the US troops in Viet name were faced with a duel threat, The North Vietnamese Army (NVA), and the ...... Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing. Faiola, A.
AMERICAN NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN POLICIES FROM AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE A historical Study on the US National Security and its Foreign Policies in presenting forth a better understanding of the present American Geopolitical involvements in various global theaters of operation.
Samanga P Amarasinghe United States of America 2016
Copyright © 2016 Samanga P Amarasinghe
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner of this book. American National Security and Foreign Policy from an International Perspective ISBN 978-1-312-05422-6 Lulu Enterprises, Inc 3101 Hillsborough St Raleigh, NC 27607. United States of America www.Lulu.com Front Cover Image(s): © Samanga Amarasinghe Back Cover Image: © Samanga Amarasinghe Cover Designs: © Samanga Amarasinghe First Printing: July 2016 Printed in the United States of America
~2~
Table of Contents Content
Page
I.
Introduction........................................................................................................................16
II.
American foreign policy and grand strategy over the past 60 years..................................24
III.
The Federalist on the new constitution ..............................................................................28
IV.
American Geopolitical Perspective prior to World War II................................................31
V.
The Dual perceptions of neo-Kantian and neo-Hobbesian................................................38
VI.
Schools of thoughts............................................................................................................38
VII.
The different types of strategies utilized by a state to pursue its interests ........................40
VIII.
The challenges facing the analysis of strategies ................................................................42
IX.
The "quantity-quality trade-off” and its impacts ...............................................................44
X.
The contributions of Systems analysis in ..........................................................................49
XI.
Defense transformation......................................................................................................49
XII.
Impacts of Nature in expanding Foreign policy ................................................................54
XIII.
The Youngstown Co. Vs Sawyer.......................................................................................57
XIV.
The War Powers ACT .......................................................................................................62
XV.
The War Powers Act (1973) ..............................................................................................69
XVI.
Seeing the white elephant through a dual Perspective.......................................................73
XVII.
The strengthening of the US nuclear security....................................................................75 The Problem...........................................................................................................75 Threats of Procurement, Production, and Distribution ..........................................76 The dual-layer nuclear detection architecture program .........................................77 Global Initiatives ...................................................................................................78 Local initiatives .....................................................................................................79 Securing our Back Yard.........................................................................................81
XVIII.
The SDI strategy and development for future ...................................................................82 The National Missile Defense (NMD) systems (1947-1983)................................82 Strategic Defense Initiative SDI and SDIO (1983-1989) ......................................83 The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, BMDO (1993-2002) .......................84 The Present Capabilities in Intercepting a Ballistic Attack ...................................85 The present crisis paralleling the theaters of operations........................................86 ~3~
Present Anti Ballistic Defenses and the cost of production...................................88 The Positive impacts affecting the US Anti Missile Defenses ..............................89 The Possible elevation in Global Power and Bargaining capabilities ...................89 Positive Economical Prospects ..............................................................................90 Internal Technology Transfers to the commercial market.....................................90 Possibility of utilizing Diplomatic means in finding a solution ............................91 Proposed technology in addressing ballistic defense mechanism .........................93 XIX.
Is terrorism an existential threat to National security? ......................................................96
XX.
Challenges for the DOD in developing strategy for fighting the ‘long war’.....................98 Quality Vs Quantity Trade off ...............................................................................98 Expansionist debate ...............................................................................................99
XXI.
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) a consequence of the Bush Doctrines..................101 The Definition of the War on Terror ...................................................................101 Whom are we really fighting? .............................................................................102 What is the War on Terror is really doing? .........................................................104 History repeats with lessons not learned .............................................................105 What is next? .......................................................................................................106
XXII.
Taming the hydra of post COIN operations ....................................................................108
XXIII.
The Fifth Estate a New Emergent Threat to Geopolitics.................................................112
XXIV.
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................116
XXV.
APPENDIX......................................................................................................................135 Tables...................................................................................................................135 Maps ....................................................................................................................139
~4~
LIST OF TABLES Table
Page
Table 1: Ballistic Missile and NBC Capabilities of Developing Countries ................................135 Table 2: Missile Recipients and Producers of Ballistic Missiles.................................................136 Table 3 : Primary U.S. Theater Missile Defense Programs.........................................................136 Table 4 : The Summary of BMDO and TMD programs .............................................................137 Table 5: Military Expenditure by Administration from 1961-2013 ............................................137 Table 6 : Looking for Information on Different Media ...............................................................138
~5~
LIST OF FIGURES Figure
Page
Figure 1: World's big risk from Deutsche Bank's Outlook 2013 presentation ..............................43 Figure 2: Afghanistan Stability/Coin Dynamics............................................................................51 Figure 3: Prof. Y. Ranjith Amarasinghe – Nature and Policy PTOMS.........................................55 Figure 4 : Punch or the London Charivarl comic on the American Civil War............................146 Figure 5: Bodies on the battlefield at Antietam Sept 17, 1862...................................................147 Figure 6: US Entering Mexico to Capture Poncho Villa in 1916................................................148 Figure 7 : The SDI Strategy and the “Brilliant Pebbles Program” ..............................................149 Figure 8 : An artist's rendering of an X-ray laser hit an incoming missile..................................150 Figure 9 : The Brilliant Pebbles Satellite.....................................................................................150 Figure 10: Author with a Blue Scout Junior Launch Vehicle .....................................................151 Figure 11: Thor IRBM SM-75/PGM-17......................................................................................152 Figure 12: Thor Missile Scale Data .............................................................................................153 Figure 13: Standard Missile - 3 (SM-3).......................................................................................154 Figure 14: US Army Nike Zeus missile, the first ABM system ..................................................155 Figure 15 : Signing of the North Atlantic Treaty April 4, 1949 ..................................................156
~6~
LIST OF MAPS
Map
Page
Map 1: The United States of America ...........................................................................................14 Map 2: Global conflict watch for 2014..........................................................................................15 Map 3 : American military dominance since 1950........................................................................23 Map 4: Plains Indians territory before 1800s ..............................................................................139 Map 5: American Expansion 1783 - 1917 .................................................................................140 Map 6: Estimated Ranges of Current and Potential Iranian Ballistic Missiles............................141 Map 7: Estimated Ranges of a Potential N. Korean Ballistic Missiles .......................................142 Map 8: Estimated Ranges of a Potential Pakistani Ballistic Missiles .........................................143 Map 9: Estimated Ranges of a Potential Indian Ballistic Missiles ..............................................144 Map 10 : North Atlantic Treaty Organization: members and partners .......................................145
~7~
“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations...entangling alliances with none” - Thomas Jefferson
~8~
Dedication
This short text is dedicated to the people that bore all the pain and hardship with me in my life journey as well as in my academic pursuits to date.
Thus, I dedicate this text to the following people; My father, Late Dr. Y. R. Amarasinghe, my mother Mrs. K. S. M. Amarasinghe, my uncles Late Mr. Stanley Jayasinghe, Current Patriarch of my Maternal Family Mr. Mahinda Jayasinghe, Current Patriarch of my Paternal Family My Uncle Y. Dayananda Dharmawardana my wife Mrs. Dilrukshi Amarasinghe, my dear mother in law Mrs. Anula Gunaseela.
“Show me a family of readers, and I will show you the people who move the world.” ― Napoleon Bonaparte
~9~
Forward
The United States of America and it’s involvements in global affairs from the 1700’s to present portray a bi-polar picture of the nation’s geopolitical interests. Thus, scrutinizing various manuscripts and other sources it is evident that the US as much as it is loved for being involved with various global conflicts and other endeavors as providing countless economic support to nations in need at times of need the same reasons observed as a potential threat. Elaborating further, the whole world applauded as the allied forces spearheaded by the US brought an end to the Third Reich and its allies in both the western and the eastern theaters. Yet, in continuing their efforts of securing the political interest of South Vietnam and South Korea, the US was portrayed as the primary enemy to global peace. Same time, in observing the present war on terror, which affects the whole world alike, again portrays the US as a potential enemy. The present study on American National Security and Foreign Policy from an International Perspective is a compilation of various research articles present by the researcher in various academic venues. The current research observes through its chapters American foreign policy and its application in various theaters’ of operations designed in securing the nation’s regional and global interests throughout the past decade. Moreover, taking a qualitative stand the present study also analyze through its chapters key elements, which bare the foundation of American foreign policy from the expansionist debate to the present war on terror historically scrutinizing the vital segments as the grounded philosophies which stand as the driving force for these policies. This done in an attempt to bring light on a controversial subject of postmodern global Americanization in the international arena, where majority of nation’s despite agreeing on their individual nationalism and national interests observe American nationalism and American interest’s as a negative impact on their behalf.
~ 10 ~
Acknowledgments In recognizing all those who assisted me in my efforts in compiling this research, I would first like to thank my mentor and a fellow professor, Dr. Darius Watson for all his efforts in ensuring that my research maintained its focus, and bore the depth and breadth during my studies. Furthermore, I wish to thank him for all his support beyond the field of academia, as a friend. Dr. Watson, who was always straightforward with his answers, never missed a beat in advising me against any future endeavors, which would hinder my capabilities as a scholar, and it is through his guiding I chose the scholarly path of geopolitics than its field application that bare the underpinning of this study. Next, I want to take this opportunity to thank my father, late Dr. Y. Ranjith Amarasinghe for guiding me from a young age to follow his footsteps in the mastery of politics. Despite various undertakings accepted by me in different stages of my life, reaching my present age, fighting with all practical rationalities and many battles within, it was truly liberating to finally find my calling and have all ends meet. The subject of geopolitics was never a stranger subject to me, growing up in my father’s shade; politics surrounded me more than anything else did, hence this manuscript being more than a present undertaking is truly as a work in progress from a very young age. What’s more, it is through his guidance during his short stay with us that paved the way for the second wind in compiling this study to a completion, as without his support this work would have been an uncompleted work hidden within a folder thus his miss is deeply felt. The father who inspired me in academia is no less great than my mother who inspired and trained me in various other disciplines, which make the tedious work of compiling a research much bearable. Thus, I would like to thank my mother Mrs. Malika Amarasinghe, for all her support and mentoring me in following my father’s footsteps, Ammi as well address her was
~ 11 ~
never interested in politics, but for her misfortune ended up with family of political enthusiasts following our father’s footsteps. Yet, she was very grateful and sacrificing in all our affairs, like a true Hillwoodian she gave us the best and kept the least, never a day passed without her sharing her concern about us nor supporting us in our efforts. Additionally, given the opportunity I would also like to place a special thanks to my friends and colleagues at the Bellevue University for their support, encouragement as well as their guidance in making this text an accomplished work. Therefore, in naming few Dr. Mary Hawkins, Dr. Stephen Linenberger, Dr. Greg Ashley, Mr. Jim Maxwell, Dr. Carolyn Youssef as well as long time colleague and friend Dr. Robert Gray, and Dr. John Spivack stands foremost. Same time in accomplishing this endeavor, supporting my efforts, Mr. Mike Gregory Director of Technical Support Services my direct supervisor played a key role, from the time I joined my Alma Mater. Mr. Gregory has been a pillar of strength behind all my accomplishments in the US, hence a profound thanks is due on his behalf. Furthermore, I want to thank my long time colleague and friend Mr. Amon Muganyizi for all his support as well as keen insights to the work in progress of this text, Mr. Muganyizi being well-informed political enthusiasts always ensure a balanced argument in observing geopolitics. This ensured and balanced the bias elements of this text placing this pageant a low singular biased observation on the events presented. Additionally, I wish to extend this appreciation further to my other colleague Mr. Jason Mapes and friends at the Lozier Professional Center, as well as and the Lab Assistants for their support as well. Their efforts in easing the strain at work granting me time during the off duty hours, collectively supported in compiling this text.
~ 12 ~
The adult world is much consumed by arranging the world affairs, leaving a trace of their existence, accumulating the resources in making that task a possibility. However, the world of children holds much simplistic amidst the wondrous world they uncover as they grow to adulthood. Thus, I wish to place a special thanks to my loving daughters Olu Grace and Lela Hope, taking this enterprise to a completion, much time was consumed away from their presence, the little hands were deprived of quality time with me. Nevertheless despite my shortcomings it was met with much love and understanding. What’s more, their undying love and care expressed in the short time I spent with them, deserves much appreciation as well as a special thanks to be placed amidst the chapters of this text a timeless memento which surpasses the human race. Last but never the least, my dear wife Dilrukshi Amarasinghe has been a true inspiring light in pursuit of this study. Her forever-alert eyes watchful to all my needs never leaving a void of her presence or love, she stood as the redeeming feature for all the hardships endured in writing this text and in other day-to-day challenges endured by me in the US. Additionally, despite all obstacles that stood in our path, she unshakably stood as my lighthouse in finding home when the sea of life stormed and the waves shook the foundation. Same way I am also in great debt to Mrs. Anula Gunaseela my dear mother in law for all her motherly love, wisdom, and academic humor we shared daily. A teacher and a mentor Mrs. Gunaseela is a true scholar of literature, history, and philosophy by text and as a young witness of the World War II every moment we share despite the medium or the distance there has never been a dull moment as we quote Shakespeare, famous orations and share inside historical joke among ourselves. Samanga Amarasinghe Omaha, NE 2016 ~ 13 ~
Map 1: The United States of America
Source: The author obtained the map of the United States, which includes all the fifty states, through the free printable United States map of America website.
