This study examines foreign policy change.In contrast to most previous research this study investigates when trend-and significant foreign policy changes occurs. This study is a case study that examines US foreign policy changes and actions towards the Islamic republic of Pakistan.This study will also be using Jakob Gustavsson’s theory on foreign policy change. This is a qualitative study.A relationship historically defined by its ups and downs. This study finds that it is most likely that in order for significant changes to occur in foreign policy there must be changes in the fundamental structural conditions. A plausible conclusion is that the trend change that has occurred is the result of a series of events under 2011 that led to a crisis between the two countries

I kjølvannet av 11 september 2001 startet Operasjon Enduring Freedom. En operasjon somfortsatt pågår, og som også er kjent under navnet the Afghan war. Den utløsende faktoren varterrorangrepet mot USA, et angrep som i høyeste grad må sies å ha vært asymmetrisk utført.Den amerikanske militære kultur synes i dag å være en fellesoperativ kultur, og besnærende nokkom den fellesoperative doktrinen ut i revidert form den 10 september 2001. Revideringen haddeikke vært revolusjonerende men derimot ytterligere styrket den fellesoperative tankegang. NårEnduring Freedom starter er det naturlig å se den i lys av den nyreviderte doktrinen.Hensikten med denne oppgaven er å undersøke den konseptuelle forankringen som lå til grunnnår Operasjon Enduring Freedom innledes. Deretter se på selve gjennomføringen, ogavslutningsvis diskutere hvorvidt teori og praksis henger sammen. I den hensikt å kunne svare påoppgaven vil oppgaven nytte tre spørsmål: Hva beskriver den konseptuelle forankringen?Hva kjennetegner den praktiske utførelsen av Operasjon Enduring Freedom? Avslutningsvis:I hvilken utstrekning henger teori og praksis i sammen og hvilke konklusjoner kan trekkes?Resultatet viser at det er samsvar mellom det konseptuelle og det praktiske, men av varierendegrad. Undersøkelsen konkluderer også med at det er flere interessante konklusjoner å trekke.Vedlegg A: Forkortningsliste. / After the attack of September 11, 2001 Operation Enduring Freedom was launched. Thisoperation is still ongoing and is also known as the Afghan war. The operation was triggeredby the terrorist attack against the USA, an attack that has been referred to as asymmetrical.The American military culture seems today to be a joint culture and interestingly enough theJoint Doctrine was republished September 10, 2001. The doctrine was not fundamentallychanged but the new version highlighted the joint culture even more. There is thus amplereason to compare Operation Enduring Freedom with the Joint Doctrine.The aim of this essay is to investigate the conceptual framework that was available whenOperation Enduring Freedom started. Thereafter the practical aspects of the operation arescrutinised. At the conclusion the essay discusses whether theory and practical realization areclosely related.Three questions are posed to help answer this:What describes the conceptual framework?What are the characteristics of the practical realization of Operation Enduring Freedom?To what extent are theory and practical realization matched together and what conclusionscould be drawn?The outcome of my essay shows that theory and practical realization have similarities, but ofdifferent degrees. The essay also concludes that there are several interesting conclusions to bedrawn. / Avdelning: ALB - Slutet Mag 3 C-upps.Hylla: Upps. ChP 04-06

Vårt syfte med denna uppsats är att undersöka vilka likheter och skillnader, trots olika tidsepoker, mellan korstågen som i sin tid fick sin legitimitet genom tron på Gud, och konflikten i Afghanistan som i nutid får sin legitimitet genom tron på demokratin.För besvara våra frågeställningar har vi använt oss av litteratur, tidningsartiklar och källor på Internet. För att få en så nyanserad bild som möjligt har vi försökt att begränsa oss till Internetkällor med så god trovärdighet som möjligt. Den litteratur vi använt oss av är skriven av välkända författare.Resultatet visar att den mest framträdande likheten är att båda krig har använt sig av samma argument för att legitimera kriget. Där USA var ute efter att skapa en demokrati samt att vinna ekonomiska fördelar ville den katolska kyrkan stärka påvemakten samt återta det Heliga landet. Vi har kommit fram till att tron fortfarande är väldigt viktigt i krig. Men numer behöver det inte vara tron på Gud som är det framträdande argumentet. Istället är det tron på demokrati som måste förankras hos den inhemska befolkningen för att de ska kunna bli övertygade om att demokrati är den sanna ideologin.

Abstract Title: The war in Afghanistan – a necessary evil? (Kriget i Afghanistan – ett nödvändigt ont? En kritisk diskursanalys av New York Times ställningstagande till och framing av kriget i Afghanistan) Number of pages: 41 (41 including enclosures) Authors: Jenny Häggmark, Madeleine Jansson Tutor: Christian Christensen Course: Media and Communication Studies C Period: Fall term 2011 University: Division of Media and Communication, Department of Information Science, Uppsala University Purpose/aim: Our main goal with this paper is to examine and describe how The New York Times have framed the war in Afghanistan in their editorials, and how their position on the war is reflected in the editorials. We are also interested in finding out if their position on the war has changed during the ten years of war. Are the New York Times editorials characterized by peace or war journalism? Material/Method: To fulfill our aim with this paper we are going to use a qualitative method of content analyzes, the critical discourse analysis, when we analyze the editorials selected. The material consists of 40 editorials from The New York Times from four different years – 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2011 – ten from each year. We will analyze these editorials using Johan Galtung’s theory of peace and war journalism, along with the theory of framing, using Robert M. Entman’s definition as a base. Main results: Our main results are that The New York Times has changed their position on the war in Afghanistan since it started in 2001. The first two years that we have analyzed, 2001 and 2004, The New York Times were positive towards the war. However, their position on the war has been negative or neutral in the studied editorials from 2007 and 2011. Our results show that The New York Times framed the war in six salient frames – position, peace, war, nation building/democracy in Afghanistan, “us and them”, and criticism against the Bush administration. The editorials from 2001 are characterized as war journalism while the majority of the editorials from the following years are characterized as peace journalism. Key words: War in Afghanistan, framing, peace journalism, war journalism, New York Times, editorials.