA em fazerem uso de suas forças armadas no exterior. A análise é desenvolvida com base no estudo de caso específico da Guerra contra o Iraque, que teve início em março de 2003. Primeiramente desenvolvemos uma delimitação conceitual do que entendemos por unilateralismo e multilateralismo como sendo categorias de classificação do grau de abertura e influência de outros atores na política externa de um determinado Estado. Em seguida, fazemos uma revisão bibliográfica da história da política externa norte-americana, identificando os sentidos e possíveis fontes respectivas do unilateralismo e multilateralismo neste panorama, e quais as suas especificidades. Finalmente, desenvolvemos a análise proposta, através da contextualização da questão iraquiana e do envolvimento norte-americano nela, para em seguida identificarmos na ação dos EUA o grau em que sua atuação diplomática envolveu outros atores e interesses, com vistas a realizarmos uma gradação do seu multilateralismo ou unilateralismo e se esta categorização serve para o melhor entendimento do papel que a diplomacia teria na política externa dos EUA especificamente no caso da guerra resultante deste processo. Nossas conclusões apontam para um balanço complexo, pois as fontes trabalhadas indicam uma forte vocação unilateral na escolha da opção militar para desarmar o Iraque. Porém, ao mesmo tempo é possível notar que houve um amplo e sistemático esforço de convencer aliados e especialmente o Conselho de Segurança da ONU da legitimidade e da necessidade da ação militar contra o Iraque. E este esforço parece não ... (Resumo completo, clicar acesso eletrônico abaixo) / Abstract: The objective of this dissertation is to make an investigation about the impact and influence that diplomacy in its multilateral expression may have in the option of using military forces abroad by members of the government of the United States. The analysis is developed for the specific case of the Iraq war, which started in March 2003. First we present one conceptual understanding of unilateralism and multilateralism as categories of classification of the degree of openness and influence of others actors in the foreign affairs of one State. After this we make one bibliographical review of the history of United States foreign affairs, identifying the meanings and the possible sources of unilateralism and multilateralism in its development, and which are their specificities. Then, we develop the proposed analysis, through the details about the context of the Iraqi crisis and north American involvement in it, and afterwards we identify in the United States action the degree in which its diplomatic action involved others actors and interests, for the purpose of having a scale of its multilateralism or unilateralism. Then we evaluate if these categories are useful for the better understanding of the role diplomacy may have in the United States foreign policy, specifically in the case of the war. Our conclusions points out a complex balance, since our sources indicate a strong unilateral tendency in the choice about the military option to disarm Iraq. However, at the same time we could see an wide and systematic effort to convince allies and specially the UN Security Council of the legitimacy and the need of the military action against Iraq. This effort appears to not have been more insistent on the account of the favorable domestic conditions for the war, with the support of US Congress, and the threat of a veto openly made by others member of ... (Complete abstract click electronic access below) / Mestre

This paper aims to reflect on the speech that legitimize the Iraq War (2003), delivered by the U.S. President, George W. Bush. To do so, we selected two articles that before its publication, were subjects of its President speeches, in national and international TV network - "Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People" from September 20, 2001, and "President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours" in March 17, 2003. Thus, it is important to note that the first speech was delivered nine days after the attacks, with main objectives the declaration of War on Terror and the transmission of a message that can influence the collective memory in order to obtain national and international support to War. The second speech has the same intention of the first: try to justify the War on Terror. Overall, this study aims to understand the discourse that legitimized the war on terror and the war of the United States against Iraq, in March 2003. To do so, it was necessary to understand how the founder speech of the United States established effect senses that appear in American discourse until now, being constantly used up by President George W. Bush to justify their intentions to invade Iraq and thus confirm the economic and military political hegemony of the United States. / Fundação de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Alagoas / Este trabalho tem como objetivo refletir sobre o discurso de legitimação da Guerra do Iraque (2003) proferido pelo Presidente dos EUA, George W. Bush. Para isso, foram selecionados dois artigos que, antes de sua publicação, foram temas de discursos desse Presidente em rede de TV nacional e internacional - Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People de 20 de setembro de 2001 e President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours de 17 de março de 2003. É importante observar que o primeiro discurso foi proferido nove dias após os atentados, tendo como objetivos centrais a declaração de Guerra ao Terror e a transmissão de uma mensagem capaz de influenciar a memória coletiva a fim de conquistar o respaldo nacional e internacional para essa Guerra. O segundo discurso tem o mesmo propósito do primeiro: tentar de justificar o início da Guerra. De modo geral, este estudo teve como objetivo compreender os discursos que legitimaram a Guerra contra o Terrorismo e a guerra dos Estados Unidos contra o Iraque, em março de 2003. Para tanto, foi necessário compreender como o discurso fundador dos Estados Unidos instaurou efeitos de sentidos que circulam na discursividade norte-americana até hoje, sendo constantemente retomado pelo Presidente George W. Bush para justificar suas intenções de invadir o Iraque e, assim, confirmar sua hegemonia política, econômica e militar.