~ 14 ~
Map 2: Global conflict watch for 2014
Source: The author obtained the map of the “Global Conflict Watch for 2014,” from the Atlantic monthly Group website, under the “Global Conflicts to Watch in 2014” webpage article by Uri Friedman posted on December 24 2013, retrieved on February 27 2014
~ 15 ~
Introduction “There are but two powers in the world, the sword, and the mind. In the long run the sword is
always beaten by the mind” ― Napoleon Bonaparte
The United States of America, a federal republic paralleling the foundation of the Roman Republic, bare its roots in a much similar circumstances. In drawing parallels, the city of Rome was once a small segment of the great Hellenistic empire, which expanded throughout the world influencing the geopolitics of time. However with the declining of the Hellenistic epoch that soon followed the death of its Emperor Alexander the Great, the individual city-states of Hellenistic empire began uniting in their efforts to sustain themselves (Duiker & Spielvogel, 2012, pp. xxi-xxxii). The empire of Rome in Italy bare it is foundation through unifications of such city states surrounding the river Tiber between 209 B.C.E and 264 B.C.E (Duiker & Spielvogel, 2012, p. xxii). The US much like Rome began as 13 British colonies uniting in their efforts of building an independent nation, the challenges for both nations bore similar strains, yet, the US differing from Rome omitting much bloodshed and the dictatorial rule, encompassing a solid political underpinning becoming a democratic nation. Nonetheless, due to a variety of national experiences from the declaration of independence in 1783 to the present day war on terror, which the nation faced as a collative, the US stand of geopolitics also morphed between the Neo Kantian and Neo Hobbesian paradigms. This done in face of the national interest in face of the obstacles presented, the manner in which the US handled these obstacles a negative depiction of the American geopolitical stand was uprooted. Carola Mcgiffert, addresses this as a misunderstanding, according to Carola Mcgiffert, (2005), “In the American mind, despite the best intentions of the united states as a responsible guarantor of international peace and security, the country is often misunderstood and ~ 16 ~
unappreciated in much of the world for its efforts” (Mitchell, 2005, p. 140). However, in observing the manner in which the US challenged these geopolitical obstacles in their nation building efforts and in maintaining global peace, the negative international opinion does not fall to far from the fact. Yet, the duality of the responses presented by the US on behalf of various geopolitical decision-making, and presenting both sides of the problems is essential, thus the following study will present forth the US stand on various global events and the methods that were utilized in support of these events from a policy standpoint. United States with a least maturity by the nation’s age had their share of internal as well as external grief, has paved the manner in which the US observed its allies as well as the world. First of these conflicts being an internal conflict was the American Civil War between years 1860 to 1865 approximately 4 years and 3 weeks (Tindall & Shi, 1992). The American Civil War was founded on the debate of slavery in the territories of the United Sates. During the Lincoln administration despite many territories agreeing on abolishment of slavery, the seven slave states, that based their economy solely on the cotton production, broke from the union disagreeing to President Lincoln’s request in abolishing slavery, and established the confederate against the union (Tindall & Shi, 1992, pp. 636-640). The American civil war known commonly in the states as the “First modern war” for the technological innovations as railroads, telegraphs, rifles, trench warfare, as well as the usage of ironclad war ships with turret guns utilized in this conflict it also take to consideration the destruction and mobilization of the civilian base (Engle & Krick, 2003, pp. 98-101). However, in comparing the lost of civilian and military lives to the era, the modernization of the weapons utilized bare no weight. Based on a study done by Dr. David Hacker, of Binghamton University, the total death toll on both sides calculates to 750,000 lives (Gugliotta, 2012, p. n.p). Same time
~ 17 ~
of the total amount of deaths based on James Macpherson’s observations the death toll of civilian is estimates approximately to about 50,000 civilians, which present a substantial number in human fatalities for this war (McPherson, 1988, p. 619). Same time, during the civil war and its reconstruction period within the US continent another internal began to uproot, this conflict was none other than the Indian wars, which expanded from 1622 AD to 1924 AD sporadically (Tucker S. , 2011, pp. XXXVii-Xiv). However, the most famous wars fought between the American Indians and the migrating settlers of the US were fought between the 1860 AD and 1890 AD. The underpinning for the Indian wars is in the theories as the Manifested destiny where majority believed that the migrating American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. With time, these rapidly expanding settlements began conflicting with the already established native Indians within the regions of the expansion causing friction between the settlers and the natives (Natcher, 1977, p. 3). The result of these prolonged conflicts inflicting much damage to the settlers as well as the natives due to the technology and various other reasons as the manners in which both parties observed these casualties an accurate number cannot be obtained (Knight, 1960, pp. 11-13). Yet, due to the nature of these prost colonial conflicts as well as the time and methods of counting the military and civilian casualties approximately 4,042 death has been recorded from the US side from 1785 AD-1891AD (Greinier, 2008, pp. 195-200). The newfound independent nation of America now began a systematic expansion as it took under its boundaries more and more territories that were once part of other nations in addition to constantly claiming territories of the residential native Indians through small conflicts and treaties as the years progressed. Yet by the year 1861, the nation was still not under one rule,
~ 18 ~
the debate about slavery and territory still lingered. At the time, the categorization of states was based on majorly Union states and Confederate states, and between them were the states that had banned slavery and states that permitted slavery as well as the states, which accepted federal authority and broke off from it. The issue with slavery derived from more an economic and federal authority stand than a humanitarian stand. According to Jeff Schweitzer (2014); Yes, slavery was of course the central point of contention, but as an example of state sovereignty versus federal authority. The war was fought over state's rights and the limits of federal power in a union of states. The perceived threat to state autonomy became an existential one through the specific dispute over slavery. The issue was not slavery per se, but who decided whether slavery was acceptable, local institutions or a distant central government power. That distinction is not one of semantics: this question of local or federal control to permit or prohibit slavery as the country expanded west became increasingly acute in new states, eventually leading to that fateful artillery volley at Fort Sumter (Schweitzer, 2011, p. n.p). Following this debate each part defending their own interests, embarked on a war, which is known as the American Civil War of 1861, in observing the objective of this internal war between the northern, and southern states it was a victory obtained in 1865. With the victory over the confederate states for the northern states were able to win through combat the polisocioeconomics of the southern nation. Furthermore, the conflict also paved way to establish a Federal government over the State legislature and unify the separated states as a United States of America under one government and rule. Having secured an independent and united country under one form of government, the united states continue forth it’s efforts in securing its
~ 19 ~
boarders and securing the home land from the native tribes through various wars and treaties from 1861-1901 which ended with the boxer rebellion. The 20th century in American expansionist debate took different aspect, now focusing on sustaining its economy opening various links with other nations of the world the United States began entering international arena. The first US conflict in the 20th century can be observed as the Border war, which was a part of the Mexican revolution, this conflict, resulted in a border wall being established along the border of Nogales, Sonora, and Nogales, Arizona, after the Battle of Ambos Nogales. Additionally, it marked an end to the Mexican wars after the American/Carrancista victory in the Battle of Ciudad Juárez. Furthermore, the main revolutionist and hero of Mexico Pancho Villa's troops being defeated they were no longer an effective fighting force to pose any further threats to the US border (Marley, 2014). In ending the Mexican wars, emerging era from the year 1912 the United States began a wave of occupations as part of the “Good neighborhood policy” where the US in expanding its economic interests and securing its boarders from “Neighbors” got involved in various campaigns throughout south Americas. Unlike previously these conflicts ended as occupations these occupations in the South American nations includes Occupation of Nicaragua (1912-1933), Dominican Republic (1916-1924), Occupation of Haiti (1915-1934) (Brewer, 2006). Then entering the industrialization epoch where the global economic powers engulfed in a challenge to show might and Witt to their neighbors through social, technological, and political developments of their respective nation the United Stated joined within the ranks as an economic power. Subsequently the challenges of the Great Wars staring with World War I in 1914, and the support rendered by the United States, in the European war efforts the nation began entering another phase in the US expansionist ideology (Reed & Schaller, 1995, pp. 141-147).
~ 20 ~
The WWI, which began because of the European powers reaching a pinnacle in their Political, Territorial, and Economical platforms then competing with other nations in expanding their dominions and might is simply specifying the collective of all elements, which affected the war. However, it was triggered by the assignation of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of the AustroHungarian Empire again due to imperialist ideologies of the Austro-Hungarian empire (Collier & Marriott, 2002, pp. 106-147). This war, which overwhelmed majority of the world powers and their resources erupting in Europe, the United States supporting the triple entente, joined the European war and prepared the nation for the war efforts, paved the way for the US to develop a modern military in par with the technology of the time (Collier & Marriott, 2002). Subsequently, due to mishandling of the World War I politics ending the war with the Versailles treaty, which presented lopsided punishments to the nations of the triple alliance further, exacerbated the European political stability that eventually led to World War II (Lee & Higham, 1997). However, with the World War I and being involved with the European conflict the United States despite of the human loss observed a very positive economical future. In Observing, this positive economic impact faced by the US according to Hugh Rockoff (2015), “The United States had long been a debtor country. The United States emerged from the war, however, as a net creditor” (Rockoff, 2004, p. n.p). The reason behind is that despite all costs and expenses bore by the US, the Americans began quickly grasping the international investment opportunities taking over the role of Brain and other European exporters in the European and south American markets (Hugh, 2015, pp. 20-21). Furthermore, the prominent global powers prior to the World War I as the United Kingdom, began to observe a downfall in their economic paradigms as a direct effect of the war, which compelled various “entrepreneurs and governments” to turn to the United States, as it held its economical foundation strong despite the
~ 21 ~
war (Hugh, 2015, p. 21). What is more as part of the post World war I development process in avoiding yet another global conflict the United States spearheading the league of the nations an intergovernmental organization founded on 10 January 1920 as a result of the Paris Peace Conference that ended the First World War. Here one observes how the world began to turn towards the United States of America as a savior nation when in need; this was further enhanced in favor of the United States during the post World War II epoch. The post war economic boom, as well as the Golden Age of Capitalism favoring the US in its military and economic developments the American war and diplomatic machines were able to spread their wings further to the Western and Eastern hemispheres carrying with them the American Foreign Policies in sustaining the American political interests within these regions. The present text consists of various academicals articles researched and presented by me on the American foreign policy in various strata’s, observing them in various theaters of operations attempts to clarify to the readers a better understanding of the American Foreign Policies as well as their implementations inside and outside of its national boundaries.
~ 22 ~
American Global theaters of operations
Map 3 : American military dominance since 1950
Source: The author obtained the map of the “American Military Dominance Since 1950,” from the Timeline of United States Military operations website, a website of a public domain, image retrieved on February 27 2014
~ 23 ~
American foreign policy and grand strategy over the past 60 years “Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly”
- President Eisenhower
In observing the statement by K.M. Fierke “the meaning and study of security is always political, that is, always defined within a political context and subject to normative debate and change” implying the nature of security, and politics to share a symbiotic relationship, parallels to the US presidential doctrines for the past 60 years (Fierke, 2007, p. 15). Moreover, in observing the presidential doctrines leading to date it is evident that following the 50s’ events of the Cold War alongside the Eisenhower doctrine of 1957 bore the underpinning to the nature in which the US executed its foreign policies through its proceeding administrations (Lantis, 2013, p. 84). The foundation of the Eisenhower doctrine as indicated by him is “to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression” (DOS, 2013, p. n.p). In elaborating further the Eisenhower doctrine approved by the congress in 1957, indicates according to the Department of States (2013), that “a country could request American economic assistance and/or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression from another state” (DOS, 2013, p. n.p). Taking this to consideration and the McNamara’s observations on the “Domino Theory” during the Kennedy administration focal was in “responding flexibly to attempts to expand communism; devote resources to guerilla warfare in third world” which paved the way for the Johnson doctrines of Vietnam (Lantis, 2013, p. 84).
~ 24 ~
The political concerns during Johnson administration being the rapid expansion of communism in North Vietnam the Johnson’s doctrine followed through on the Kennedy and Eisenhower doctrines by committing US troops to Vietnam” (Lantis, 2013, p. 84). However, during the Nixon administration the Vietnam War was ended with a heavy price to the polisocioeconomics of the United States (Addington, 2000). Thus considering the lessons learned from the Vietnam conflict in committing troops to nations under the communists threats, baring the same foundation as his predecessors Nixon doctrine followed in supporting such nations by agreeing to supply weapons without engaging the troops (Lantis, 2013, p. 84). Then leading to the 80s’ the Russian occupation in Afghanistan further hindering US Russian relations required the US to establish its stand on the Middle Eastern interest. President Carter according to M. Johnson (1990), “Let our position be absolutely clear. An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force” (Johnson, 1990, p. 129). Thus, the Carter doctrine founded on this solidified to the USSR that any attempts by USSR in diverting their forced towards the Middle East would be met by the US in a military platform. The carter administration ending with the 1981 presidential elections losing to the Reagan administration in matching the geopolitics of the time again set its focus towards the communist Russia. The USSR being the primary competitor to the United States, the Reagan administration set its focus on overcoming the communist epoch in doing so the Reagan doctrine utilizing the foundation of Kennedy and Eisenhower doctrines began “supporting anti communist guerillas who are trying to overthrow pr-soviet regimes” (Lantis, 2013, p. 84). However, in 1991, marking the end of the global communist threat USSR collapsed paving the path to aggressions within the
~ 25 ~
separated former Russian nations as Bosnia, same time; other notable conflicts in the Middle East and in the African continent were being uprooted (Manning & Clawson, 1997, p. n.p). Therefore, President Clinton established his doctrine by stating, “It's easy ... to say that we really have no interests in who lives in this or that valley in Bosnia, or who owns a strip of brush land in the Horn of Africa, or some piece of parched earth by the Jordan River. However, the true measure of our interests lies not in how small or distant these places are, or in whether we have trouble pronouncing their names. The question we must ask is the consequences to our security of letting conflicts fester and spread. We cannot; indeed, we should not, do everything, or be everywhere. Nevertheless, where our values and our interests are at stake, and where we can make a difference, we must be prepared to do so (Auerswald, Duttweiler, & Garofano, 2003, p. 70). The Clinton doctrine being an interventionist approach, in comparison to the previous presidential doctrines was also unclear in its intentions. Yet, the statement of his doctrine which “whether you live in Africa, or Central Europe, or any other place if somebody comes after innocent civilians and tries to kill them in masses because of their race, their ethnic background or their religion. And if it's within our power to stop it, we will stop it" establishes the US stand regarding Bosnian and African conflicts of the time (Auerswald, Duttweiler, & Garofano, 2003, p. 70). The next major doctrine that was established leading to the present date can be observed as the bush doctrine. In September 11, 2001, following the attacks on US soil president bush in his response to the attacks stated, according to Spencer Tucker (2013), “We will direct every resource at our command. every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war--to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network” (Tucker, 2013, p. 2286). The statement
~ 26 ~
by President Bush clearly defines his intentions to strengthen the US National Security by utilizing all available regional and global resources against the global terrorist network pave the way for the bush doctoring and the war on terror (Viotti, 2005, p. 244). The War on terror, which continued to the Obama administration, was observed through the Obama doctrine of 2009 from a constructivist stand, the doctrine according to President Obama observes “our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries” (Colucci, 2012, p. 484). Thus in conclusion in observing the American foreign policy and grand strategy over the past 60 years, it is evident that majority of the US foreign policies were based on the geopolitics pertaining to the regions which the US in particular shared interest at the time. Moreover these interest being more than commercial, shared much with the nation’s security and the American way of life.
