Winning the War of Words

The re-election of the George W. Bush administration in November 2003 and the unrelenting hard-line perspectives subsequently articulated by the President and senior foreign and defence policy figures, has led to much controversy within the US and the international community in general. Concern in particular has been expressed at the continuing influences upon the President of neoconservative thinkers and activists in and around his administration and the impact, more generally, of neoconservatism upon the key decision-making processes concerning the current war in Iraq and the post-9/11 ‘war on terror’. This paper concentrates primarily on the ‘why’ questions concerning the neoconservative ascendency — questions of why it understands the world the way it does — of why it is committed to radically changing both liberal and (traditional) conservative approaches to US foreign policy and the traditional systemic order. The paper suggests that intrinsic to this understanding and commitment, for some of the most significant of contemporary neoconservatives, is the work and legacy of Leo Strauss (1898–1973). There is contention associated with precisely what Strauss' dense and (consciously) ambiguous writings sought to convey to his readers. In this paper, I propose that for Straussian inspired neoconservatives his meaning and its implications are clear enough, in the (interpreted) injunction to wrench political and cultural power from the (perceived) liberal establishment in the US, and to forcefully and unapologetically impose American power, values and hegemonic design upon the global system, for the long-term good of that system. More precisely, I argue, neoconservatives have drawn from Strauss a thematic agenda of sorts which emphasizes; the re-invocation of strong nationalism and cultural unity in modern western societies; the value of a simple religious and philosophical morality, and (ultimately) of a ‘war culture’ as the basis of maintaining such unity; the use of maximum force by the Western democracies in the face of endemic threat; and of a more general ‘peace through strength’ approach to foreign policy by the US, the political and ideological leader of modern Western civilisation. From Strauss too has come the notion that elite rule is crucial if post-Enlightenment liberalism is not to further threaten the (classical) democratic model of governance, and that the neoconservative elite has the right and indeed the obligation to lie to the masses in order that the ‘right’ political and strategic decisions be made and implemented. Hence, the use of the so-called ‘noble lie’. I explore elements of this ‘Straussian’ agenda in this paper, emphasizing its significance for US and global politics in general and, in more specific terms, for the war in Iraq. The paper concludes with a discussion of the way in which Straussian and broader neoconservative influences were integral to the processes by which the ‘shock and awe’ attacks of March, 2003 were rationalized and legitimated within the Bush administration, via some eminently (ig)noble lies.

Foreign policy is an integral part of international relations. This study examines the United States (US) foreign policy towards Jordan from 1990 to 2017 since the period witnessed important regional and international political events that significantly impacted the US foreign policy. These events have the greatest impact on the development of relations between the two countries in terms of political and security aspects. The study looks at four political events and their impacts on Jordanian-American relations from the political and security aspects. Therefore, the objectives of this study are to examine the US foreign policy towards Jordan from the political and security aspects. This study adopted the qualitative approach. The primary data were collected from interviews while the secondary data were obtained from books, journals, theses, newspapers, seminar papers, articles and other documents. In this study, 16 respondents from political, economic and security experts in Jordan and the US were selected for semi-structured interviews. The study employed Thematic Analysis in analysing the data obtained. This study adopted the neo-realism theory as a theoretical framework. This study found that the US foreign policy recognizes Jordan as a close ally and considers its stability very important. The US foreign policy was seen slightly negative towards Jordan during the Iraqi War on Kuwait in 1990. However, the Wadi Araba peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994 had promoted positive US foreign policy towards Jordan. This policy was slightly weakened in 2017 due to the transfer of the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Certain political events play an important role in the US foreign policy regarding security aid towards Jordan. The study found that the US foreign policy provides security support to Jordan to protect Israel, spread American ideology and fight against its enemy. This research also found that Jordan has a suitable location to defend Israel because the country is surrounded by important Arab countries. The US links its aids to Jordan due to political events. Accordingly, the study recommends the necessity for the Jordanian state to increase its influential economic alliances at the international level. In addition, Jordanian policy must be redrawn in line with international realities to pressure the US to make Jordan play an active role in the region and international arena. Jordan should better use its geographical location to achieve international cooperation and enhance Arab security as a barrier against Israel.

