Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This book argues that security sector reform should be at the core of a new US policy to strengthen the security sector capacity of countries where US interests are at stake. Today's fragile environments feature a host of postconflict and postauthoritarian states and transitioning and new democracies that have at least one critical thing in common : their security sectors are dysfunctional. Why these states cannot fulfill their most basic function - the protection of the population and their government - varies widely, but the underlying reason is the same. The security sector does not function because security sector institutions and forces are absent, ineffective, predatory, or illegitimate. In place of large, boots-on-the-ground interventions relying on expensive train and equip programs with only fleeting impact, Washington needs a new approach for engaging in fragile environments and a policy for prioritizing where it engages and for what purpose. The volume offers case studies to exemplify the context in which a new US approach might be warranted, discusses other countries' experiences with security sector reform policies, and examines how the United States should design and implement a security sector reform policy.

SECURITY SECTOR REFORM--USA

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

"Argues that obtaining energy through the hydraulic fracturing of shale rock is based on unstable economic foundations, and is having much more destructive effects on the economy and the government of the United States than its advocates claim"--

Fracking. --- United States. --- USA

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

It has been said that 1 percent of our citizens serve and go to war and that 99 percent go to the mall. In this book, a diverse group of contributors offers perspectives on whether or not the different experiences of our military and of our broader society are fraying the traditional civil relationship - and if the American public is losing connection to its military. The authors analyze extensive polling information to identify gaps between civilian and military attitudes to issues central to the professionalism of our military; determine which, if any, of those gaps are problematic for sustaining the traditionally strong bonds between the American military and its broader public; analyze whether such gaps are amenable to remediation by policy means; and assess potential solutions. The contributors explore public disengagement and the effect of high levels of public support for the military combined with low levels of trust in elected political leaders - both recurring themes in their research. They also reflect on whether Americans are now so divorced from the requirements for success in warfare that we are becoming intolerant of the ways our military's function dictates practices different from our broader society.

CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS--USA --- USA--ARMED FORCES--PUBLIC OPINION

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Dialectology --- English language --- USA: West

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The promotion of 'democracy' abroad has been a feature of US foreign policy since the earlier part of the twentieth century, accompanying its rise as an international actor. It provided the ideological basis for its opposition to rivals in the form of imperialism, fascism and then communism. The end of the Cold War, which signalled the emergence of the US as the sole superpower, accelerated this process. With the ideological fusion of democracy and capitalism credited in large measure for the defeat of communism and the state-planned economy, the promotion of democracy alongside capitalism as the only viable, legitimate mode of governance emerged as an increasingly important component of US foreign policy. Countries as diverse as the Philippines, Chine and Poland have all been subject to US democracy promotion initiatives. In the Middle East though, the US traditionally engaged authoritarian governments as a means of ensuring its core interests in the region. However the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the G.W. Bush administration's perception of the Middle East's 'democratic deficit' as the underlying cause, initiated a significant departure in the traditional direction of US foreign policy. Democracy promotion subsequently emerged as a central tenet of US policy to the Middle East. This book argues that, as part of the strategy of democracy promotion in the Middle East, the US has sought to gradually replace proxy authoritarian governments with elite-based democracies. From a neo-Gramscian perspective, this strategic shift can be seen as a move from coercive to consensual forms of social control, the underlying aim being to ensure a more enduring form of stability in the states concerned. This is part of a long-term US strategy, evidenced prior in other regions such as Latin America, which ultimately aims at the achievement of a Gramscian hegemony; that is the internalisation by other societies of the US's interpretation of 'democracy' as the natural order. Utilising an analytical framework derived from the neo-Gramscian approach, the book focuses in main on the Clinton (1993-2001) and G. W. Bush (2001-2009) administrations, using the case studies of Egypt, Iraq and Kuwait to deconstruct the US strategy of democracy promotion in the Middle East.

DEMOCRATIZATION--MIDDLE EAST --- DEMOCRATIZATION--USA --- USA--FOREIGN RELATIONS--MIDDLE EAST --- MIDDLE EAST--FOREIGN RELATIONS--USA