No description available.

AbstractThis study began with the idea that the drone attacks launched by the United States on the northwest region of Pakistan since 2004 have not helped in the expressed aim of the US to win the war on terror. The study asked three main questions. It wished to discover why drone attacks in Pakistan had not helped to win the war on terror, the main reasons that these attacks have not been successful and how these attacks have led to the increase of the anti-US feeling in Pakistan. The study used a case study methodology that focused on gaining a qualitative insight from a range of perspectives including official government stances, the reaction of media and social media and the public reactions in Pakistan. The study analysis is supported by the theory of neoliberalism and neo realism as it deemed the most appropriate in this type of work.Conducted within the neoliberal and positivist perspective, the study concluded that the drone strikes have not helped to win the war on terror and that they are actually a major part of why this victory has not yet occurred. The cold-hearted manner with which the US seem to launch drone strike attacks have led to the development of the views that the US does not care for international laws and has no desire to take Pakistan sovereignty into account. The role of the media has helped spread the anti-US feeling far more rapidly than would have been previously possible in the region. The access to the Internet, the use of social media websites and the global coverage of the situation means that reports of civilian casualties has been a common occurrence over the past 10 years, and this has seemingly strengthened the terrorist resolve, turned the public against the US strategy and also led in some cases to the further radicalization of the Pakistani youth. When assessed through a neoliberal perspective, it was apparent that the strategy does not fit with the concept of international co-operation and that the actions of the US have led to the growth of anti-US sentiment. The main failing of the drone strike strategy could be said to be the fact that it was devised using a neorealist attitude in an increasingly neoliberal global society. The study also presented a number of policy recommendations and future areas of study based on the findings from this work.

No / As the ‘War on Terror’ evolves into the ‘Long War’ against Islamo-fascism, it demands an enduring commitment to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. This policy is based on the requirement to maintain control in a fractured and unpredictable global environment, while paying little attention to the underlying issues that lead to insecurity. It is an approach that is manifestly failing, as the continuing problems in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate. Moreover, ‘control’ implies the maintenance of a global order that focuses on power remaining in the hands of a transnational elite community, principally focused on North America and Western Europe, but extending worldwide. This elite largely ignores socio-economic divisions and environmental constraints, and sees continuing stability as being best achieved by the maintenance of the status quo, using force when necessary. This collection of essays by Professor Paul Rogers argues that this post-Cold War security paradigm is fundamentally misguided and unsustainable. It concludes with two new essays on the need for a new conception of global security rooted in justice and emancipation. Global Security and the War on Terror will be essential reading for students and scholars of security studies, the Cold War, international relations and development studies.

The events of 9-11 caused the US military to deploy across the globe in support of the Global War on Terror (GWoT) with the assurance it would receive the resources needed to fulfill those operations. As a subordinate arm of the government, the US military is entrusted to prosecute the policies of its civilian leadership provided they receive the required resources to do so. As this thesis demonstrates however, the military is struggling to reconcile how to deliver the goals of its civilian administration when it simultaneously fails to receive the resources needed to meet their demands. The Department of Defense (DoD) is experiencing a stark increase in its deployments and combat operations. Unprecedented 'peacetime' use of Reserve and Guard forces and remarkable DoD personnel policies have stretched the military thin. Despite substantial military budget increases, the military fails to receive adequate funding for combat operations. Meanwhile, soldiers fail to receive the appropriate equipment needed to fight the emerging threats of the GWoT. The military continues to thin many of its own operations, increase the stress on its members, and over-work its equipment in order to meet the needs of its civilian government. Three solutions exist: maintain the status quo, reduce the scope of the GWoT, or begin military funding on par with past wartime budgets. The status quo produced an overstretched/underfunded military. Threats to US security can not support a reduced GWoT. Therefore, the US should increase DoD end strength, increase GWoT funding, and accelerate weapons research and procurement. / Master of Arts

The laws of war ha e existed e er since warfare began. The sources of these laws are much more diverse and complex than national laws. They include conventions such as the Hague & the Gene a Con entions to war crime special courts such as the Nuremberg War Trials. The laws of war have brought the international community together to limit the barbaric fighting that was practiced during armed conflicts. Today, however the post 9/11 world is dealing with a different kind of war. The war on terrorism that was lunched after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 certainly requires different rules and procedures and my study attempts to develop a new legislation that would effectively deal with the new challenges of the War on Terror. My thesis examines the different international documents that deal with issues arising during armed conflicts such as the treatment and prosecution of detainees. In addition, my study also considers the approach of the United States government to the war on terror. The Supreme Court case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 548 U.S. _ (2006) was the most important case as it deemed that many practices of the Bush Administration were unconstitutional and therefore a new approach was needed. I finally end with some recommendations that I strongly believe would strength our war on terrorism while respecting basic principles of justice and fairness.

