The 2003 United States (U.S.)-led invasion and occupation of Iraq caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and led to the displacement of millions of individuals in that country. Between March 20, 2003 and late 2017, more than 172,000 Iraqis left their country as refugees and resettled in the United States. This dissertation focuses on a small cohort of that population who resettled in various locations in the U.S. after 2003. This research contributes an empirical and theoretical exploration of the possibilities for political agency for resettled Iraqis in the United States. Grounded in literature suggesting those displaced commonly experience constrained agency framed as "silence/ing" and/or "voicelessness," I identify three requirements to democratic participation: sufficient time to exercise voice, adequate information and attenuating lingering suspicion of (authoritarian) government. Moreover, despite constraints, opportunities for engagement existed including discussion and dialogue; civil society volunteering; and activism. Drawing on 15 semi-structured qualitative interviews, this work first critically explores the American invasion of Iraq and the social and political breakdown that it triggered in that country. I argue that the conflict was an aggressive war and that, consequently, the United States should be held responsible for all of the harm it has caused to the people of Iraq. I describe the violence committed by the American military and I trace the connections between the erosion of interviewees' personal safety and their decisions to leave Iraq and resettle in the U.S. I contend that their various personal decisions to seek refuge were important agentic acts. I then delve into participants' post-resettlement opportunities for belonging in American society and analyze several ways that negative media and government discourses and policies concerning refugees, Arabs, and Muslims contributed to experiences of constraint, unease and precarity. I explore the importance of finding opportunities to engage in personal and cultural exchange with friends, neighbors and colleagues. Thereafter, I examine participants' experiences and understandings of democratic membership. Elaborating several critiques of American political institutions shared by the interviewees, I consider three requirements they identified to democratic participation: sufficient time, sufficient information to make informed decisions and the lingering effects of having lived under an authoritarian government in Iraq. Subsequently, I explore the multiple sites and modes of engagement and participation shared by participants, including dialogue, debate and discussion about the decisions that affect their lives as well as volunteering with community and nonprofit organizations focused on various types of activities, and activism in response to the Trump 2017 Travel Ban. I argue that broad social mobilization and public invocation of norms of welcoming and diversity by native-born Americans can be powerful tools to enlarge spaces for democratic agency for refugees otherwise targeted by discriminatory government actions. I then return to the question of "silence" in refuge that prompted this study and the importance of deliberate, daily interactions and exchange among newcomers and native-born Americans to expand spaces for resettled refugees to engage in American society. Thereafter, I examine the salience of local organizations and activities as sites of engagement and venues for expressions of agency for those I interviewed. I then outline possible directions for future research investigating the role(s) of refugee-led organizations in resettlement and community building. I close by describing the implications this work has for policy and activism. / Doctor of Philosophy / The 2003 United States (U.S.)-led invasion and occupation of Iraq caused hundreds of thousands of deaths and led to the displacement of millions of individuals in that country. Between March 20, 2003 and late 2017 more than 172,000 Iraqis left their country as refugees and resettled in the United States. This dissertation focuses on a small cohort of that population who resettled in various locations in the U.S. after 2003. This research contributes an exploration of the possibilities for political agency for resettled Iraqis in the United States. Grounded in literature suggesting those displaced commonly experience constrained agency framed as “silence/ing” and/or “voicelessness,” I identify three requirements to democratic participation: sufficient time, adequate information and attenuating lingering suspicion of (authoritarian) government. Moreover, despite constraints, opportunities for engagement existed including discussion and dialogue; civil society volunteering; and activism. Drawing on 15 qualitative interviews, this work first explores the American invasion of Iraq and the social and political breakdown in that country that it triggered. I argue that the conflict was an aggressive war and that, consequently, the United States should be held responsible for all of the harm it has caused to the people of Iraq. I describe the violence committed by the American military and I trace the connections between the erosion of interviewees’ personal safety and their decisions to leave Iraq and resettle in the U.S. I then delve into participants’ post-resettlement opportunities for belonging in American society and analyze several ways that negative media portrayals and government policies concerning refugees, Arabs, and Muslims shaped those resettled individuals’ life experiences. I explore the importance for interviewees of finding opportunities to engage in personal and cultural exchange with their friends, neighbors and colleagues. Thereafter, I examine participants’ experiences and understandings of democratic membership. I then consider three requirements interviewees identified to democratic participation: sufficient time, adequate information to make informed decisions and the lingering effects of having lived under an authoritarian government in Iraq. Subsequently, I describe the multiple sites and modes of engagement and participation shared by interviewees including dialogue, debate and discussion about the decisions that affect their lives, volunteering with community and nonprofit organizations and activism in response to the Trump 2017 Travel Ban. I argue that broad social mobilization and public invocation of norms of welcoming and diversity by native-born Americans can be powerful tools to enlarge participatory spaces for refugees. I then return to the question of silent refuge that prompted this study and the importance of deliberate, daily interactions and exchange among newcomers and native-born Americans to expand spaces for resettled refugees to engage in American society. Thereafter, I examine the importance of local organizations and activities for participants. I then outline possible directions for future research investigating the role(s) of refugee-led organizations in resettlement and community building. I close by describing the implications this work has for policy and activism.