~ 27 ~
The Federalist on the new constitution Alexander Hamilton, former U.S Secretary of Treasury in his literature “The Federalist, on the new constitution” uprooted through its article no.8 a key element in the United States natural location and the impact, which the nation’s geographical location has on its security. According to Hamilton (1818), “If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1818, pp. 42-43)”. The indicated statement by Hamilton addresses the “splendid isolation” which the United States has enjoyed thus far, where due to the nation’s geographical location; it is free from being influenced by any power owing to the proximity (Hook & Spainer, 2013, p. 226). What is more, solidifying Hamilton explains, “Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1818, p. 43).” Thus, Hamilton opposed the need for a large standing army, instead he continue to propose a strong navy, fortification and intelligence segments which will stop or prolong an invasion giving ample time for the nation to round a militia in response to the threat (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1818, p. 42). However, the literature under the scrutiny by Hamilton was presented in the late 1700’s defending the final form of the United States constitution against the Anti Federalist, during which the principles of war, the tactics, technology, and methods bore a different stance than today (Tindall & Shi, 1992, pp. 285-288). The notion of a strong navy, and fortifications to protect a country before an invasion despite being a popular concept until WWII was soon proven wrong by the tactics, and technology utilized by the axis forces during the WWII (Calvocoressi & Wint, 1972). Moreover, during the Cuban crisis missile and the recent attack by the Al-Qaeda in the United States main
~ 28 ~
land on September 11, 2001 has paved a new era in war warfare against Hamilton’s theory of our neighboring nations not being strong enough to pose a threat (Kennedy & Schlesing, 1999). Yet, the Hamilton ideology has resurfaced through the present national security concerns underpinning president Obama’s reductions in military spending. The reduction includes halftrillion-dollar to defense accounts as mandated by the Budget Control Act, alongside more future cuts approximating $500 billion from the Pentagon budget over the next 10 years, and $100 Billion additional defense cuts during that period (Sorcher, 2013, p. n.p). The subject of defense cuts despite being an alarming situation; it presents a new light in observing our past defense strategies from a different angel favoring the future (Sanger & Shanker, 2013, p. n.p). The nature of our modern warfare observed through the U.S. engagements that followed Viet Nam indicates a shift in the strategies. In comparison to the pre Vietnam eras, the modern conflicts relied heavily on technology than the human element. Addressing the Iranian conflict According to P. Huchthausen (2003), “ In the post-Vietnam years it was disturbing to many in both the west and Iran to see vast quantities of modern weapons, ships, air craft, tanks, ground equipment and anti tank and air defense missiles pour into Iran” (Huchthausen, 2003, p. 30). Regarding the Iraq conflict, the GCCS (Global Command Control Systems) also known as the “Geeks”, under Lt. Col. T. Caddell had utilized the technology in tracking every friendly tank, plane, ship and soldier in the world in real time. Support of this operation was 65 computer servers, and 50 military network administrators alongside miles of network cables (Cordesman, 2003, pp. 223-24). What's more, it has been proven from the battle of Britain during 1940, The Rolling thunder operations between 1965 and 1968 in Vietnam and the carpet-bombing operations in the Afghan that large scale bombing costing millions of dollars would not contribute in obtaining a total victory (Gates, 2003).
~ 29 ~
Thus in conclusion, if by cutting the excessive military spending and utilizing the assets reserved towards implementing new technologies, where by an future attack or a threat can be eliminated ahead of time. While further routing the assets to vital CQC (Close Quarters Combat) units in the U.S. Armed Forces, in better preparing them to lead small-scale operations with rapidness and effectiveness would benefit the nations attempt in facing future insurgencies. After all, the Iraqi and the Al-Qaida counter Insurgencies were put to rest by eliminating their leaders through the utilization of the above stated small units and not by mass bombing run’s (Perry & Gordon, 2008).
~ 30 ~
American Geopolitical Perspective Prior to World War II Geopolitics being the study of interactions between geography, economics, demography, and their impacts in politics, specifically the stand on foreign policies of a state, according to Colin Flint (2011), “
The perspective of human geography
to understand how politics,
especially international politics and geography are related” (Flint, 2011, p. 17). Furthermore, “The pressure imposed by international systems, the demands of civil society, and the structure of political institutions” all bare the foundation to how nations conduct its foreign policy (Hook & Spanier, 2013, p. 5). The much-extended conflict between North and South Korea is one such example, Korea collectively being part of the Japanese empire from 1910 to the end of World War II, following the collapse of Japanese imperialism 1945 Korea was administered by the United States (Oberdorfer, 2001, p. 5). However, with deteriorating internal politics following the division of Korea by the US administration along the 38th parallel and the lack of unity in holding a collective election in 1948 the north established a communist government while the south established a more right wing government (Oberdorfer, 2001, p. 7). This establishment of polar governments in the North and the South Koreas paved the way for North Korean invasion of the south on June 25, 1950 and through US alliances with South Korea, the United States got involved between the conflicts solidifying the continuing discrepancies between the Koreans, and the United States (Oberdorfer, 2001, pp. 423-424). Hence, taking the above explanation of geopolitics, observing the evolution of United States geopolitical perspective prior to World War II, spanning from 1796 to 1941, the United States followed a three-phase growth, the three phases in succession are Isolationism, Expansionism, and Imperialism (Wittkopf & Jones, 2008, p. 30). The United States during its early stages, founded in obtaining “freedom from England and more broadly, from machinations
~ 31 ~
of Europe’s great powers” through its political establishments and leadership was encouraged in steering clear of global involvements, specifically taking sides or establishing concrete alliances which paved the way for isolationism (Wittkopf & Jones, 2008, pp. 30-31). President George Washington in his farewell addresses on September 17, 1796, sharing his stand on alliances and geopolitics stated according to Alfred Owen Crozier (1915), “it is our true policy to clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world” (Crozier, 1915). The grounded reason for this was the geographical location of the United States, at the time the United States beyond the united 13 colonies, shared territories owned by dominant powers of the time as Spain and France (Tindall & Shi, 1992, pp. 238-254). Furthermore, the U.S. being a new nation had much more at stake if engulfed in battles between the powers by taking sides. Evident through as later elaborated by President Washington in his farewell speech “The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave” (Viotti, American foreign policy and national security:, 2005, p. 150). Additionally President Washington in summing up the ideologies of the time and his vision presented a broad question for the leaders to come, he asked according to Hodge and Nolan (2007), “Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?” (Hodge & Nolan, 2007, p. 388). The foundation laid by the Washington administration concerning foreign alliances stood its ground through three presidencies spanning from 1797 to 1817, the next president being John Adams, held strong on the notion that the United States in facing the challenges of the future must sustain its nonaligned status with regards to international affairs. President John Adams in a address to the congress stated according to E.R Wittkopf and C.M. Jones (2008),“ We should
~ 32 ~
separate ourselves , as far as possible and as long as possible, from all European politics and wars” (Wittkopf & Jones, 2008, p. 31). This stand of political neutrality regarding global politics was similarly shared by the third president Thomas Jefferson, whose administration saw the preservation of Liberty as the new nation’s quintessential goal and maintained the isolationism (Wittkopf & Jones, 2008, p. 31). However, soon following the Washington administration, despite the isolationist approach to geopolitics the Administrations following President Washington, the geopolitics was focused towards a regional perspective of Expansionism in obtaining or expanding the territories within the new nation beyond the united 13 colonies (Healy, 1970, pp. 22-23). In observing the United States geopolitics from its independence to 1898, the United States beyond the 13 colonies that united in the east, majority of the west, Midwest, and the south were colonies of major European powers (Healy, 1970, p. 22). Elaborating further the Midwest expanding from Louisiana to Montana was occupied by French, Florida, and majority of the south by the Spanish, while Alaska and Oregon territories were occupied by Russia and Great Britain (Wittkopf & Jones, 2008, p. 32). Thus, made the strategic location of the United States vulnerable for re occupation by a major power, therefore the administrations following Washington leading to 1867 placed a large emphasis on taking these territories under the United States, annexing them while keeping the growing powers of Europe at bay (Bruce, 1909). In 1823, during the Monroe administration the growing interest by the European powers in South America as well as various independence movements in South America, imposed President Monroe to declare the Monroe doctrine designed according to Paul Viotti (2005), “ Block European powers from intervening in hemispheric affairs” (Viotti, American foreign policy and national security:, 2005, p. 153).
~ 33 ~
Furthermore, by 1863, despite United States, having dominance as an independent continental nation, consisting of states spanning from the east to the west and equally from north to the south, differentiating Political ideologies over the question of slavery had split the nation in two by means of a union and a confederation (Foner, 1990, pp. 59-75). This dispute over slavery despite being masked through other essential needs since Pennsylvania convention, re surfaced and was becoming a popular discussion in 1858, according to President Lincoln (2001), “ A house divided against itself cannot stand, I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free’ (Lincoln, 2001, p. 372). The above speech being the character of the Lincoln administration from 1861 to 1865, despite all efforts taken in avoiding a conflict between the North and the South, The American Civil war erupted in 1861 (Tindall & Shi, 1992, pp. 632-692). The civil war by nature being a war between two regions of the United States, the manner in which it ended as evident through President Lincoln’s Gettysburg address solidified the US stand on being a nation consisting of sates, which are all united through its core. President Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg address According to Viotti (2005), “This nation under God, shall have a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth” (Viotti, American foreign policy and national security:, 2005, p. 156). The civil war, which ended in 1851, marked the end to the United States, regional Expansionism, and global Isolationism, approaching a new phase in US geopolitical perspectives in imperialism by annexing Hawaii in January 17 1893, and then annexing the land obtained through the Spanish wars in 1898 (Tindall & Shi, 1992). The first of the actions taken in breaking the isolation as encouraged by the earlier administrations, during the McKinley administration 1898-1901, the United States in an attempt to secure its interest in East Asia, and
~ 34 ~
the pacific introduces the open door policy (Viotti, American foreign policy and national security:, 2005, p. 156). The open door policy introduced by Secretary of State’s John Hay on September 6 1899, places the United States in par with the European Powers in allowing multiple powers to conduct trade with China while restricting any power to control China. According to Ge-Zay Wood (1921), “The Open Door policy is an injunction so to speak against any sharp and discriminatory practice by any of the foreign Powers in China who might close the field of trade and commerce in her own spheres to her own nationals to the exclusion of those of the other Powers” (Wood, 1921, p. 142). Additionally reaching to the next presidency in 1902, during the Roosevelt administration when the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy, placed a naval blockade of Venezuela due to Venezuela failing to pay its debts, the United States observing the event as a breach of Monroe doctoring, got involved as a mediator (Viotti, American foreign policy and national security:, 2005, p. 157). This action of becoming a global peace mediator or the world police beyond the Monroe doctrine was justified by President Roosevelt by observing it as the duty of the United States. According to Richard D. Heffner (2005), “Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation. And in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power” (Heffner, 2002, p. 259). However, with the United through its alliances as predicted by President Washington being compelled through nature of our relationships, which were earlier, based on trade interest and self-preservation to be involved with World War I during 1914 the Wilson administration
~ 35 ~
hesitant in being involved with a large capacity war declared neutrality. According to President Woodrow Wilson (1914), “The people of the United States are drawn from many nations chiefly from the nations now at war. It is natural and that there should be the utmost variety of sympathy and desire them with regard to the issues and circumstances of the conflict. Some will wish one nation others another to succeed in the momentous struggle It will be easy to excite passion and difficult allay” (Wilson, 1914, pp. 3-4). Yet, in May 1915, when the Lusitania a British liner was sunk by German U-Boats taking 128 American lives the United states under the Wilson administration attempted to pursuit by means of diplomacy in convincing the German administration to stop the U-boat activity, but with Germany having a blind eye to the event. The United States declared war in 1917, entering into the World War I (Folly & Palmer, 2010, pp. 220-221). Nonetheless, with the World War I ending, the United States in re-entering its isolationist stand towards global conflicts, declared the Kellog-Braiand Pact outlawing war on August 7 1928. Based on this pact the United States and the European powers of the time agreed on withdrawing from power, and balance of power alliances as the “triple alliance and triple entente” in uniting through an international law prohibiting use of force as means of settling differences between nations (Viotti, American foreign policy and national security:, 2005, p. 169). The last of the global events, which occurred prior to the World War II, known as the “Appeasement” or the Munich pact signed during the Munich conference in 1938, by German chancellor Adolf Hitler and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin in securing the threat of German expansion of the east the United States maintained in isolated stand (Adams, 1994, pp. 113-120). Yet with the failures of the Munich pact where by the inevitable did occur with Chancellor Adolf Hitler breaking the pact, and extending his mechanized forces to the east extending the German
~ 36 ~
territory leading to the World War II. The United States foreign policy slanted strong on the “lessons” learned from the Munich pact where the United States will not engage in appeasing dictators, as through Munich pact it was proven such appeasements will only further encourage such leadership (Viotti, American foreign policy and national security:, 2005, p. 171). Thus, in conclusion, observing the evolution of United States geopolitical perspective prior to World War II it can be stated that the United States in protecting its interests, and staying clear off the powers occupying the land beyond the united colonies maintained an Isolationists stand. However, leading to the latter part of the 18th century, the US, while maintaining a Isolationists stand regards to taking sides in European politics, began a phase of regional expansionism through diplomatic perchance of territories as the Louisiana, and Gadsden while also acquiring other territories through internal wars with the Spanish and the British who occupied them. Then reaching the early 1900 from 1904, the United States faced the Imperialist phase where by the US began extensive involvement with the Global politics, and European powers leading to World War II.