Criticized for providing a simplified depiction of a post-9/11 United States, contemporary American “War on Terror” fiction has been largely neglected by critical discourse. In this dissertation, I argue that this fiction offers a vital engagement with how the War on Terror is waged, and how the fantasies and policies of the Global Homeland inform it. Most immediately, the texts I analyze undercut the sanitization of the war by including depictions of intense combat and the psychological fallout of derealized warfare. In these works, the public’s reluctance to acknowledge such concerns lays the foundation for a schism between American civilians and the military. I argue moreover that this fiction engages with the collapse of distinctions between foreign and domestic spheres through exploring both battlefields abroad and how a military logic is transposed onto American society. In the first chapter, I analyze the way in which narratives by Kevin Powers, David Abrams, Phil Klay, and Dan Fesperman complicate sanitized images of the war by foregrounding its visceral qualities and representing the traumatic impact of mediated warfare. The second chapter focuses on Ben Fountain’s Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk, specifically its representation of the military characters’ frustration with the public’s failure to acknowledge the traumatic impact of the War on Terror, and its critique of melodramatic patriotic gestures that glorify the war but do not require actual social, financial, or affective investment in the military. The third chapter zeroes in on portrayals of returned veterans in texts by George Saunders, Atticus Lish, and Joyce Carol Oates, who react with increasing antagonism to civilian disinterest in their plight, which gives rise to acts of violence against civilians and a shift in societal attitudes toward the military. I conclude by examining Lish’s depiction of how the policies of the Global Homeland result in the deployment of a military logic within the domestic U.S. Through its engagement with American warfare and the Global Homeland, contemporary American war fiction offers a nuanced exploration of the conduct and ramifications of the War on Terror.

This dissertation explores the relationship between gender, war, and media constructions of both. Using the theoretical frameworks of the social constructions of gender and the gendered constructions of the public sphere, I have analyzed how Time magazine portrayed Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton in discussions of war. Time represents mainstream mediated coverage in this case. Rice and Clinton represent women outside the normal boundaries of femininity. First, they were participants in the public sphere, which is largely male-dominated in our society. Second, both women were involved in discussions of war and foreign policy. Their participation in this area of the public sphere is a contradiction to how society expects women to act during war time. The most interesting conclusion is the way the women are linked back to the private sphere through their relationships with men. These representations align with historical theoretical definitions of the public sphere, which favor male participation and often disregard female participation. / text

The United States has maintained a heavy military presence in Afghanistan for a little more than a decade however; the US has been involved in Afghanistan on and off for over three decades. The 2001 ‘war on terror’ in Afghanistan became framed around the goal of saving Afghan women. In order to understand how this framing came about and what the impact of this framing was I study US congressional documents, speeches and other public rhetoric by government officials in the 1980s and early 2000s. Analyzing rhetorical language and reoccurring themes helps us understand what major framing devices and narrative techniques were in play during these time periods. Ultimately I conclude that women’s safety was a post-facto justification for intervention; the framing techniques used during the 2001 were utilized in order to create a clear, coherent narrative that selectively ignores the impact of US involvement in Afghanistan during the Cold War.

The media conflates and distorts in its coverage on the war on terror- simultaneously misrepresenting and constructing the political and historically complex conflict between the Middle East and the West. Due to the current social-political climate of increasing xenophobia and the normalisation of Islamophobia, this study attempts to expand previous studies conducted on the media in relation to the war on terror. This is a comparative quantitative analysis of media framing between a Western news source and an Arab news source, examining their coverage of the November 2015 Paris attack and the March 20th Sana’a, Yemen attack. The findings revealed a deep complexity and intertwining of the media and its representation on the war on terror: the U.S. news source engaged more so in forms of biased framing of when covering the Paris attack and held a Western gaze of superiority when covering the Yemen attack, while the Arab news source proved to be overall less biased but was found to be susceptible to Westernisation.

When Donald Trump took the stage as the Republican presidential nominee at the Republican National Convention in July 2016, he made a historical appeal to LGBTQ Americans: to the boisterous applause of a Republican audience, he promised "to protect LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology." Utilizing this historical moment as an indicator of shifting political views around LGBTQ rights in the Republican Party and the US nation-state as a whole, this paper links contemporary iterations of the War on Terror to the legalization of same-sex marriage in June 2015. Connecting same-sex marriage to the US nation-building project, I argue that the "dignity" newly available to certain queer folks via the institution of marriage makes possible an articulation of queer-defensibility that services a Republican investment in the aging War on Terror and the sustained targeting and hyper-surveillance of Muslims globally.