No description available.

This study applied a theory of marriage and family therapy, specifically cybernetics, to the relationship between the US and Iraqi governments. This study also attempts to describe recent changes in Iraq incurred during the ongoing war in Iraq as either first- or second-order change. Taken from 2001 to 2005, 76 print media articles describing the war in Iraq from three major US news sources were analyzed using grounded theory methodology. Four prominent themes: Military Operation, Costs, Perceptions, and Transition, were identified and described in cybernetic terms such as recursive processes, circular causality, and punctuation. Results suggested that international relationships can be described cybernetically, and that many recursive processes were evident in the war in Iraq. Results also show that determining first- or second-order change is very difficult in large system analyses. Implications for this research are presented and discussed. / Ph. D.

This thesis examines the decision to invade Iraq and the failed planning for the occupation of Iraq. Since Janis introduced groupthink in 1972, the groupthink perspective has been used to explain foreign policy disasters such as the failure to anticipate the Pearl Harbor attack and the Bay of Pigs. However, the groupthink perspective is not universally useful for explaining foreign policy mishaps. While some have attributed the Iraq war to groupthink, the groupthink perspective has not been systematically applied to these events. This thesis will examine Janis's original groupthink theory, and subsequent research that tested the effectiveness of the groupthink perspective. It will apply the groupthink perspective to the events leading up to the invasion of Iraq. It will also examine the failed planning for the occupation of Iraq. The application of the groupthink perspective to both the invasion decision and occupation planning suggests that groupthink was not the primary cause of either event. The thesis will conclude by describing alternative explanations for the decision to invade Iraq, such as ideological agenda setting, and other cognitive errors besides groupthink. / Master of Arts

Thesis (MA)--Macquarie University (Division of Society, Culture, Media & Philosophy, Dept. of Media), 2006. / Bibliography: leaves 176-188.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 115-122). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2008. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.W.)--Smith College School for Social Work, Northampton, Mass., 2009. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 94-100).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2004. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 115-122). Also available on the Internet.

There has been much scholarly attention directed at the Iraq war's role in determining voter choice. I attempt to extend that research into voter turnout to determine what role the Iraq war played in 2006 voter turnout. This paper argues that turnout at the state level could be explained by the number of US deaths each state had sustained from the Iraq occupation at the time of the election. A theory of voter activation based on information availability is put forth to explain the relationship between national events and voter turnout wherein national events like the Iraq war will raise the amount of information voters have at their disposal, which will increase the likelihood of their voting on election day. Regression analysis comparing the turnout rates of the 50 states to their casualties in Iraq revealed no relationship between the two factors, indicating that something else is responsible for the high turnout of the midterm.