Thesis (M.A. in National Security Affairs)--Naval Postgraduate School, June 2005. / Thesis Advisor(s): Anne Marie Baylouny. Includes bibliographical references (p. 65-71). Also available online.

Thesis (B.A.)--Haverford College, Dept. of Political Science, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.M.A.S.)--U.S. Command and General Staff College. / Title from title screen (viewed Apr. 9, 2008).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 2007. / Title from first page of PDF file (viewed June 26, 2007). Available via ProQuest Digital Dissertations. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 175-181).

Thesis (M.A.I.S.)--Oregon State University, 2008. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 81-84). Also available on the World Wide Web.

No description available.

The United States military has an enormous presence in American society. Not only is the military currently engaged in two wars, one in Iraq and another in Afghanistan, but it also employs hundreds of thousands of people in work within US borders and overseas. As a function of its size and prominence in American society, it participates in discourse with American society and apart from it. This thesis investigates and describes the US military in terms of two spheres of discourse, an external and internal. Through three case studies-featuring the Patriot missile system, the America's Army video game, and the scandal of prisoner treatment at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq-it will be shown that not only does the military·engage in corresponding public facing and introspective discourse, but that the external and internal discourses can also exert dominance over each other.

One year after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001, the administration of President George W. Bush introduced a revolutionary foreign policy strategy--the Bush Doctrine. Proponents of this strategy advocated the use of American 'hard power' as a tool to promote freedom and democracy, beginning with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Opponents of the doctrine saw it as dangerously nationalistic, with the potential to entangle the United States in a myriad of protracted international conflicts. This thesis will identify aspects of nationalism within post-9/11 American foreign policy and illuminate the incompatibility of nationalism and the fundamental tenets of conflict resolution. This study theorizes that nationalism played a significant role in the development of the Bush Doctrine. Although its advocates promote specific policies historically associated with nationalism, as a rule they have not acknowledged its influence. Conversely, opponents of the doctrine acknowledge this influence and warn of its destructive characteristics. The study presented herein identifies nationalism as a powerful force in American culture and politics--one that has a profound influence on American foreign policy and on the longevity of our foreign wars.

<p>The construction of International Humanitarian Law and the norms regarding protection of prisoners of war have evolved as a reaction to the horrors of war. After September 11 and the following war on terrorism the notion of POWs has been widely debated. The USA holds prisoners at the navy base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba without granting them status as POWs; this thesis is placing the treatment of these detainees within a historical context. The norm concerning rights of POWs is today both internationalized and institutionalized, but that has not always been the case. This thesis illuminates how the norms have evolved during World War I, World War II and Vietnam War; finally the war against terrorism and the treatment of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is analyzed. The intention of the thesis is to use a historical overview of the evolution of IHL, and the rights of POWs in particular, to formulate a wider assumption about the implication of IHL in the war against terrorism and the future.</p><p>The thesis adopts a theory which combines constructivism and John Rawls´ theory of justice and uses constructivist ideas about the nature of the international system applied to Rawls´ notion of justice. The constructivist theory and ontology are the basis of the theoretical framework of this thesis and Rawls´ definition of justice as the base of social institutions are viewed from a constructivist perspective. IHL and the norms regarding protection of POWs are thus considered as social facts, constructed and upheld through social interaction between states.</p>

Did the terrorist attacks of September 11th change the way the United States ought to contain, confront, or neutralize threats abroad? Or, can the US use the same set of tools and responses in crafting a response to terrorist threats, present and future? These are the questions that underlie the debates, discussions, critiques, and conclusions throughout this work on the US war on terror. After Al Qaeda attacked the US on September 11th 2001, the US launched its war on terror. This global war builds upon the premises of the just war tradition while using the policies of the American neoconservative movement. In essence, the neoconservative movement takes a piecemeal approach to just war theory in order to meet its various goals. This is embodied by politicians from both the left and right that represent this movement, particularly those that run the current American administration. The reason is that the neo-conservative agenda has become a pervasive part of American foreign policy and any discussion of the US execution of the war on terror must necessarily include a discussion of neoconservative practices within its literature review. The question posed with regard to the war on terror as it is currently executed is whether it is just against measures of just war theory and other normative measures. The measurement of the successes and failures of the war on terror is grounded in the overarching framework of just war theory because it represents the prevailing norms and the international community understandings with regard to the conduct of war and armed conflict. The thesis of this work believes that the US, despite its policy of preemption, has been successful in working within just war theory on the short term (tactical) level. However, in the long term (strategic) sense, where the goal is to ferret out the root causes of terrorism, the US has failed in the four years since September 11th.