Previous research (e.g., Horiuchi, Goldsmith, and Inoguchi, 2005) has shown some intriguing patterns of effects of several variables on international public opinion about US foreign policy. But results for the theoretically appealing effects of regime type and post-materialist values have been weak or inconsistent. This paper takes a closer look at the relationship between these two variables and international public opinion about US foreign policy. In particular, international reaction to the wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003) are examined using two major multinational surveys. The conclusions of previous research are largely reinforced: neither regime type nor post-materialist values appears to robustly influence global opinion on these events. Rather, some central interests, including levels of trade with the US and NATO membership, and key socialized factors, including a Muslim population, experience with terrorism, and the exceptional experiences of two states (Israel, Albania) emerge as the most important factors in the models. There is also a consistent backlash effect of security cooperation with the US outside of NATO. A discussion of these preliminary results points to their theoretical implications and their significance for further investigation into the transnational dynamics of public opinion and foreign policy.

Rainbow Blindness: Same-Sex Partnerships in Post-Coalitional Australia

This chapter explores the relationship between American military power and foreign policy. It also considers important debates regarding containment, deterrence, preemption, and the limits of military power. The chapter begins with a discussion of the rise of American military power during the period 1945–91, focusing on the military implications of containment and deterrence as well as the role of deterrence in ending the arms race. It then examines the fundamental questions that the United States had to confront in the post-Cold War era regarding its role in the world and its military power; for example, whether nuclear weapons are still useful, and for what purpose the U.S. military should be deployed. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the U.S. response to terrorism, with particular emphasis on the U.S. involvement in the war in Afghanistan (2001) and the war in Iraq (2003).

The global financial crisis has been a much discussed topic in Arab media in the past couple of years and in many blogs and discussion forums, in particular, it has been a magnet for criticism of US foreign policy. Coverage of the crisis in “traditional” outlets such as Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, and many domestic newspapers is often factual and focused on economic issues, but many commentators in blogs and discussion forums link the crisis to, among other things, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and to a perceived immorality with which the United States deals with the downtrodden and poor. Most of the arguments reinforce existing negative arguments about the United States and its role internationally and in the Middle East. Some say the global financial crisis represents the first concrete sign of the inevitable downfall of the United States, which the likes of Osama Bin Laden have been talking about for years. Although it is not clear the extent to which criticisms of the United States over the global financial crisis in blogs, discussion forums, and to a lesser extent Arab media reflect or impact broader public opinion, the criticisms highlight the extent to which some in the region view even seemingly apolitical economic issues within the context of US foreign policy. They suggest a strong mistrust of US intentions and a continued decrease in respect for US power and influence. Many commentators say the financial crisis is further evidence that the United States has lost or is losing its ability to wage future wars, drive global economic growth and development, or promote its overall foreign policy goals. In response, the Arab world needs to identify ways to reduce or eliminate dependence on the United States and increase regional cooperation, many of them say.

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

This volume’s principal goal has been to de-provincialize the study of US foreign relations by exploring how people, capital, things, and knowledge have moved across borders since 1945. This chapter shows how US military members, materiel, and ideas all crossed borders in the first two decades of the twenty-first century, because of – or justified by – national security. The terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 produced a broad militarization of US foreign policy through three different presidential administrations – a pattern that was both a continuation and a departure from previous trends in American foreign relations history. Partly as a result of US actions, what followed were seven wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya – none of which have been fully successful.

Few figures in the past quarter-century have played a more significant role in American foreign policy than Colin Powell. He wielded power at the highest levels of the most important foreign policy bureaucracies: the Pentagon, the White House, the joint chiefs, and the state department. As national security advisor in the Ronald Reagan administration, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and secretary of state during George W. Bush's first term, he played a prominent role in four administrations, Republican and Democrat, spanning more than twenty years. Powell has been engaged in the most important debates over foreign and defense policy during the past two decades, such as the uses of American power in the wake of the Vietnam war, the winding down of the Cold War and the quest for new paths for American foreign policy, and the interventions in Panama (1989) and the Persian Gulf (1990–1991). During the Clinton era, he was involved in the controversies over interventions in Bosnia and Somalia. As America's top diplomat from 2001 to 2004, he helped shape the aims and goals of U.S. diplomacy after September 11, 2001, and in the run-up to the Iraq War. In this exploration of Powell's career and character, Christopher D. O'Sullivan reveals several broad themes crucial to American foreign policy and yields insights into the evolution of American foreign and defense policy in the post-Vietnam, post-Cold War eras. In addition, O'Sullivan explores the conflicts and debates between different foreign policy ideologies such as neo-conservatism and realism. O'Sullivan's book not only explains Powell's diplomatic style, it provides crucial insights into the American foreign policy tradition in the modern era.