~ 37 ~
The Dual perceptions of neo-Kantian and neo-Hobbesian Schools of thoughts The schools of Neo-Kantian and Neo-Hobbesian, which influenced the left and the right wings of the United States Poli-socioeconomic infrastructure are based on the ideologies of two great philosophers Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) (Bennendijk & Kugler, 2007, p. 6). The theories, which these two scholars advocated, share many similarities, as they both were modernist and sought to instill through their vision more practical approaches in organizing governments and societies beyond the Utopian visions shared by the Greeks and another scholar of the time Sir. Thomas More (Bennendijk & Kugler, 2007, p. 6). However, they themselves and in turn their much influenced schools, had different approaches in their political philosophies. The Kantian schools taking a more liberal stand on politics the Hobbesian school took the realist stand. According to Alekseĭ Voskresenskiĭ (2002), “ Within the liberal tradition, international relations are seen from the Kantian angle of peace being the normal stand….The realist tradition adheres to conflicting Hobbesian Character of the world where concerns for power and security are the most important and co-operation is difficult if not impossible” (Voskresenskiĭ, 2002, p. 32). Grounded in the summarized analysis of the schools by Voskresenskiĭ, the neo-Kantian and neo-Hobbesian perceptions of the post-Cold War world era can be observed in many shades. Thus in approaching above stated differentiating perceptions of power and security through the events of the 90’s president Clinton’s stand on the Rwandan Genocide, play a key role and was much influenced by the Neo-Kantian school. In April 1994 due to ongoing conflicts between the major ethnic groups of Rwanda, the Hutu and the Tutsi led to a mass genocide (Cohen, 2007, pp. 17-39). The U.S. despite having all the information about the ongoing genocide decided in not getting involved because of the 1993 Mogadishu Affair (Totten, Bertrop, & Iarkusen, 2008, ~ 38 ~
pp. 381-382). Same time, another differentiating factor between these two are that the realist (conservatives) observe military power in the international relations as an essential element despite developments in nuclear weapons and the economic interdependency between the nations whereas the Liberals observe the opposite (Voskresenskiĭ, 2002, p. 33). Good example for this is the current debate on president Obama’s new military strategy, which involved large cuts in military spending which again can be observed as Neo-Kantian influence (Weisgerber, 2013, p. n.p). Additionally, the realist, conservatives, or the Neo-Hobbesian followers as scrutinized by Voskresenskiĭ “change is the adaptation to the changing power in the system; for the liberals” for the Neo-Kantians “Change includes both a domestic political change (to a lesser extent) and changes in preference” (Voskresenskiĭ, 2002, p. 33). This perception can be observed through the events, which followed the President G.W. Bush administration, foremost being the rapid progress in “war on terror”, which resulted due to the Sept 11 2001 attacks on the United States (Tiefer, 2004). Immediately reacting to the 9/11 president in changing to “changing power in the system” began a counter offensive against Iraq and Afghanistan, same time in support of this he morphed the nation to adopt to the security concerns over seas by changing the domestic policies of security under the Patriotic Act of 2001 (Smith, 2010, pp. 23-56). Thus, in conclusion the two views of Kant and Hobbes that began the school of NeoHobbesian and Neo-Kantian through their followers becoming prominent leaders as the presidents of the United States has effected nation not only in the inland poli-socioeconomics but also influence in depth our foreign policy and national security (Bennendijk & Kugler, 2007, p. 7).
~ 39 ~
The different types of strategies utilized by a state to pursue its interests In observing the types of strategies based on the assigned text, in persuading the nations interest it can utilize three strategies, these strategies are Global, Regional and functional strategies (Kugler, 2006, p. 65). Of these strategies, global strategies address the methods in which the United States national security issues in a worldwide basis (Kugler, 2006, p. 65). Good example is the US Asia-Pacific strategy of, the Obama administration in keeping the growing power of china on check, as well as maintaining the US dominion in the region the US has deployed of the major foreign strategies under the name of “Rebalancing Strategy.” Based on this strategy according to Ni Feng (2013), “First, the United States has unprecedentedly given top priority to Asia in its global strategy. Second, the strategy has been carried out in political, diplomatic, economic, and military fields at the same time. Third, the United States has not only fully tapped existing resources in the region, but also made efforts to enlarge the increment of resources. Fourth, it has made full use the so-called smart power given its limited capabilities.” (Feng, 2013, p. n.p). The regional strategies utilizing the foundation laid by the global strategies addresses the stand in which United States observe the goals and policies pertaining to a selected region of the world (Kugler, 2006, p. 65). Good example of this is the recently failed U.S. regional strategy of utilizing Algeria, in coordinating an international military campaign against the Al-Qaeda in North Africa starting with Mali (Whitlock, 2013, p. n.p). Algeria having the strongest army in the North African Region, U.S., European, and African leader were considering utilizing Algeria in coordinating a military campaign against the North African Al-Qaeda (Whitlock, 2013, p. n.p) . However, due to the manner in which Algeria handled the hostage situation in the international gas complex in the Sahara unilaterally, the US and the other nations are reconsidering their strategy (Faiola, 2013, p. n.p). ~ 40 ~
The functional strategies address a very fine line on how the United States should act in relations to both the global and regional strategies where any array vital issues as interdependencies, alliance affairs, arms controls, and economic aid are in need of serious consideration (Kugler, 2006, p. 65). The nature of functional strategies as described by its definition include addressing issues as interdependencies, alliance affairs, arms controls, and economic aid the stated essential segments are engulfed in the global and regional strategies thus functional strategies overlap the first two strategies of global and regional. A good example of such functional strategy is the Battle of Mogadishu also known as Black Hawk Down. The battle fought on October 3, 4th 1993 was the result of United States 1st SFOD-D or the Delta Force, and the 160th special operations aviation regiment attempting to kidnap two of the self proclaimed to be president of Somalia Aideed’s lieutenants during one of their meetings (Sharps, 2010, pp. 183-184). Despite the initial operation, being a success during the evacuation the operation became to known as one of the largest blunders in the history of military operations. As result of the retaliating Somali troops, the helicopters were shot down same time the soldiers were captured tortured and dragged down the streets of Baraka market (Sharps, 2010, pp. 184-185). Furthermore due to the nature of the operation this event became a high profile international incident, which required the united states under the Clinton administration to re-act fast in putting down the fires of international politics (Meštrović, 2008, pp. 80-84).
~ 41 ~
The challenges facing the analysis of strategies In addressing the challenges of the strategy analysis, it is safe to indicate, that the fundamental tasks of strategy analysis and Analysis individual policies runs parallel. The fundamental tasks resembling both methods according to Kugler (2006), is to “assess the situation and to compare alternative options on the basis of effectiveness, costs, and performance-related considerations” (Kugler, 2006, p. 72). However, in analyzing strategies one must design specific individual and complimenting policies that in turn could satisfy multiple goals while accomplishing a common purpose. Furthermore, additional factors like the constant changes in geopolitics in comparison to the Cold War era, demands complexity in the means by which a nation address the situations. During the cold war, the threat and the enemy stayed the same; the enemy was well known and the strategy, which the US would respond, was well adopted. The cold war enemy was the growth of communism and in addressing it prominent theories as the “Domino theory” where the United Stated believed if Vietnam came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries in the region would follow its course, underpinned majority of our strategies (Watson, 2002, pp. 162-163). However, in reaching the modern epoch with the changes in the world’s polisocioeconomics an array of multifarious interests and threats has presented itself. Elaborating further, the Sri Lankan civil war between the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam is dissimilar in comparison to the Nepalese Maoist, or the goals of the Al-Qaida operations (Skar, 2007, pp. 375383). Same time the region of interest has again shifted from the Middle East to the central Asia Thus addressing this according to Anthony H. Cordesman (2013), “The US must shift away from a focus on terrorism per se to the much broader mix of threats posed by Islamic extremism and the struggles within the Islamic world. These no longer are driven by Al Qa’ida central, or by ~ 42 ~
terrorism. They involve civil conflicts, insurgencies, symmetric warfare, and uncertain mixes of state and non-state actors” (Cordesman, 2013, p. n.p). Hence, in observing the current situations at hand and in delivering policies, which address multiple goals etc, the analysis of strategy is more demanding than individual policy analysis and requires more creativity, originality, and conceptual rigor than the cold war eras (Kugler, 2006, p. 73). Figure 1: World's big risk from Deutsche Bank's Outlook 2013 presentation
Source: the Author obtained the image from the website “http://www.businessinsider.com/map-2013geopolitical-hot-spots-in-2013-2013-1#ixzz3e0kTub8I on September 2014
~ 43 ~
The "quantity-quality trade-off” and its impacts Addressing the Quantity - Quality tradeoff, paralleling the empirical arguments presented in other vital areas as healthcare, and education, the impacts of Quantity - Quality through the context of the debate in the United States military lay foremost. However, despite utilization of high quality equipments and services over utilizing large quantities of the same items in lesser equality being a welcomed notion in addressing the Military where assortment of paradigms are observed much deliberation is necessary. According to (1992), “ Cuts in funding for defense, research, development, production, and maintenance could impair the ability of the base (Defense Technology and Industrial base (DITB)) to meet future national security needs unless the cuts are accompanied by changes in how the base is structured” (U.S.Congress, 1992, p. 3). Thus in observing this from Poli-social stand the need to maintain a strong military linking military with the politics parallels a nation’s desire in their endeavors to sustain themselves through economy, utilization of natural and human resources, and their expansionist interests. According to Robert E. Lucas (2004), “Virtually everything we think of as civilization has been sustained by land’s share in production, and most of political and military history is the history of conflicts over how this share shall be disposed” (Lucas, 2004, p. 170). Hence, observing trough the U.S. military budget from by outlays of function and sub function the national defense spending from 1963, through the United States budget for 2013, analyzing outlays by function and sub function for defense from the beginning on the Johnson administration during the cold war to date. The military expenditure has increased from US$ 105,745 to US$ 3, 47,327 million following the Iraq war leading to the war on terror (Government, 2013, pp. 53-103). The total cold war defense spending from 1963 to 1989 ending with the Reagan Administration, for the 28 years of the conflict a total of US$ 4,048,734 Million was utilized in the war efforts, in comparison, the wars that preceded from Gulf War I during the ~ 44 ~
H.W. Bush administration, to the War on Terror during the George. W. Bush administration leading to the Obama Administration approximately US$ 10,569,441 million has been dispersed (Government, 2013, pp. 53-103). Therefore as evident through the statistics past year conflicts following the Cold War, the need to re asses our military financial policy is of the essence. In following the data of the fiscal years from the United States budget analyzing outlays by function and sub function for defense, it is safe to state that the evolution of the U.S. military corresponds to the politics, of each epoch while the underpinning of quantity-quality trade-off rely heavily the United States Polisocioeconomic infrastructure paralleling the era. According to Adrian R. Lewis (2007), “The most significant transformation in the American conduct of war since World War II and the invention of the atomic bomb, was not technological, but cultural, social, and political.” (Lewis, 2007, p. 63). In explaining further during the cold war era following the Vietnam War in preparing for a counter strike by the Soviet Union the United States armed forces consisted of cluster containing 0.5% of U.S. households “a professional fighting force with its own unique system and set of values, ethics, and beliefs” (Lewis, 2007, p. 63). Nevertheless, with the fall of the Soviet Union the army and the air force was “nearly out of work” the counter strike that the United States had prepared for never took place. Thus, the services rendered by the military, which at the time proved an indispensable resource was observed as, obsolete and the need to address the Quantity vs. Quality surfaced leading to post 9/11 the war on terror (Lewis, 2007, p. 63). The ground reason for the debate was also due to the global technological advancements which in turned influenced cultural, social, and political, circles and presented a new threat. In comparison to post World War II leading to the cold war and the eras having widespread and easy access to personal computers, communication devices,
~ 45 ~
and the internet immediately following the cold war had increased rapidly alongside a new form of war strategy (Branscomb, Brooks, Carter, & Epstein, 1992). Additionally, the current era, being a more global economy and the technology being a global entity around the world, the need for re accessing our defense strategies and policies in meeting our threats following the gulf war has became more crucial. According to Michael Vatis (2003), “Given the global nature of the internet, it is not surprising that computer crime is also global, with attacks crossing national lines with increasing frequency. Operational efforts to prevent the respond the computer attacks must therefore also be global “ (Vatis, 2003, p. 1). Yet, in taking to consider a broad-spectrum of the debate in choosing either quality or quantity, will have still a vast economic impact. According to Richard L Kugler (2006), “Irrespective of the size of the defense budget, both force expansion and force contraction would affect the amount of money available for modernization to enhance force quality” (Kugler, 2006, p. 281.).
As a result, the question of quantity-quality trade-off needs to assess carefully,
according to Richard Kugler (2006), “Despite totaling nearly 1.4 million active troops, U.S. Military is not amply large when judged to its global requirements; if anything it is stretch thin (Kugler, 2006, p. 280).” Although, despite the fact that our military being “stretched thin” if the focus supplemented in creating more numerical increment in human capital and equipment in supporting our war efforts, utilizing our present economic stand, it will be done so at the expense of “ Procurement and Modernization” (Kugler, 2006, p. 284). Same time by cutting down the numerical increment in human capital and equipment in reaching modernization rapidly can also be adverse in addressing U.S. interest globally.
~ 46 ~
According to Kugler (2006), “A faster modernization brought about by a 25 percent increase in procurement budgets might increase the overall quality of U.S. weapons by about 3 present annually” (Kugler, 2006, p. 283). Same time the 25 percent increment utilized in obtaining a yearly 3 present increment in the quality, will damage the current status of the active army already engaged in protecting U.S. interests globally. The reason being despite the procurement budget increment secured in cutting down quantity, US $45 billion of the secured amount According to Kugler (2006), “Must be spent on such common items as trucks, war reserve ammunition, and replacement items” (Kugler, 2006, p. 283). This leaves a limited amount of funding for obtaining compulsory equipment as aircrafts, ships, and other weapons to the U.S. military already active. According to Kugler (2006), “With fewer aircrafts, ships, and other weapons arriving in the inventory the qualitative improvement of the U.S. Forces could slow aromatically” (Kugler, 2006, p. 283). The debate taken to present impacts on the military with President Obama’s military spending cuts, according to David Wood (2013), “The budget cuts have forced Sikes and other commanders to cut training missions from six hours back to four. Six hours was barely enough time to get a B-52 airborne, practice offensive and defensive maneuvers, get to a bomb range, practice the complex procedures of precision bombing, meet up with a tanker to refuel, and return home four-hour max means less training” (Wood, 2013, p. n.p). Additionally Lt. Gen. James M. Kowalski commander of Global Strike Command, according to David Wood (2013), “with shrinking training opportunities, aging weapons systems and furloughed employees, "We are going to be in uncharted territory…..It's not clear to me what kind of morale issues we're going to have long-term (Wood, 2013, p. n.p)."