This paper will focus on three alternative options for addressing the current crisis in Syria (direct military intervention, arming the rebels, and a diplomatic/political solution) that have been discussed by both scholars and politicians. The paper is divided into four main chapters. The introduction is the first one. The second chapter presents the three alternative policies, and the debate among some scholars and politicians in relevant issues. In the third chapter, the author analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments for each alternative. In chapter four, the author offers his recommendation by determining the best policy to pursue in Syria, arguing why it is the most suitable one.

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

Made available in DSpace on 2015-05-14T12:23:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 arquivototal.pdf: 1239045 bytes, checksum: 560247cc0a3d8fd05d07905be14f5724 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-09-06 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - CAPES / The historical culture produced by the media of mass communication conveys the idea of the world from the perspective of the big capital, which is the sponsor of the mediatic apparatus that forges the conscience of people, educating them for capitalism. These media, together with those economic interests form a large piece of the cultural production in the contemporary world. The power of the Capital upon the historical culture produced within the society brings harmful consequences for citizenship and democracy. These come to be mere accessories of the economic logic, which works with the principles of the instrumental reason. Our purpose with this thesis is to unfold the conditioning in the historical culture generated by the magazine Veja about the Iraq War that is underlying its speech. We intend to place these facts in the long duration and investigate how much the modern paradigm, responsible for forging the idea of superiority in the Western civilization, is present in the roots of the historical culture induced by this media. We seek to establish some ethical references, attached to multiculturalism emancipatory, in order to criticize the paradigm that legitimizes ideologically the fundamental actions which we intend to analyze. This critique must be used as raw material for the settings of the new conter-hegemonic historical culture. The cultural richness existing in the world may be contemplated, according to the Educational National Plan of the Human Rights in Brazil. / A cultura histórica produzida pelos grandes meios de comunicação de massa veicula uma visão de mundo ligada aos interesses do grande capital, financiador de todo o aparato midiático, que forja a consciência das pessoas, educando-as para o capital. Estas mídias, atreladas a tais interesses econômicos, constituem uma larga parcela da produção cultural no mundo contemporâneo. O poder do capital sobre a cultura histórica produzida na sociedade traz conseqüências danosas para a cidadania e a democracia, que passam a ser meros acessórios da lógica econômica, ligada aos princípios da razão instrumental. Objetivamos, com este trabalho, descortinar os condicionamentos existentes na cultura histórica produzida pela revista Veja acerca da Guerra do Iraque, e que estão subjacentes ao seu discurso, procurando colocar este acontecimento dentro da longa duração e investigando o quanto o paradigma moderno, forjador da idéia de superioridade da civilização ocidental, está presente nas raízes da cultura histórica produzida por esta publicação. Procuramos, também, estabelecer alguns referenciais éticos, atrelados ao multiculturalismo emancipatório, de forma a fazer uma crítica ao paradigma que legitima ideologicamente as ações imperiais que nos propomos a analisar. Esta crítica deve servir de matéria-prima para a configuração de uma nova cultura histórica contra-hegemônica, na qual a riqueza cultural existente no mundo possa ser contemplada, de acordo com o Plano Nacional de Educação em Direitos Humanos.