Brief Report| June 01 2021 Brief Synopses of New Arabic-Language Publications: Annotated Arabic Bibliography: Brief English Reviews of New Arabic-Language Releases in Critical Arab Scholarship Gabi El-Khoury Gabi El-Khoury Librarian and Head of Documentation, Centre for Arab Unity Studies, Beirut Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Contemporary Arab Affairs (2021) 14 (2): 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1525/caa.2021.14.2.118 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Cite Icon Cite Search Site Citation Gabi El-Khoury; Brief Synopses of New Arabic-Language Publications: Annotated Arabic Bibliography: Brief English Reviews of New Arabic-Language Releases in Critical Arab Scholarship. Contemporary Arab Affairs 1 June 2021; 14 (2): 118–126. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/caa.2021.14.2.118 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentContemporary Arab Affairs Search Heba Gamal El Deen M. El-Azab, Spiritual Diplomacy and the Abrahamic Interfaith: Colonial Plan of the New Century (Beirut: Center for Arab Unity Studies, 2021). 256 pp. ISBN 9789953829296 Many questions have been raised in recent years in the debate relating to the notion of “Abrahamic interfaith” as a major approach to global religious peace and a basis for eliminating extremism and violence, and even for eradicating poverty and achieving sustainable development. Interest in research and investigation into the concept of Abrahamic interfaith and its objectives has become prevalent as the notion has featured in the discourse of several American and Israeli circles in relation to the monotheistic religions (Islam, Christianity, and Judaism) in an attempt to politically exploit the common denominators between the three religions and use them in a larger framework of what has become to be known as “spiritual diplomacy.” The author argues that the concept of... You do not currently have access to this content.

We have a place, all of us, in a long story-a story we continue, but whose end we will not see. It is story of a new world that became a friend and liberator of old, a story of a slave-holding society that became a servant of freedom, story of a power that went into world to protect but not possess, to defend but not to conquer. - George W. Bush, 20 January 2001 (Inaugural Address). Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid world of evil. -George W. Bush, 14 September 2001 (President's Remarks at National Day of Prayer). Rituals, defined simply for this article, are public expressions of sentiment that convey meanings to audiences. Ritual behavior surged after 9/11 disasters. Rituals of mourning came quickly and spontaneously, especially near zones of disaster in York City, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and Washington, D.C. More important for US foreign policy were what I call of national innocence, official ceremonies linked to moral narratives about America's benign or benevolent military power in history, a practice illustrated by Bush inaugural address cited above. Rituals of innocence have not previously been named or theorized, yet notion of national innocence seems central to post-9/11 ceremonies that helped shape a consensus about global military initiatives against terrorists and need for pre-emptive war in Iraq. How might we explain this rhetoric of national innocence in American public life? An array of concepts in scholarship on American exceptionalism could be invoked: Ernest Tuveson's redeemer (1968), Martin E. Marty's righteous empire (1970), Walter McDougal's promised land, crusader state (1997), Colin Cherry's God's Israel (1998), and the Captain America of Robert Jewett and John Shelton Eawrence (2003). Here approach focuses more narrowly on ritual, providing first a brief overview for less complex rituals of mourning, then analyzing structure, presuppositions, and social mechanisms of innocence rituals. What is critical purpose of such analysis? Although President Bush's rhetoric and rituals have provoked accusations of naivete and national narcissism, such judgments must be tempered by recognizing that rituals of national innocence became a well-established tradition during past several decades. President George W. Bush must be seen as bearer of a popular tradition. To extent that these rituals are problematic for nation's future, they represent an issue m popular political sentiment, as well as style and vision of a particular president. To think otherwise is to underestimate their durability and power to surface in future situations of crisis. Rituals of Mourning The events of 9/11 occasioned feelings of loss shared by nation and much of world. This unifying grief first appeared spontaneously through individual or small group rituals. In York City, for example, relatives and friends created shrines with pictures of missing, messages for them, personal possessions, and poems of lamentation about them. These sites have been well documented photographically by Martha Cooper and others (Hallowed Ground). In dust that clung to surfaces near Ground Zero, individuals used their fingers to trace dismay, hope, anger, or regret. Groups gathered in parks or in church settings to meditate, pray for dead and injured, and implore for peace. The folklorists Steve Zeitlin and liana Harlow evocatively described scenes they witnessed in Manhattan's parks, where New Yorkers recreated towers in miniature using tin, papier mache, and paint. Red, white, and blue candles flickered alongside Christian votives, Jewish memorial jabrtzeit, and offertory candles petitioning intercessors. ... Yorkers came together in a public ritual that in its transcendence of any single belief system represented all of them. …