~ 47 ~
Additionally Gen. James Amos according to (2013), “By the end of 2013, less than half of the Marine Corps' ground units will be trained to the minimum readiness level required for deployment” (Lardner, 2013, p. n.p). Gen. Martin Dempsey according to Richard Lardner (2013), “military readiness is in jeopardy due to the convergence of unprecedented budget factors." If the situation is not fixed, he said, the armed forces "will have much less of everything and therefore be able to provide fewer options to our nation's leaders (Lardner, 2013, p. n.p)." Thus in conclusion quantity-quality trade-off shares pro’s and con’s from either of the sides taken into consideration, if quality is chosen, with the existing multiple engagements the U.S. Military has embarked in could pose a danger in the military sector, while choosing quantity could pose a danger to the growth in face of the future. According to F.P. Hoeber (1981), “Suppose the exchange ratio is favorable to us, by say, two-to one, but the other side has more aircraft, by four-to-one. Clearly, our side will have to break off the battle, or lose, because in time continued successful engagements will lead to zero planes on our side and one-half enemy force surviving” (Hoeber, 1981, p. 9). Thus in finding a solution to the debate requires better analysis of finding medium with equal compromises from both sides, to which Kugler suggests transforming the military through the utilization of good systems analyses in balancing the requirements of technology (quality) and quantity. According to Kugler (2006), “The future U.S. Military posture should not reflect one single design standard for high tech warfare, but instead will need to provide a portfolio of diverse assets for multiple purposes covering a wide spectrum of missions. Systems analysis can help contribute to transform by addressing how to balance requirements in there important areas” (Kugler, 2006, p. 293).
~ 48 ~
The contributions of Systems analysis in Defense transformation The continuation of the debate of “quantity-quality trade-off” in United States military has enforced in assessing options, which will present medium between quality and the quantity, as giving away to one as elaborated above strain the other, hence observing R.L Kugler, in his literature present Systems Analysis as a potential solution in finding the medium (Kugler, 2006, p. 293). The common notion of the old war era being United States having to maintain a lesser military than during the cold war has been challenged with the post cold war Eurasian and Middle Eastern conflicts, that proceeded the cold war. According to Cypher (1991), “ Contrary to the widespread anticipation that the end of the cold war would bring a reduction in overall military expenditure, events in the middle east since August 1990 have demonstrated that there will be no appreciable reduction in the military budget under present and foreseeable circumstances” (Cypher, 1991, p. 607). Furthermore, changes in the global economics and the shifts in the super power paradigm following the cold war, the United States military strategists, and policy makers had to focus on five essential avenues. First being the comparative loss of U.S. Economic power following to Cold War to the rising Japanese economy (Cypher, 1991, p. 607). The second being the “thaw” in post cold war social and politics from the soviet perspective, which forced the US to readdress the Nuclear and conventional forces in Europe (Cypher, 1991, p. 607). The third being an internal factor, the “dual deficits” Federal Budget deficit and the deficit in the balance pay-offs forced policy makers to reconsider changes in taxation and spending priorities (Cypher, 1991, p. 607). The fourth being the U.S. deindustrialization that uprooted the questions of international competitiveness and the viability of the defense industrial base specifically in high tech ~ 49 ~
industries (Cypher, 1991, pp. 607-608). The last avenue presented as post Cold War emphasis on the military control of the Third World in ensuring U.S. economic stability and national security (Cypher, 1991, p. 608). Therefore, in face of the future, protecting the United States interests globally following the cold war and the post 9/11, much military analysis has argued that a larger emphasis must be maintained in addressing conflicts pertaining to modern high tech militaries of the Third World than the quantitative arguments of the Cold War Era. According to Jonathan Kirshner (1998), “In order to fight wars, states may need to con concerned with their industrial capacity, steel production, access to energy (especially Oil), technological capability and other factors required to support a modern defense establishment” (Kirshner, 1998, p. 66). Furthermore, elaborating through history, the military expenditure paralleling the conflicts the U.S. engaged in, the U.S. military expenditures in history can be explained in four phases. The Military “Keynesianism” expanding from 1947-1978, where the government utilized the outlaid conflicts as means of developing the economy, according to (1991), “Arms spending was used to combat cyclical tendencies in the macro-economy while providing boost to the production process through product and process that were underwritten by arms buildup” (Cypher, 1991, p. 609). Valid examples for this can be states as the President Truman utilizing the Korean War in support of the United States economy in 1952 (Crimmins, 2005, pp. 235-249) . Same time between years 1978-1988 a notable redistributive Militarism was observed, where unlike the Keynesian approach it focused on transferring the arms spending from those in the bottom 80 percentile to the 20 percentile extending military procurement in large scale, which resulted in a larger defecate than 1845-1978 (Cypher, 1991, pp. 609-610). In reaching the modern phase following the cold war from 1988- present the military, spending took the global
~ 50 ~
militarism approach, with the intention of “sustaining quick third world interventions (Cypher, 1991, p. 610).” Figure 2: Afghanistan Stability/Coin Dynamics
Source: the Author obtained the image from the systems analysis website “ http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/analysis_links.htmlI on September 2014
Consequently, in observing the modern trend of global militarism reveals the debate of quantity-quality trade-off, and systems analysis in the pursuit of defense transformation, according to Kugler (2006), “Transformation is meant to prepare the U.S. Forces for the information age” (Kugler, 2006, p. 288). Additionally, according to Lehto and Kuokkanen (2007), DOD defines transformation as “ a process that shapes the changing nature of military competition and cooperation through new concepts, capabilities, people, and organizations that
~ 51 ~
exploit our nation's advantages and protect against our asymmetric vulnerabilities to sustain our strategic position, which helps underpin peace and stability in the world” (Lehto & Kuokkanen, 2007, p. 164). Thus, in standing with the definition by the department of defense, Kugler address the theory of transformation as “a process of pursuing major changes to the U.S. Military forces to elevate their future combat capabilities for the information age” done so in closely taking to consideration the time constrains in bettering the services (Kugler, 2006, p. 288). Furthermore he emphasize that transformation will address the both spheres of the quantity-quality trade-off by engulfing supply and demand sides to the equations (Kugler, 2006, p. 289). What is more, observing the definition as described by Kugler and the department of defense, it addresses three vital segments “Process, Change, and Capability” which in their executions christens System Analysis (SA). The term system analysis derives from the Greek word " ἀνάλυσις” (analusis) meaning, “Dissolving” hence through its etymological roots imply that analysis is the fundamental process of disassembling something into its component parts (Bock, 2001, p. 182). The utilization of systems analysis therefore will assist the United States military transformation by means of “disassembling” its various sections scrutinizing them in best meeting the United States military needs in face of the 21st century. Moreover, according to Kugler (2006), “systems analysis can help transformation succeed by contributing to the task of developing sound strategy, concepts, and ideas (Kugler, 2006, p. 290)”. In addition, elaborating these components, by means of assisting sound strategy through the process of systems analysis, system analysis as explained Kugler could assist in debunking unwise ideas and puncturing the inflated ideologies of whose political or military agendas lead them stray (Kugler, 2006, p. 290). Same time systems analysis can further establish
~ 52 ~
its traditional role in help assist in bringing fiscal discipline and sense of cost-effectiveness, in support of the strategy. According to Davis, Kulick and Egner (2005), “Systems analysis emphasized the importance of the following...taking a “system perspective”, decomposing the system into parts that can be studies separtly, construting a rich set of alternatives, some that go against the grain of conventional wisdom, while developing rigorous cost estimates and assisting choice, based on explicit criteria.” (Davis, Kulick, & Egner, 2005, p. 30) Thus, in conclusion System Analysis present itself as a platform which encourage, innovation of new ideologies, technologies and strategies seeking answers to the prolonged question of how much and how good, while considering the problem at hand with a realistic approach. In observing the United States Military expenditure, the future trends of our counterinsurgencies alongside impacts of these in our poli-socioeconomic infrastructure it is evident that the United States military is in desperate need of a transformation. However, observing a transformation, encompass an assortment of challenges, Systems Analysis will assist in lessening the negative impacts of it while uprooting the future growth in our Military. According to Davis, Kulick and Egner (2005), “Systems analysis calls upon a game theory, decision analysis, simple modeling, simulation, and other tools, it addresses uncertainty, explicitly, including uncertainty about planning factors, the enemy, and the strategic context” (Davis, Kulick, & Egner, 2005, pp. 30-31).
~ 53 ~
Impacts of Nature in expanding Foreign policy The video, which I chose in analyzing, is “The National Security Implications of Climate Change” address by Vice Admiral Lee Gunn. In observing Vice Admiral Gunn’s observations and the findings by Center for Naval Analysis (CNA), the climate, and national security share a symbiotic relationship (Gunn, 2010, pp. 3-4). Admiral Gunn, in his speech indicates that based on the finding by CNA that changes in earth’s climate as a “Threat Multiplier” in some of the unstable regions of the world. Additionally he specified that the changes in our environment could possibly threaten regions what we called as safe and force changes to why the United States fights, gives aid, support governments, provide direct assistance, and anticipates natural and manmade disasters (Gunn, 2010, pp. 4-6). Furthermore Admiral Gunn, states based on the World Health Organization (WHO), that “water scarcity affects one in three on every continent of the globe” and that due to effects of climate changes as droughts, decreased rainfall in turn creating a food scarcity will bring the worst in people and their governments all over the world. According to L. Gunn (2010), “The stress of changes in the environment – from disruptions in agriculture to the spread of tropical diseases like malaria – will weaken already-marginal states. Failing states will incubate extremism. (Gunn, 2010, p. 6)” What’s more Gunn indicates that the climates changes will also influence the means and methods which we operate our forces around world. According to Gunn (2010), “Sea level rise threatens large investments in U.S. facilities everywhere. Desertification and shifts in the availability of water can change logistic patterns drastically for all our forces. Melting permafrost poses special challenges for mobility and maneuvering of ground forces. (Gunn, 2010, p. 7)” Additionally being a current topic of national security the migration of illegal aliens and its impact on the US homeland, Vice Admiral Gunn in his statement indicates that rapid and ~ 54 ~
large emigration concerns can also be triggered due to impacts of climate. According to Gunn (2010), “Mass migration is not unprecedented in the history of our species; it has happened before in the face of changing climates. But it is unprecedented since the advent of permanent borders and the rise of the nation state; it is unprecedented in a world populated by more than six billion souls (Gunn, 2010, p. 9)”. Thus he conclude by indicating that climate change is going to cost us and it should cost us and not our future generations, and that we should start in the present on utilizing means by which we can avoid future grief (Gunn, 2010, p. 10). “Observing the address by Vice Admiral Gunn, the Sri Lankan civil war and the impacts, which the 2004 Sri Lankan Tsunami presented in finding an early resolution to ending the Elam war shares nine years ahead are a good example of relations between climate and national security. The P-TOMS (Post Tsunami Operational Management Structure) was a program implemented by the Sri Lankan government under the leadership of few presidential advisors including the senior advisor Dr. Y. Ranjith Amarasinghe. Based on this proposed project the post Tsunami development of the L.T.T.E controlled areas will be handed to the L.T.T.E. in rekindling the lost trust and friendship between the conflicting forces (Staff, 2013, p. n.p). During an interview, on P-TOMS and its impact according to late professor Figure 3: Prof. Y. Ranjith Amarasinghe – Nature and Policy PTOMS
emeritus Dr. Y. Ranjith Amarasinghe (2005), “It serves as an example as to why we could not afford to miss this
opportunity considering the national question. Here we have a scenario where the Sinhalese and
~ 55 ~
Tamils are working in brotherhood.… May be this will open the door. This is the first step (Amarasinghe, 2005, p. n.p). However, despite the vast commitment by the Sri Lankan President Chandrika Kumaratunga, and some fractions of the Sri Lanka government headed by the JVP ( Sri Lankan Marxist party), the P-TOMS was soon dissolved. The Sri Lankan government and the L.T.T.E continued their fighting again until 2009 when the LTTE was militaristically defeated adding more casualties to the conflict (Staff, 2013, p. n.p).
~ 56 ~
The Youngstown Co. Vs Sawyer The Youngstown Co. Vs Sawyer which was presented to the United States supreme court, in 1952, and resulted in limiting the power of the United states president to seizer private property. This famous case addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court is also known as the Steel Seizure case of 1952 (Marcus, 1994, p. ix). In June 25 1950 due to elongated turmoil between the North and South Korea, the Republic of Korean (ROK) armed forced crossed the border to South Korea advancing rapidly in occupying the nation (Stueck, 1995, pp. 10-11). Neither the South Koreans nor its supporter the United States anticipated rapidity or the manner in which it unfolded, According to W. Stueck (1995), “by midnight on 27 June Seoul’s defenses neared collapse” (Stueck, 1995, p. 11). Furthermore, the rapid advancing North Korean forces not only had three to one numerical advantage with artillery, but also outgunned and outmanned the South Koreans in great differences; in deploying, a counteroffensive South Korea had either tanks or a proper Air force (Stueck, 1995, p. 11).