[pt] O Golfo Pérsico é responsável por aproximadamente trinta por cento da produção mundial de petróleo e detém mais da metade das reservas petrolíferas mundiais. A concentração geográfica do principal recurso enérgico, que alimenta o atual padrão tecnológico mundial, eleva essa região a um ponto de passagem obrigatório nas opções de geopolítica de todos os países do Sistema Internacional. O Golfo Pérsico é uma região de grande instabilidade política, e em menos de trinta anos, enfrentou três guerras internacionais: nos anos oitenta a Guerra Irã- Iraque, nos anos noventa a Guerra do Golfo e, mais recentemente a Invasão Americana ao Iraque. Tais conflitos foram marcados pelo uso, ou pela ameaça de uso, de armas de destruição em massa, e pelas perdas de um contingente imenso das populações dos países em conflito. Esta dissertação analisa a participação americana nestes três conflitos, tomando como referenciais conceitos de geopolítica, uma vez que a especificidade da região exige a retomada dessa disciplina que anda esquecida nas análises internacionais. A geopolítica procura enfatizar o impacto da geografia sobre a política; desta forma, a presença do petróleo no território do Golfo Pérsico, entendido como o Coração Energético Mundial, vai influir decisivamente nas suas relações com os outros Estados do Sistema Internacional. Este estudo analisa as opções de geopolítica dos EUA para a região durante os três conflitos, uma vez que assegurar o acesso às fontes de suprimento energético do Golfo Pérsico é um interesse nacional vital americano. / [en] The Persian Gulf produces about thirty per cent of the world's oil, while holding more than a half of the world's crude oil reserves. The geographical concentration of the most important energy resource that holds the world's contemporary technological standard, puts this region in a very important place for the geopolitical options for all countries in the International System. However, the Persian Gulf is a political unstable region in the world, in less than thirty years was involved in three international wars: in the eighties The Iran-Iraq War, in the nineties The Gulf War and recently The American Invasion of Iraq. These conflicts were known by the use or by the threat of use weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and by the heavy casualties in the countries involved in the war. This dissertation analyses the American participation in these three conflicts taking as referential geopolitical concepts, once the specificity of the region demands the rebirth of this discipline that was so often forgotten in the international analyses. The geopolitics emphasize the geographical impact over politics, so the oil reserves in the territory of the Persian Gulf, the energy heartland, will influence the relationship with the others States in the International System. This study examines the American geopolitical options for the region, once a secure access to Persian Gulf is America's national vital interest.

This paper has two purposes. The first one is to explain the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia by analyzing four cases which has brought about and consolidated their power struggle. This gives the reader a historic background of the two countries relations, underlying reasons for their rivalry and a greater picture of their interests in the Middle East. It also leads up to the second purpose, which is to in depth examine Iran and Saudi Arabia’s foreign policy in Yemen, the latest conflict between the two countries. The papers research design is a qualitative case study with realism as its theoretical framework. The paper concludes that the Iranian revolution set off the rivalry due to Iran’s willingness to export its revolution and its Shia ideology to neighboring countries in the region. Saudi Arabia’s support to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War helped contain Iran’s hegemonic ambitions and made Saudi Arabia the most dominant power in the Middle East. In Syria, Iran has a lot at stake if the regime falls, which is why Saudi Arabia is trying to topple Bashar Al-Assad. The execution of Nimr al-Nimr further deteriorated tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. in Yemen, Iran seeks to expand its power to the Arabian Peninsula, whereas Saudi Arabia seeks to push out Iranian influence and regain its dominance.

Master of Science / Department of Journalism and Mass Communications / Joye C. Gordon / Military spouses have a complex relationship with news coverage of Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 2003 Iraq War. Utilizing uses and gratifications, hostile media perception, and cognitive dissonance perspectives as a basis, the researcher studied military spouses' media behaviors, perceived benefits of media usage, and whether hostile media perception and cognitive dissonance were present in this convenience sample of military spouses. Thirty military spouses participated in in-depth interviews. The results showed a desire for more positive news stories and less negative news stories about Operation Iraqi Freedom. Hostile media perception and cognitive dissonance responses were noted among participants–especially with regard to the media's tracking totals of soldier and civilian casualties. Military spouses in this sample found military news sources more credible than civilian news sources. They also described using news coverage for the purposes of gaining information, surveillance, political competency and empathy.