A different kind of war? : September 11 and the United States' Afghan War

McInnes, C., 'A different kind of war? 11 September and the United States' Afghan war'. Review of International Studies, 29 (2), 165-184. RAE2008

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Non-State United States Support For The Contras During The Reagan Era

Under President Ronald Reagan, the White House pursued a complex foreign policy towards the Contras, rebels in trying to overthrow the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua, in Nicaragua. In 1979, the leftist Sandinista government seized power in Nicaragua. The loss of the previous pro-United States Somoza military dictatorship deeply troubled the conservatives, for whom eradication of communism internationally was a top foreign policy goal. Consequently, the Reagan Administration sought to redress the policy of his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, and assume a hard line stance against leftist regimes in Central America. Reagan and the conservatives within his administration, therefore, supported the Contra through military arms, humanitarian aid, and financial contributions. This intervention in Nicaragua, however, failed to garner popular support from American citizens and Democrats. Consequently, between 1982 and 1984 Congress prohibited further funding to the Contras in a series of legislation called the Boland Amendments. These Amendments barred any military aid from reaching the Contras, including through intelligence agencies. Shortly after their passage, Central Intelligence Agency Director William Casey and influential members of Reagan¿s National Security Council (NSC) including National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, NSC Aide Oliver North, and Deputy National Security Advisor John Poindexter cooperated to identify and exploit loopholes in the legislation. By recognizing the NSC as a non-intelligence body, these masterminds orchestrated a scheme in which third parties, including foreign countries and private donors, contributed both financially and through arms donations to sustain the Contras independently of Congressional oversight. This thesis explores the mechanism and process of soliciting donations from private individuals, recognizing the forces and actors that created a situation for covert action to continue without detection. Oliver North, the main actor of the state, worked within his role as an NSC bureaucrat to network with influential politicians and private individuals to execute the orders of his superiors and shape foreign policy. Although Reagan articulated his desire for the Contras to remain a military presence in Nicaragua, he delegated the details of policy to his subordinates, which allowed this scheme to flourish. Second, this thesis explores the individual donors, analyzing their role as private citizens in sustaining and encouraging the policy of the Reagan Administration. The Contra movement found non-state support from followers of the New Right, demonstrated through financial and organizational assistance, that allowed the Reagan Administration¿s statistically unpopular policy in Nicaragua to continue. I interpret these donors as politically involved, but politically philanthropic, individuals, donating to their charity of choice to further the principles of American freedom internationally in a Cold War environment. The thesis then proceeds to assess the balance of power between the executive and other political actors in shaping policy, concluding that the executive cannot act alone in the formulation and implementation of foreign policy.

Representing Afghanistan: The United States and Democracy's Imposition

There is an ongoing mission in Afghanistan; a mission driven by external political forces. At its core this mission hopes to establish peace, to protect the populace, and to install democracy. Each of these goals has remained just that, a goal, for the past eight years as the American and international mission in Afghanistan has enjoyed varied levels of commitment. Currently, the stagnant progress in Afghanistan has led the international community to become increasingly concerned about the viability of a future Afghan state. Most of these questions take root in the question over whether or not an Afghan state can function without the auspices of international terrorism. Inevitably, the normative question of what exactly that government should be arises from this base concern. In formulating a response to this question, the consensus of western society has been to install representative democracy. This answer has been a recurring theme in the post Cold War era as states such as Bosnia and Somalia bear witness to the ill effects of external democratic imposition. I hypothesize that the current mold of externally driven state-building is unlikely to result in what western actors seek it to establish: representative democracy. By primarily examining the current situation in Afghanistan, I claim that external installation of representative democracy is modally flawed in that its process mandates choice. Representative democracy by definition constitutes a government reflective of its people, or electorate. Thus, freedom of choice is necessary for a functional representative democracy. From this, one can deduce that because an essential function of democracy is choice, its implementation lies with the presence of choice. State-building is an imposition that eliminates that necessary ingredient. The two stand as polar opposites that cannot effectively collaborate. Security, governing capacity, and development have all been targeted as measurements of success in Afghanistan. The three factors are generally seen as mutually constitutive; so improved security is seen as improving governing capacity. Thus, the recent resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and a deteriorating security environment moving forward has demonstrated the inability of the Afghan government to govern. The primary reason for the Afghan government’s deficiencies is its lack of legitimacy among its constituency. Even the use of the term ‘constituency’ must be qualified because the Afghan government has often oscillated between serving the people within its territorial borders and the international community. The existence of the Afghan state is so dependent on foreign aid and intervention that it has lost policy-making and enforcing power. This is evident by the inability of Afghanistan to engage in basic sovereign state activities as maintaining a national budget, conducting elections, providing for its own national security, and deterring criminality. The Afghan state is nothing more than a shell of a government, and indicative of the failings that external state-building has with establishing democracy.