Thus, the burden of supporting the South Korea, and its counter
offensive fell in to the hands of the United States, where Gen. Douglas MacArthur now stationed in Japan took lead by shipping arms and ammunition from Japan. This was soon followed by President Truman ordering the U.S. air and naval forces to assist in the evacuating and protecting American nationals, which made the American involvement official (Stueck, 1995, pp. 11-12). However, despite the event in South Korea, the United States was overcoming economically and politically the affects of the World War II. Moreover, in 1945 following the East German occupation by the U.S.S.R the U.S. became apprehensive about the fast growing power of the U.S.S.R. The manner in which the ROK began the occupation and the fact that North Koreans being were being supported by Russia further emphasized to President Truman ~ 57 ~
the need to better arm the nation in support of the U.S. Regional Policy in Korea (Lantis, 2013, pp. 39-47). The much need support for arming the nation in support of South Korea depended heavily on the United States and its steel production. However, as impacts of the prior World War II, and the early stages of the Korean War between the latter parts of 1951, leading to 1952, the Capitol Hill was faced with a major budget, and raw material crisis. Making things, worst strategies as the Caphart amendment, which authorized price increases to compensate businesses for all additional costs incurred between June 1950 and July 26, 1951, contributed further in degrading the situation (Pierpaoli, 1999, pp. 129-130). The steel workers had requested wage raises since the end of World War II, this being a prolonged concern despite the blooming wartime job market by 1952, the labor force of the US led by unions began to take the streets (Marcus, 1994, p. 18). According to Paul Pierpaoli (1999), “By 1952, a total of 3.5 million workers walked the picket lines. It was clear that the administration had now lost much of organized labor’s support in addition to that of most business leaders (Pierpaoli, 1999, pp. 142-143).” The Truman administration observing this issue tried in many ways to meet the steel workers in the middle. the wage stabilization board (WSB) presented a package, which would offer the steel workers According to Pierpaoli (1999), “higher pay (twenty cents per hour), increased fringe benefits, and a guaranteed union shop for the steelworkers” (Pierpaoli, 1999, p. 165). However, the steel workers refused the package by claiming, “That they would drive up the price for steel by twelve dollars per ton” and demanded their claim (Pierpaoli, 1999, p. 165). The Truman administration in many ways crippled in responding these demands in attending to the crisis, they have few options. One was to put into action the Defense Production Act of 1950, Title II where it grants, “The president to requisite property or the use thereof,
~ 58 ~
whatever he determined is needed for the nation defense.” (Marcus, 1994, p. 70). However, it did not include orders placed by armed forces and Atomic Energy Commission and would have also failed in meeting the needs of the steel crisis on time (Marcus, 1994, pp. 5-6). The Other option was the Taft Hartley Act of 1947 sponsored by Senator Taft, which restrict the activities and powers of the labor unions, thus preventing the unions from striking, but it did not appeal to President Truman (Marcus, 2004, pp. 70-71). Thus without having much options in stabilizing country’s economy by utilizing the war, as well as supporting the Korean War efforts without having to pay the demanded steel price increments, President Truman decided on seizing steel production plants (Marcus, 1994, pp. 910). According to Paul Viotti (2005), “ President Harry Truman justified federal seizure of the steel mills nationalizing them as essential to sustaining production deemed necessary for national security” (Viotti, American Foreign Policy and National Security A Documantary Record, 2005, p. 93). Thus on the eve of April 8 1952 president Truman appeared on TV and announced that he was seizing the nation’s major steel mills effective midnight (Pierpaoli, 1999, p. 168). However, the action by President Truman despite done with the best interest of the nation and its future, the means by which he executed the action began a chain of resentments and the loss of his close supporters. Soon following the announcement steel executives, business organizations, newspapers and magazines observed this as an act by a dictator (Pierpaoli, 1999, p. 169). Additionally, the steel industry invoking the constitution and the initial hearing brought the United State Supreme court into the muddle, and ruled against the president’s action stating, According to Kommers (1952), “The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review
~ 59 ~
would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand the judgment of the District Court is affirmed (Kommers, 1952, p. 134).” Thus, drawing parallels to the above situation, the present “Transparency Debate” shares much resemblance. The “Transparency Debate,” originates on the argument of the alleged Obama administration’s attacks on civilians by Drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan and the administrations secrecy in the matter at hand. According to David Ingram (2013), “The Obama administration defends the attacks as essential to the fight against al Qaeda and other militants in countries such as Pakistan and Yemen. The strikes have at times killed civilians who were not targets, ignited local anger and frayed diplomatic ties (Ingram, 2013, p. n.p).” According to the Kwame Holman (2013), “more than 420 targeted strikes in the last eight years which killed between 2,426 and 3,969 people, overwhelmingly militants, as well as up to 368 civilians” (Holman, 2013, p. n.p). The sparks of the event that has become a battle between democrats unfolded when a Democratic senator confronted the president on March 12, regarding the drone program and when Judge Merrick Garland addressing the issue for himself and two other judges on the court of appeals condemned the CIA for refusing to recognize the existence of the programs. (Ingram, 2013, p. n.p) Furthermore, observing the event judge Garland stated According to David Ingram (2013), “There comes a point where... courts should not be ignorant as judges of what (they) know as men' and women," Garland wrote, quoting a 1949 Supreme Court opinion.” “We are at that point with respect to the question of whether the CIA has any documents regarding the subject of drone strikes (Ingram, 2013, p. n.p)”. Furthermore, in elaborating the gravity of the action by president Obama According to David Ingram (2013), “Podesta (John Podesta), a Democratic insider who oversaw Obama's 2008 transition, wrote in
~ 60 ~
The Washington Post on Wednesday that Obama "is ignoring the system of checks and balances that has governed our country from its earliest days (Ingram, 2013, p. n.p)." Thus, in conclusion the linkage between President Truman’s stand during the Korean War and the steel strike, and the Obama administrations’ attempt on the drone strikes as part of the “war on terror” is again the methods, which they implied in avoiding the checks, and balances, which surrounded the executive presidency and its power and linking to the.
~ 61 ~
The War Powers ACT The Invasion of Grenada between October 25 to December 15 1983 under the Regan administration shares many similarities with the U.S. Invasion of the dominion republic in 1965 (Middlebrook & Rico, p. 552). Additionally the invasion of Grenada by the United States, presented a clear case where the executive presidency of the United States declaring war on another nation without calling into effect the “War Powers Act”
(Keynes, 1991, p. xii).
However, the outcome of the invasion became a unique incident where the senate and the congress were restrained in passing a resolution under the War Powers Act (Urofsky, 2000, p. 560). Grenada is a small island nation neighboring Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, and Saint Vincent known as the island of spices was a British colony, being among the latter nation to obtain independence Grenada obtained its independence joining the commonwealth on February 7, 1974 (Green, 2006, p. 193). However, the transition was not a smooth, long time rival of the Prime Minister Gaily and his political party the New Joint Endeavor for Welfare, Education, and Liberation (JEWEL) movement under the leadership of Maurice Bishop, began to uproot excessive internal turmoil (Crandall, 2006, p. 3). The new JEWEL movement (NJM) began as a black power movement in the late 1960 and early 1970; the organization being influenced by the Cuban revolution followed MarxistLeninist strains, representing the local black population and their oppressions. Nevertheless, as the years passed on their mission began to focus on the rivalry against Prime Minister Gaily and obtaining national power for themselves. According to Crandell (2006),” Yet as the 1970’s wore on and opposition to Gairy’s rule galvanized, the NJM continued to move away from its black power orientation and towards “ scientific socialism” and the Lenininzation” of the party a shift that continued to split the party until the U.S. Intervention (Crandall, 2006). ~ 62 ~
Nonetheless, the within 5 years after obtaining independence Grenadian post colonial politics from shifted from bad to worst in 1979. On March 13 1979, the NJM armed wing toppled the democratic government of Grenada by overpowering Prime Minister Gairy’s army while the prime minister was out of the country (Heine, 1990, p. 14). According to Heine (1999), “It was in the barracks, in the True Blue, where on 13 March 1979 the armed wing of the NJM overpowered Gairy’s army while the prime minister was on his way to New York for a United Nation’s Meeting” (Heine, 1990, p. 14). Moreover, soon following the 1979 overthrow Maurice Bishop signed a trade and military agreement with Havana and Moscow, and began the construction of a major international airport at Point Salines, the construction of the airport and the trade agreement soon attracted attention by the United State by the fall of 1983 (Raines & Stewart, 2008, p. 7) Additionally, from the United States Stand, the U.S. post Vietnam leading to the Reagan administration, was slowly regaining its world supremacy by means of post Vietnam doctrines, equipments and leadership capabilities, in preparing to counter the Soviet and Warsaw pack threat to central Europe (Raines & Stewart, 2008, p. 5). Thus, a communist regime supported by Cuba and Russia being so close to home began further exacerbating the situation. According to Susan Marquis (1999), “The United States was Uneasy from the start about the establishment of a new Marxist government in the Caribbean, and its concerns increased as Bishop cultivated close ties with the Soviet Union and Cuba” (Marquis, 1997, p. 92). Furthermore, according to Susan Marquis (1999), “The American government fears that Grenada was becoming a training center for communist subversives in the Caribbean were strengthened when Bishop’s government began construction of an Air field at Port Saline’s capable of accommodating military aircraft (Marquis, 1997, p. 92).
~ 63 ~
However, despite all the U.S. concerns there were no legal reasons supporting foreign policy beyond fear, suspicions, and vague information. Nevertheless, in the fall of 1983, the development in the Grenadian political arena paved the way; the then leader of Grenada Bishop was killed alongside the other leadership of the ruling part making the politics of the nation extremely unstable (Benvenisti, 2012, p. 181). Being the long awaited opportunity, according to Eyal Benvenisti (2012), “ On October 25, 1983, some 8,000 US troops, reinforced by 300 soldiers from six neighboring Caribbean islands, landed in Grenada” (Benvenisti, 2012, p. 180). The grounds president Reagan gave as to why the forces were deployed According to C.B. Bourne (1986), “To assist in the restoration of conditions of law and order of the governmental institutions to the Island of Grenada, where a brutal group of leftist thugs violently seized power, killing the prime minister, three cabinet members, two labor leaders and other civilians.” (Bourne, 1986, p. 31) Thus in linking the president’s action in par with the “The War Powers Act of 1973” a better understanding of the Act itself is evident. The War Powers Act of 1973 introduced by Senator Jacob K Javits was a congressional effort to check the presidential powers in committing the nation to an armed conflict without the consent of the congress. According to Spencer Tucker (2011), the war powers act of 1973 was, “The Law passed by congress (House, 284 to Vote 135; Senate, 75 to 18 Votes) on November7, 1973, gave more authority to congress limiting the warmaking powers of the chief executive” (Tucker, 2011, p. 1319). Based on the act, according to Tucker (2011), “Required the president consult with the congress before sending military forces are sent into combat abroad or to areas where hostilities are likely (Tucker, 2011, p. 1319). Furthermore, observing the War Powers Act of 1973 upon deploying the forces according to Harry Summer (2007), “The military involvements can
~ 64 ~
continue for 60 days and for another 30 days thereafter if the president certifies to congress in writing that the safety of the forces so requires. Unless the congress specifically authorizes it by a declaration of war, resolution, or legislature, the involvement cannot be continued beyond the 90 days (Summers, 2007, p. 18). However, leading to the Reagan administration none of the prior presidents followed the protocols of the war powers act. According to Tomas Dye and Harmon Ziegler (2009), “ President Ford ignored the act in sending US forces to rescue U.S. Ship Mayaguez from Cambodia in 1976” (Dye & Zeigler, 2009, p. 226). Additionally, according to Dye and Ziegler (2009), “President Carter did not notify congress before attempt rescuing American personal from the held hostage in Iran (Dye & Zeigler, 2009, p. 226)”. Hence, in order president Reagan also failed in calling the war powers Act of 1973, According to Edward Keynes (1991), “ Once again, in invading Grenada, to protect American lives and oust radical regime, Reagan did not invoke the war powers resolution, but he did inform the congressional leadership about the military action” (Keynes, 1991, p. xii). Moreover, according to Melvin I. Urofsky (2000), in one of the uses of armed forced did Reagan consulted beforehand with congress, as required by the War Powers Act of 1973. Like Ford, Carter. Reagan neither followed the provision of that resolution nor recognized its constitutionality (Urofsky, 2000, p. 560). The congress attempted to invoke the war powers act after the invasion of Grenada passing a resolution addressing Reagan to issue a report about all the procedures due to the outcome of Granada (Urofsky, 2000, p. 560). However, the key element, which worked towards present Reagan’s favor, in avoiding the War Powers Act was that he alongside the administration became world heroes in rescuing the American civilians trapped between the conflicts in
~ 65 ~
Grenada (Urofsky, 2000, p. 561). In addition, beyond the victory in the rescue mission the U.S., occupation teams’ further uncovered vital document, and evidence which proved the theory of Grenada being a communist occupation posting a threat (Kengor, 2007, pp. 190-196). Furthermore, observing lessons learned, during “Operation Urgent Fury”1983, President Reagan did not clearly call the War Powers Act resolution. According to Neal Devins Goodrich (2004), “Reagan introduced U.S. troops to Lebanon, invaded Grenada, carried out air strikes against Libya, and maintained naval operations in the Persian Gulf…In one of these actions did he ask congress for authority” (Goodrich, 2004, p. 120). Moreover, in addressing the questions of none-state actor threats and asymmetric warfare, in par with presidential war declaring abilities, based on this case can be stated, as the president must obtain permission by the congress. The congress, and the senate, consists of multiple diverse entities, thus utilizing this ability as a leader on can obtain a broader picture and a slanted view. The term leadership According to Peter G Northouse is (2010), “Is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal (Northhouse, 2010, p. 3). In this case, the common goal is declaration of war or the threat, thus utilizing the presidential ability to build a strong case and convince the congress on his vision is a priority of the president. Because the result of a president declaring war causes lives and damage, during Grenada According to Jeffrey Elliot and R. Reginals (1989), “Grenadian casualties were estimated a 45 killed, 337 wounded, and 68 captured unwounded. The Cubans lost an estimated 25 dead, 57 wounded, and 634 captured. U.S. losses amount to 26 killed (five from none combat causes) and 122 wounded (14 due to friendly fire)” (Elliot & Reginald, 1989, p. 124). Additionally, addressing the president’s likeability in parallel the perception of whether or not they violated the act the invasion of Grenada declared by president Reagan, the people’s
~ 66 ~
love for “Ronnie” played a large role same time the outcome of the war in parallel to Reagan made the opposition look bad than the president. According to Sean Wilentz (2008), “The American invasion, like the cavalry’s arrival at the end of a western movie, had supposedly, saved the day: “We got there just in time,” Reagan told the nation” (Wilentz, 2008, p. 162). What’s more addressing the defensive vs. offensive and unilateral versus multilateral actions and their impact on War Powers Act, as offensive action according to Milan N. Vego (2009), “ consist of four related phases: preparation, attack, exploitation, pursuit” (Vego, 2009, p. 51). Thus in the case of an offensive action, there is much to consider, thus utilizing the War Powers Resolution is vital to its success beyond the military tack ticks for there is lot at stake. In a defensive action according to Milan Vergo (2009), “The main purpose of a defensive land operation can be to repulse the enemy offensive, retain currently held positions, buy time, and heavily attrite enemy forces and there by create prerequisites for going over onto the offensive” (Vego, 2009, p. 53). Hence, during a defensive action, War Powers Act does not need much consideration as in a defensive; we are on the defense in reacting to an offensive action, similar to in the case of “Pearl Harbor” (Stinnett, 2000, pp. 225-243). On the hand, Unilateral vs. Multilateral both cases require in calling the War Powers Act, according to Arthur Weinreb (2003), “the word “unilateral" describes actions or things that are one sided or done by one country, similarly, "multilateral" is a term that describes more than two parties or countries” (Weinreb, 2003, p. n.p) . The actions based on either Unilateral bares singular viewed, thus the president taking actions alone on the basis of information received by his sources, his handicapped in his decision, and in case of a failure has much to account for. Same way, in a multilateral action as in the case of “WWII” each individual nation must observe all aspects from their own respective nations thus
~ 67 ~
more people involved will bring the best results. The prolonged problem that persists despite the fall of the Hussein regime in our efforts in Iraq falls under this category (Grimmett, 2005, pp. 2835). In conclusion, the War Powers Act of 1973, implemented in keeping the executive presidency in check when declaring war against another country, as well as in keeping the action plan, and the progress war under the scrutiny of the congress is an essential legislature. However, as evident from this study many presidents since its implementation has challenged it, yet in addressing U.S. foreign policy the war powers act through the diversity of the congress enable investigating the checks and balances before declaring war on another nation. Hence, in ensuring that the future presidents continue to observe it, the act should be re-assessed and mandated.