In this article we examine the debate preceding the most recent war in Iraq to show how gendered framing can compromise the quality of debate. Drawing on a sample of national news discourse in the year before the war began, we show that both anti-war and pro-war speakers draw on binary images of gender to construct their cases for or against war. Speakers cast the Bush administration’s argument for invasion either as a correct “macho” stance or as inappropriate, out-of-control masculinity. The most prominent gendered image in war debate is that of the cowboy, used to characterize both President Bush and US foreign policy in general. The cowboy is positioned against a diplomatic form of masculinity that is associated with Europe and valued by anti-war speakers, but criticized by pro-war speakers. Articles that draw on gender images show a lower quality of the debate, measured by the extent to which reasons rather than ad hominem arguments are used to support or rebut assertions.

Does “soft power” matter in international relations? Specifically, when the United States seeks cooperation from countries around the world, do the views of their publics about US foreign policy affect the actual foreign policy behavior of these countries? The authors examine this question using multinational surveys covering fifty-eight countries, combined with information about their foreign policy decisions in 2003, a critical year for the US. They draw their basic conceptual framework from Joseph Nye, who uses various indicators of opinion about the US to assess US soft power. But the authors argue that his theory lacks the specificity needed for falsifiable testing. They refine it by focusing on foreign public opinion about US foreign policy, an underemphasized element of Nye's approach. Their regression analysis shows that foreign public opinion has a significant and large effect on troop commitments to the war in Iraq, even after controlling for various hard power factors. It also has significant, albeit small, effects on policies toward the International Criminal Court and on voting decisions in the UN General Assembly. These results support the authors' refined theoretical argument about soft power: public opinion about US foreign policy in foreign countries does affect their policies toward the US, but this effect is conditional on the salience of an issue for mass publics.

Nine years ago, the editors of the first special issue of The American Review of Canadian Studies on the of the Canada-U.S. asserted that the relationship best described as calm (Leyton-Brown and Jockel 1994, 449). Indeed, the volume was subtitled Weathering the Calm. Six years later, in 2000, Stephane Roussel remarked in the lead article of the Special Issue of ARCS, since renamed the Thomas 0. Enders Issue on the of the Canada-United States Relationship, that nothing had occurred in the intervening period to contradict the earlier characterization of the relationship by Leyton-Brown and Jockel (2000, 135). The usual irritants such as softwood, wheat, and culture remained, and there were signs of future challenges having to do with defense relations, border security, and the somewhat different priorities and personalities of President Bush and Prime Minister Chretien. But all in all, despite the usual annoyances, observers and officials assessed the bilateral agenda as one of co nsiderable harmony. What a difference a few years makes. In an aptly titled column, They're Mars, We're Venus, Jeffrey Simpson wrote in the spring of 2003 that not since the Second World War has such tension existed between the two countries (2003, A17). Following the terrorists' attacks of September 11, it became clear that continental issues would henceforth be shaped and largely defined by security concerns, and this would place a new set of pressures on the relationship. After 9/11 there could be no doubt that in the eyes of Washington, security trumps trade. Canadians found themselves struggling to try to find a way to reconcile their vital need for open borders for trade with the American preoccupation with security. The atmospherics of the relationship were also changing due to post-9/11 imputations that those terrorists had slipped across a porous Canadian border, slights by the Bush Administration, the messy handling of the accidental friendly fire bombing of Canadian troops, and the frosty relationship between Bush and Chretien and ensuing comments by those surrounding the Prime Minister. But the lead-up to the Iraq war and Canada's refusal to join with the United Kingdom in the U.S.-led coalition has shown there to be a much deeper divide developing between these North American neighbors. Canada's non-participation in the Iraq war evoked an unprecedented dressing down by U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci in which he noted that Canada's action did not go unnoticed in Washington and there would be short term strain in consequence. The Iraq war and the increasing unilateral geopolitical stance of the Bush administration reveal basic differences in international outlook. Canada's commitment to multilateral institutions is deeply held and transcends partisan governments. U.S. foreign policy, at least since September 11, is sharply focused on pursuing American security interests with the direct use of military power, preemptively if necessary. The changing character of the relationship and the concerns expressed by close observers are reflected in the articles in this special State of the Relationship issue. The goal remains that of past Enders special issues: to provide a survey of the bilateral relationship as it currently stands and to stimulate fresh thinking about critical issues of concern. To that end, we have enlisted a group of highly respected scholars from both countries to analyze current issues and future prospects. John Herd Thompson's opening essay is devoted to an overview of bilateral relations with particular emphasis on developments since the election of President Bush in 2000. Thompson's analysis focuses on the impact of the unilateralism that he sees characterizes the Bush administration's foreign relations and its changing relationship with Canada. He argues that the relationship has deteriorated since George Bush became president and that the relationship will be played by the new Washington rules. …