1902 Polk's Medical Register and Directory of the United States and Canada (Texas portion only)

List of Physicians and Surgeons arranged by states and provinces, giving post office address with population and location, the School practiced, date and college of graduation, all the existing and extinct medical colleges in the United States and Canada, with locations, officers, number of professors, lecturers, demonstrators, etc., the various medical societies, state prisons, hospitals, sanitariums, dispensaries, asylums and other medical institutions, boards of health, boards of medical examiners, a synopsis of the laws of registration and other laws relating to the profession, medical journals with names of editors, frequency of publication and subscription rates, medical libraries, mineral springs, official list of officers of the medical departments of the U.S. Army, Navy and Marine Hospital Service, roster of examining surgeons of the U.S. Pension Department, a descriptive sketch of each state, territory and province, embodying such matters as location, boundary, extent in miles and acres, latitude and longitude, statistics relating to climate, temperature, rate of mortality, number of deaths from consumption, etc. full particulars of all national associations and societies relating to medicine and surgery, and an INDEX TO THE PHYSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES. Arranged alphabetically, with the number of the page on which the name appears.

Shaw Air Force Base : test excavations at 20 archeological sites on the Poinsett Electronic Combat Range, Sumter County, South Carolina.

"June 1999."

Pearl Harbor attack. Hearings before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Congress of the United States, Seventy-ninth Congress, first [-second] session, pursuant to S. Con. Res. 27 ..

Hearings held Nov. 15, 1945-May 31, 1946.

Air demand and conduit pressures, Stillhouse Hollow Dam, Lampasas River, Texas /

"August 1988."

Port and terminal charges at United States Great lakes ports.

At head of title: War Department. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army .

Supplement to Port and terminal charges at United States seaports /

At head of title: War Department, Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army.

Nominations before the Senate Armed Services Committee, second session, 106th Congress : hearings before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Sixth Congress, second session, on nominations of Rudy de Leon; Douglas A. Dworkin; Bernard D. Rostker; Gregory R. Dahlberg; Madelyn R. Creedon; Adm. Vernon E. Clark; Gen. John A. Gordon; Lt. Gen. Tommy R. Franks; Lt. Gen. William F. Kernan; Donald Mancuso; Roger W. Kallock; James E. Baker; Lt. Gen. Peter Pace; Lt. Gen. Charles R. Holland; Maj. Gen. Robert B. Flowers; and Robert B. Pirie, Jr., February 8; March 21; April 11; May 16, 24; June 27; July 26; September 6; October 3, 19, 2000.

Shipping list no.: 2001-0213-P.

US Army order of battle, 1919-1941 /

Includes bibliographical references.

Department of Defense authorization for appropriations for fiscal year 2010 : hearing before the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate, One Hundred Eleventh Congress, first session, on S. 1390, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes.

"May 20 and June 3, 2009"--Pt. 6-7.

Analysis of wave forces on a 30-inch diameter pile under confused sea conditions /

"October 1965."

Tides and tidal datums in the United States /

"February 1981."