~ 68 ~
The War Powers Act (1973) The above question on presidential use of power during national crisis, link with the second reading for the week which being the War Powers Act of 1973. The War Powers Act of 1973 introduced by Senator Jacob K Javits was a congressional effort to check the presidential powers in committing the nation to an armed conflict without the consent of the congress. According to Spencer Tucker (2011), the war powers act of 1973 was, “The Law passed by congress (House, 284 to Vote 135; Senate, 75 to 18 Votes) on November7, 1973, gave more authority to congress limiting the war-making powers of the chief executive” (Tucker, 2011, p. 1319). The events, which lead to this congressional act, originate from the manners in which the United States expanded their war efforts in 1970 during the Vietnam War by invading the Cambodian border. In 1965 known as the dark days, when south Vietnam was near collapse and the US troops in Viet name were faced with a duel threat, The North Vietnamese Army (NVA), and the south communist revolutionary forces (Vietcong) (Daddis, 2011, pp. 5-6). However, during the latter part of 1965, the striking victory by the First Cavalry Division under General Halmoore in Ia Drang Valley against the NVA regulars, and other successive victories by American troops in South Vietnam contributed in shedding a beacon of light in the American mission in Vietnam (Clarke, 1988, pp. 121-127). According to Agar (2006), “ In November 1965 the United States had a flying success in the first open battle of the war in the Ia Drang Valley in the Central Highlands…though the United States suffered heavy casualties, the success in Ia Drang bolstered U.S. resolve that the war could be won” (Agar, 2006, p. 473). However, the U.S. foreign policy of the time underpinned by “the Domino theory” which states, if Vietnam falls under communism all surrounding nations will follow, paralleling the domino effect was soon observed in Cambodia. According to John Barnhill and R.McColl ~ 69 ~
(2005), “After the Democratic Republic of Vietnam came into being as the unified successor to the divided country, in 1975 Laos and Cambodia also became communists (Barnhill, 2005, pp. 255-256). Thus, Military Assistance Command Viet Nam (MACV) under General William C. Westmoreland, alongside General Abraham and Admiral McCain focused their attention to Cambodia in support of the “Cambodian Campaign.” Thus, supporting the generals’ views on the growing danger in Cambodia on April 25, 1970 the Joint Chiefs of Staff relayed orders from President Nixon to deploy South Vietnamese and American ground troops into Cambodia stating “Get the job done using whatever is necessary (Clarke, 1988, p. 420). Yet, the U.S involvement with Cambodia was soon faced with heavy domestic criticism, in the first week of May 1970, large amount of students from various universities around the US which included the university of Buffalo and Kent State began taking to the streets in protest, soon escalating to violence and civil unrest within the nation (Filo, 2010, pp. 205-207). The domestic unrest that followed the Cambodian campaign in May 1970 and results of the unrest soon attracted the attention of the US senate in observing the national security policies from a different angle paving the path to the War Powers Act of 1973. According to Laurie Clayton (2011), “The War Power Act (of 1973) was introduced by senator Jacob K. Javits of New York after the 1970 U.S. invasion of Cambodia. At the time many believed that the act was a direct result of the American experience in Vietnam (Clayton, 2011, p. 684).” Based on the act, according to Tucker (2011), “Required the president consult with the congress before sending military forces are sent into combat abroad or to areas where hostilities are likely (Tucker, 2011, p. 1319). Furthermore, observing the War Powers Act of 1973 upon deploying the forces according to Harry Summer (2007), “The military involvements can continue for 60 days and for another 30 days thereafter if the president certifies to congress
~ 70 ~
in writing that the safety of the forces so requires. Unless the congress specifically authorizes it by a declaration of war, resolution, or legislature, the involvement cannot be continued beyond the 90 days (Summers, 2007, p. 18). The War Powers Act of 1973, despite its contents has been more symbolic than real according to Tomas Dye and Harmon Ziegler (2009), “ President Ford ignored the act in sending US forces to rescue U.S. Ship Mayaguez from Cambodia in 1976” (Dye & Zeigler, 2009, p. 226) . Moreover, according to Dye and Ziegler (2009), “President Carter did not notify congress before attempt rescuing American personal from the held hostage in Iran…President Reagan committed troops to Lebanon in 1983. U.S. troops invaded island of Grenada in 1983 President Reagan informed the congress after the action” (Dye & Zeigler, 2009, p. 226). This was followed by further non-compliance by President George H.W. Bush who ignoring the War Powers Act 1989, and ordering the invasion of Panama and the sending troops to Saudi Arabia in August 1990 but the event was silenced due to the victory in the Persian Gulf Wars (Dye & Zeigler, 2009, p. 226). Then President Clinton deployed U.S. troops to Bosnia in a peacekeeping operation, and bombed Serbia in an attempt to withdraw Serbian troops from Bosnia, again without addressing the War Powers Act of 1973 (Dye & Zeigler, 2009, pp. 226-227). Thus in scrutinizing the War Powers Act of 1973 paralleling the most resent usage of it in our foreign policies, President G.W. Bush’s Middle Eastern conflict and the “War on Terror” can be named another ignoring of the Act (Brooks, 2010, p. 1415). Following the September 11 2001 attacks, then President Bush paving the way for the present America’s War on Terror secured the congressional authority to utilize “whatever force” in retaliation against those responsible of the attack and invaded Afghanistan but it was done without utilizing or mentioning the War Powers Act (Brooks, 2010, p. 1415). This was soon followed by president bush again on October 16,
~ 71 ~
2002 obtaining an approval by the congress to utilize military force to disarm Iraq from the suspected Weapons of Mass destructions (WMD), and again the War Powers act was never mentioned (Dye & Zeigler, 2009, p. 227). However, due to the manner in which the event unfolded with the last Bush administration in failing to secure any WMDs which stood as the underpinning to deploy troops to Iraq, the ability of the congress and the presidential was publicly criticized, demanding law makers to re access the War Powers Act of 1973 (Drachman & Langran, 2008, p. 164).
~ 72 ~
Seeing the white elephant through a dual Perspective The schools of Neo-Kantian and Neo-Hobbesian, that influence the left and the right wings of the United States Poli-socioeconomic infrastructure are based on the ideologies of two great philosophers Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) (Bennendijk & Kugler, 2007, p. 6). The theories, these two scholars advocated, share many similarities, as they both were modernist and sought to instill through their vision more practical approaches in organizing governments and societies beyond the Utopian visions shared by the Greeks and another scholar of the time Sir. Thomas More (Bennendijk & Kugler, 2007, p. 6). However, they themselves and in turn their much influenced schools, had different approaches in their political philosophies. The Kantian schools taking a more liberal stand on politics the Hobbesian school took the realist stand. According to Alekseĭ Voskresenskiĭ (2002), “ Within the liberal tradition, international relations are seen from the Kantian angle of peace being the normal stand….The realist tradition adheres to conflictual Hobbesian Character of the world where concerns for power and security are the most important and co-operation is difficult if not impossible” (Voskresenskiĭ, 2002, p. 32). Additionally, considering the encompassing perspective as the whole elephant the authors Hans Binnendijk and Richard L Kugler in their text “Seeing the Elephant,” states, according to Binnendijk and Kugler (2007), “Whereas the neo Kantian literature, it sees primarily the elephant’s bright side, the neo Hobbesian literatures sees primarily the elephant’s dark side” (Bennendijk & Kugler, 2007, p. 103). The Neo-Hobbesians seeing a chaotic world run by a collective of rouge leaders, the Neo-Kantian’s observe a world of peace and hope, with spurs of turmoil occurring due to human nature.
~ 73 ~
Thus, in conclusion, both these extreme bi-polar ideologies fail to see the world as it is, a combination of both chaos and peace, and the response to the events need to be assessed according to the presented circumstances and not through a perceived notion. Thus, in “seeing the whole elephant” which encompass both sides of the debate on neo Kantian and the Hobbesian both sides of the argument can present crucial information in getting a more encompassing perspective in response to a problem at hand.
Source: The author obtained the “White elephant in distress,” image From “American Culture Explained” Website on October 13 2015
~ 74 ~
The strengthening of the US nuclear security The Problem The impending danger towards the United States and its allies following the declared war on terror by the Bush administrator has opened the nation’s borders to a new kind of danger. This danger differing from the previous cold war threats of Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) being deployed to the United States by a super power has yelled to a much unpredictable enemy taking guerrilla warfare and the new developments in global technology farthest extreme in committing acts of terror (Covarrubias & Lansford, 2009). Thus, these radical organizations indifferent to the US and its allies obtaining nuclear materials pose a continued concern to the world. According to Gene Aloise (2012), “Terrorists or countries seeking nuclear weapons could use as little as 25 kilograms (Kg) of weapon-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) or 8 Kg of plutonium to construct a nuclear weapon. Of great concern is that terrorists could fashion a crude nuclear bomb made from either HEU or plutonium into an improvised nuclear device (IND) (Aloise, 2012, p. 1)”. Consequently, in taking actions to avoid such events, the United States under the present administration has developed the four-year initiative on 24 December 2010, but as indicated by the Government of Accountability office in 2011, these efforts have faced major setbacks due to poor planning. According to Gene Aloise (2012), “ we found that none of the existing strategies and plans for coordinating federal efforts to prevent and detect nuclear smuggling and illicit nuclear transfers overseas incorporate all of the desirable characteristics of national strategies, such as identifying the financial resources needed and monitoring mechanisms to be used to determine progress (Aloise, 2012, p. 1)”. Same time, it is evident that United States alone cannot to this task of securing, and accounting for despite its best efforts, it would need to utilize an aggressive collaborated effort ~ 75 ~
underpinned by all the super powers, and Nuclear weapon states, each taking their respective share of the matter. Threats of Procurement, Production, and Distribution Therefore, in observing this complex challenge, few key elements of the present day Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) threats as the threat procurement and suppliers, threat delivery, and the threat production need to be considered first. In addressing the suppliers of materials in producing a WMD, Pakistan, and Russia are foremost in line. According to Graham Allison (2007), “One source is Russia, which possesses thousands of tactical nuclear weapons that are not well secured and that might be stolen by terrorists or sold abroad by corrupt Russian officials (Allison, 2007, p. 151)”. Additionally, according to Graham Allison (2007), “Another source is Pakistan, a potentially unstable state that recently developed nuclear weapons and a sizable portion of whose Islamic citizens are sympathetic to al Qaeda (Allison, 2007, p. 151)”. A good example of Pakistan’s involvement in distribution of nuclear material is the case of Abdul Qadeer Khan, known as the godfather of the Pakistani Nuclear program was caught in distribution of nuclear parts and services abroad, and the location to which his services were rendered beyond China and Libya still stands a mystery (Broad & Sanger, 2008, p. n.p). According to Damien McElroy (2009), “Khan Research Laboratories had free rein to establish a clandestine procurement network around the world. Dubai became his trading hub for centrifuge parts manufactured in Malaysia, machine tools and training sourced in Europe, South African manufacturing skills and electrical parts from Turkey” (McElroy, 2009, p. n.p). Same time the unstable situations in Iran and North Korea in their efforts in obtaining a nuclear arsenal also present a viable threat (Allison, 2007, p. 151).
~ 76 ~
The production and distribution of WMD in comparison to the larger arsenal of the past the modern day WMD paralleling the technology supporting the radical nature of the enemy, takes to being small and concealable equipment with maximum damage capabilities. According to Allison (2007), “ A relatively small amount of material perhaps 30 pounds of uranium or even smaller quantity of plutonium could produce a nuclear bomb of several kilometer, enough to flatten and irradiate a major portion of a big American city” (Allison, 2007, p. 151). Thus, the present proposed enhancements to the nuclear detection architecture provide solutions taking to consideration the diversity of the enemy, nature of the threats, paralleling the United States global, regional, and functional strategies by means of a dual-layer development program. The dual-layer nuclear detection architecture program The dual layered nuclear detection architecture program (NDAP) adopted through the program presented by the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) in addressing internal threats, the dual layer program presented in the study observes the illegal procumbent, production and distribution from a global and local standpoint. Thus, it requires similar to the DNDO plan the combined support of DNDO, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of State (DOS), Home Land Security (DHS), and Justice (Shea, 2010, p. 2). Additionally the proposed dual layered NDAP will also consist of both a physical and conceptual components where the physical components observes the sensor systems deployed by the federal agencies, the conceptual components observes the organizing and analyzing the program capabilities (Shea, 2010, p. 2). The key focal point of the program in enhancing our NDAP is to avoid or present a challenge for the enemy to procure nuclear material and services through the agencies, which possess the capabilities drying the supply for easy access to the materials in question.