1. Introduction What is the role of a foreign policy ideal--democracy promotion--in shaping public opinion on foreign policy? (1) The experience of the 9/11 attacks on American soil, the ensuing wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Bush administration's adoption of a new foreign policy doctrine brought the ideal of democracy promotion to the forefront of American foreign policy. While studies of public opinion on foreign policy have focused mainly on examining the existence of organized belief systems and the reasonableness of public opinion in foreign affairs, we know little about the role of democracy promotion in forming public opinion. The experience of the Bush administration's emphasis on democracy promotion in U.S. foreign policy and the debate about the role of idealism and realism in accounting for citizens' opinion on foreign policy demands a closer examination of the role of belief in this ideal in shaping public opinion in foreign policy. In addition, the way in which citizens' belief in democracy promotion defines their opinions on foreign policy also needs to be elaborated. Specifically, it is necessary to explore the working mechanisms of this ideal goal in relation to political context. In studying public opinion on foreign policy, a major concern has been whether the mass public can make reasonable decisions. The majority of studies have attempted to counter negative views on the capacity of the mass public to do so. Lippmann (1955), Almond (1960[1950]), and Converse (1964) criticized public opinion on foreign policy as unstable, unorganized, and unreliable due to the lack of interests, information, and ideological constraints. However, along with the emerging studies that emphasized positive views of mass public opinion regarding domestic policy (e.g. Kinder 1983, Feldman 1988), studies on public opinion on foreign policy shifted toward optimistic views by showing the existence of organized belief systems (e.g. Wittkopf 1986, Chittick, Billingsley, and Travis 1995, Holsti 1992), the role of social and psychological constraints in maintaining the belief systems (e.g. Hurwitz and Peffley 1987), and citizens' strategic and instrumental considerations in foreign policy choices (e.g. Jentleson 1992, Jentleson and Britton 1998, Herrmann, Tetlock, and Visser 1999). While these studies provide us with persuasive theories and evidence regarding the existence of structure and organization of the public's foreign policy attitudes and capacity to come up with reasonable decisions, they have a limitation in understanding the role of democracy promotion, since most of the studies that focused on the structure did not pay attention to the ideal itself, let alone to its role in shaping public opinion on foreign policy. This lack of interest in democracy promotion is ironic in that the debate about the relevance and effectiveness of idealism in American foreign policy has been around for a long time among scholars of international politics (e.g. Morgenthau 1952, Kennan 1984, Osgood 1953, Cox, Ikenberry, and Inoguchi 2000). Furthermore, democracy promotion is the core concern of liberal idealists (e.g. Cox, Ikenberry and Inoguchi 2000, Diamond 1992) and neo-conservatists (e.g. Kristol and Kagan 1996) alike. However, we know little about the characteristics and working mechanisms of this ideal in forming public opinion on foreign policy. What will be the effect of democracy promotion on foreign policy opinion? Under what conditions will the effect of the belief in this ideal be strengthened, weakened or remain stable in accounting for citizens' foreign policy choices? This study finds that individuals' belief in democracy promotion as a foreign policy goal plays a significant role in accounting for their support for U.S. troop deployments in defending allies from potential enemies and hostile countries. Also it shows that the effect of democracy promotion depends on political context. 2. …