~ 77 ~
Global Initiatives The issues of nuclear arsenal pertaining to the nations stated prior, present a sensitive question, while taking a slanted realist approach on the situation could trigger an unwarranted response taking a slanted constructivist approach could also result in the same error, which render both extremes an unfruitful efforts (Kegley & Raymond, 2012, pp. 27-28). Thus combining the crucial essence of both theories the United States should utilize a combined military and diplomatic efforts dispersed through a joint efforts, which include the nations, that bare as potential threats in distributing nuclear materials and services illegally. In elaborating further, the United States uniting with Nuclear Weapons States and through a collaborated effort-rewriting article 4 of the “Nuclear Proliferation Treaty,” which enables providing uranium for peaceful purposes, (Green, 1988, pp. 105-108). The article 4 of the NPT rewritten would ban the production of uranium within those states, but allow obtaining much needed fuel for their reactors from Nuclear Weapons States at “half the production cost”, with an attached agreement on the safe removal of spent fuels by the nations providing the services (Allison, 2007, p. 152). The above stated initiative address nation’s as Iran to have their nuclear capabilities for peaceful purposes while avoiding illegal production and distribution of the nuclear substances to acts of terror. Additionally, in observing the potential threats from North Korea and Pakistan, the United States and Pakistan until the allegations of Pakistani involvements in support of terrorism in 2011 had been a peaceful one. In fact in numerous occasions during the cold war and the years following the US and Pakistan were allies, sharing strong economic ties (Staff, 2011, p. n.p). According to Kanishkan Sathasivam (2005), “The best way to describe the relationship between Pakistan and the United States is to describe it as a marriage of convenience (Sathasivam, 2005,
~ 78 ~
pp. 95-96).” Thus, as indicated by Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, the US could profit in the long run from working aggressively towards mending the lost relations with Pakistan according to the CNN Staff (2011), “If they can't live without us, then they (US) should make efforts to clear up any misunderstandings” (Staff, 2011, p. n.p). For North Korea as indicated by Graham Allison resorting to diplomatic means, “Washington would agree to an explicit bilateral nonaggression pledge to be expanded later to a multilateral security assurance also signed by China, South Korea, Japan, and Russia (Allison, 2004, p. 169).” Moreover, the United States as further indicated by Allison, could by means of the stated pact “rapidly expanding its own food aid program to North Korea and open doors for Japan and south Korea to resume fuel oil shipments and other economic assistance” (Allison, 2004, p. 169). Hence in conclusion addressing the potential global threats, overcoming obstacles observed by GAO, and in seeking solutions to detect foreign nuclear equipments evident through the above stated cases the US should paralleling the Obama administration’s 4 year initiative, continue aggressively seeking solutions through diplomacy (Aloise, 2012). However, inlaid with the ideology of diplomatic solution the US utilizing the support of the respective nation continue military strikes on terror threats, camps and deploy additionally organizations as the Interpol, or the United Nations Police in a collaboration efforts to capture rouge threats (Allison, Nuclear Terrorism, 2007, p. 152). Local initiatives Addressing the local initiatives the United States government since the presentation of an evident threat throughout and following the cold war phase has an extensive history in developing and deploying nuclear detection equipment in an attempt to deter and detect possible nuclear threats. According to Dana Shea (2010), “Since the mid 1990’s, the Department of
~ 79 ~
Defense (DOD), the Department of State (DOS) and Department of Energy (DOE) were all engaged in cooperative threat reduction program that aimed to secure international stockpiles of special nuclear material” (Shea, 2010, p. 1). An evident example of such utilized since 2003 with the development in Department of Homeland security is according to Shea (2010), the “development of polyvinyl toluene (PVT) radiation portal monitors at key ports of entry into the United States” (Shea, 2010, p. 1). However, with advancements in global technology as well as the nature of the enemy, today’s threats take a different structure than the previous cold war and pre 9/11 threats. According to the White House (2003), “The modern technology has enabled terrorists to plan and operate world wide as never before, with advanced telecommunications, they can coordinate their actions among dispersed cells while remaining in the shadows” (House, 2003, p. 10). Same time, the present enemies, differing from their past as well as the cold war threats, utilizes “force multiplayer effect” where they instead of operating alone, draws support from like-minded organizations and or individuals around the world (House, 2003, p. 10). Thus in summary addressing the local initiatives, the proposed plan address utilizing a parallel method similar to the enemy in dealing with internal threats. First, utilize an elaborate network of intelligence gathering with the local law enforcement and the federal agencies as the CIA, NSA, and the FBI. Empower, train the state and federal law enforcement in modern technology and tactics in dealing with potential threats, and focus on the procurement of advance early warning systems, which are easily hidden and portable (DeFeo, 2008, pp. 740-741).
~ 80 ~
Securing our Back Yard Observing our own nuclear facilities and systems under this proposed plan, an extensive emphasis in made in first following the internal initiatives, empowering local law enforcement agencies, state and federal to utilize a collaborated effort in securing state, city and federal nuclear facilities. Same time holding the governors of each state in obtaining information about the existing facilities within their respective states to get an accurate account of nuclear facilities located in their jurisdictions. Moreover, the present proposal also suggest as indicated by the N RC to put more emphasis on early detection systems, according to National Research Council (2002), “A new program should be created to focus and coordinate research and development related to sensors and sensor networks, with an emphasis on the development of fielded systems. This program should build on relevant sensor research under way at agencies throughout the federal government.” (Council, 2002, p. 9). Thus in conclusion, the impending danger of a nuclear device (ND) being detonated by a terrorist or a rogue nation against the United States or one of its allied nations is a valid concern, and in support of this is the ever growing rate of un accounted nuclear materials and black marker services easily accessible through modern technology. Thus in securing our nation’s interests present proposal enhancing the nuclear detection architecture suggest on aggressively appreciating the situation through a joint, diplomatic collaboration effort differentiating from the previous administration’s realistic approach addressing the local, global detection of nuclear materials, services and waste from falling to the wrong hands.
~ 81 ~
The SDI strategy and development for future The National Missile Defense (NMD) systems (1947-1983) The MDA is the most recent evolution of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system established in 1947 as part of the Department of ground based Army’s Air Defense systems (Crabtree, 1994, pp. 118-120). Since its creation in 1947 following the World War II, reaching the cold war eras the NMD began a systematic evolution of its capabilities and research in meeting the possible global threats of the time paralleling the developments of military and nuclear capacities of Soviet Russia (Hildreth, 2010, pp. 3-6). In 1967 during the Johnson administration, the nuclear tipped interceptor missiles known as the sentinel systems were the weapon of choice in intercepting a first strike (Lindsay & O'Hanlon, 2001, p. 3). However, the notion of having a nuclear tipped interceptor missile close to home making the locations a primary target of a first strike presented concerns within the United States internal political atmosphere. This elaborated according to Lindsay and Hanion (2001), “People living near the planned sites rebelled...Because they feared that putting the missiles in their backyard would greatly increase their chances of becoming the target of an attack (Lindsay & O'Hanlon, 2001, p. 3)”. Subsequently, due to this uproar the in securing the political prospects, the Nixon administration disbands the sentinel systems, and instead establish the Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) systems to address the concerns of a first strike (Lindsay & O'Hanlon, 2001, p. 3). The foundation and the purpose of the NMD being a prominent debate within the US politics during Nixon era, leading to date, the big boost to the NMD systems program, was given during the Reagan Administration in1983.
~ 82 ~
Strategic Defense Initiative SDI and SDIO (1983-1989) President Regan during a speaking on March 23, 1983, called the nation’s attention to a long-term research into ballistic missiles defense technology, a system designed to detect and destroy any incoming nuclear warhead delivered through a ballistic missile (Perry, 2011, p. 418). This proposal by President Reagan named by the critics as the “Star Wars” following the famous movie by George Lucas mandated the NMD systems to observe a border range of technology and research in taking the ballistic defense to space. Thus, due to the nature of this endeavor consisting majority of Department of Defense and Air force the NMD systems changed its name to Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). According to the Learning Network (2012), “Critics called the proposal unfeasible, and questioned whether the United States would ever have the technology to develop the S.D.I. They called it “Star Wars,” first because it sounded like something out of a science fiction movie, and second because the announcement came just weeks after President Reagan’s “Evil Empire” speech” (Network, 2012, p. n.p). The SDI in comparison to its early version the NMD system addressed the matter more broadly; the department of defense at the time combined its existing missile defense program established the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) in 1984 (Perry, 2011, p. 418). Furthermore, the SDIO differing from its predecessor the NMD systems began a systematic research and development on technologies consisting of sensors, battle management, direct energy, and Kinetic energy with the intention of developing a long-term space-based laser and on particle beam means of destroying incoming missiles (Kaplan, 1983, pp. 5-6). On the other hand, in 1987 due to the gravity of the commitment and the limitations in technology alongside the time limitations paralleling geopolitical changes at the time, the SDIO diverted their course of action in developing a short-term based response method that resulted in the
~ 83 ~
“Brilliant Pebbles” concept of 1988 (Mowthrope, 2004, p. 27). The “Brilliant pebbles” concept developed under Phase I plan by the SDIO, is the concept of having approximately 4,000 satellite constellations deployed in low-earth orbit consisting of “pebbles.” These pebbles which where autonomous interceptors made of tungsten which could act independently once it has been authorized in detecting and destroying ballistic missiles either by maneuvering them to the oncoming path of the threat or during mid course phase (Mowthrope, 2004, p. 28). The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, BMDO (1993-2002) However, with the cold war reaching an end with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, followed by the fall of communist Russia in 1991, the eminent threat of a Ballistic Missile threatening the United States became an outdated theory (Perry, 2011, p. 418). Thus, in meeting potential threats of the time as a strike from a rogue nation or an unauthorized launch of a ballistic missile by a terrorist’s organization, from 1989-1993 during the H.W Bush administration, an emphasis was placed on the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) systems (Freese, p. 48). The focus of the TMD system proposed by the H.W. Bush administration as elaborated by Charles V. Peña (1998) is “to protect forward-deployed U.S. forces, as well as friends and allies of the United States” (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). Yet in 1993 due to the cost involvements and the geopolitical influences in American politics, following during the Clinton administration the SDIO was absorbed as the Ballistic Missile defense Organization (BMDO) addressing three TMD programs protecting forward American forces and its allies (Perry, 2011, p. 418). The three TMD programs that were implemented during this phase were the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3), Navy Area TMD (Lower tier), and the Navy Theater Wide defense (NTWD) (Sauer, 2005, p. 58). The efforts of developing a solid state of national security
~ 84 ~
in preparing to counter a first strike, despite setbacks due to the financial aspects of the program the BMDO during the years from 1996 to 1998 continued its growth leading to the Bush administration in 2001. In 2002, the BMDO was changed as the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) controlling all aspects of Missile defense and research continuing its efforts to date. The Present Capabilities in Intercepting a Ballistic Attack Thus far, six different types of systems and programs are maintained by the MDA, of these systems in addressing the lower tier point defense systems, the land based PAC-3 contracted under Raytheon Loral with the capacity to defend a radius of 40 to 50 km play a substantial role in the present US Air defense systems. Same time, in responding to a threat, the US at present posses 1,200 Pac-3 missiles, and 54 fire units spread throughout the nation (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). The next of the lower-tier defense system being Navy Area defense systems contracted under Raytheon Loral and Hugh Aircraft has the capacity to defend an area radius of 50 to 100 km, and posses 1,500 missiles ready to be deployed (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). Additionally, reaching the next line of defenses the Upper-Tier Defenses, the THAAD systems “designed to intercept missiles in the upper or outer atmosphere” play equally a large role in early elimination of the target within a 167 km radius (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). These systems “consisting of ground-based radar for surveillance and tracking, launchers, interceptors, and BM/C3” the US has in its possession 1,233 missiles, 7,711 launchers and 11 radars (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). The next defense option against a ballistic attack, in the Upper Tier Defense systems being the Navy Theater-Wide Defense (TWD), consists of a system similar to the THAAD systems. Nevertheless, they differ in their deployment methods as the TWD are deployed from the Aegis cruisers and destroyers (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). This program contracted through Lockheed Martin has the capacity to defend approximately an area radius larger than 100 miles
~ 85 ~
(160 km).
Presently the US posses an arsenal of 650 missiles of this type of Ballistic
Interceptors ready to be deployed (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). The next level of defense known as the Boost Phase Defense consist of an Airborne Laser carried in class 747 type airplane, employs a chemical laser to intercept missiles from a few hundred kilometers away (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). This program contracted through Boeing Defense & Space, varies in its capabilities of interception, depending on the type and the capacity of the laser alongside the operation areas of the aircraft, at present the United States posses 7 aircrafts carrying this technology since its initial deployment in 2006 (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). The present crisis paralleling the theaters of operations The United States observed through its ballistic defense capabilities indicate a somewhat readiness in their efforts in intercepting a threat. However, the present crisis evident through the received intelligence reports, only concerns the US in the future, yet the developments in Iran’s nuclear technology, pose a considerable threat to our allies at present. Hence, in securing the path, which the US should consider, in deploying its regional and global strategies a thorough a broad analysis of our theater of operations in the Middle East and the impacts of a ballistic attack on our allied nation is essential. Therefore, observing the possible immediate dangers surrounding the US allies within the range, if Iran were to engage the inevitable with the present capabilities reaching a 150-km radius despite consuming majority of Kuwait would only pose partial threats to Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia see Appendix Map 1 (FAS, 2013, p. n.p). However, in future, if Iran proceeds in developing their missile technology to reach the 300 Km and or the 500 Km range the consequences would be much concerning with regards to our allies of the Middle East. Iran reaching the 300-500 ranger makers will also have a potential
~ 86 ~
effect of involving other nations to another bilateral Ballistic conflict between nations. Because with either the 300 or 500 Km, range the devastation would not only consume majority of Kuwait, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, it will also threaten Russia, Uzbekistan, Oman, Iraq, and Syria causing them to respond in retaliation see Appendix Map 1 (FAS, 2013, p. n.p). Same time, observing through the same scope if Iran within the years to come leading to 2020, as predicted by the US intelligence agencies, obtained either the Shahab-4 or Shahab-5 missiles through the debated Taepo Dong Technology of North Korea the radius of Impact would increase between 1000 Km to a concerning 6000 Km radius (Defense, 2001, p. 37). This achievement by Iran in obtaining the Taepo Dong technology treating would present an eminent threat to majority of nations in Eurasia, Africa, Europe, and Canada making Iran a nuclear super power with a bargaining capability higher than the United States (Defense, 2001, p. 37). Likewise, as indicated by the present security reports regarding the US counter action to Iranian developments, according to Darius Watson (2013), “Russia and China agree with the Iranian position and have also vowed to increase nuclear weapons development if the United States chooses to move forward with expansion of the SDI program” (Watson, 2016, p. 2). For this reason, in observing the gravity of destruction through our theaters of operations in the Middle East and paralleling the Eurasian stand on the future SDI developments by the United States, the question of Iranian nuclear development is to be observed through multiple paradigms.
~ 87 ~
Present Anti Ballistic Defenses and the cost of production Thus, observing the present US BMDO and TMD programs from a cost perspective observing successively the tiers they represent, in the lower tier defenses the PAC-3 system which were initially deployed in the late 90’s accumulated a cost of 6.2 Billion US dollars per missile in production and testing (Mosher, 1997). Additionally, the next being the Navy Area Defense systems (NAD), initially deployed again accumulated a cost of 6.2 Billion US dollars per missile in production and testing (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). The last of the lower tier defenses being the MEADS (Medium Extended Air Defense System) initially contracted with Raytheon began in 1999 comprise an estimated cost of 12 billion US (Staff, 1999, p. n.p). However, due to fall back with the contracted organization, Lockheed martin taking over the production with a plan in completing it by 2014, estimate a total cost of 12 billion US (Staff, 1999, p. n.p). Moreover, next level of defense consisting of the upper tier defense systems, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) that began its deployment in 2006 has an estimate cost of 12.8 Billion US making it one of the most expensive projects undertaken (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). However, costing only 5 billion US the Navy Theater wide Defense is the lowest cost based system in upper tier defenses of the United States (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). The boost phase defenses at present consists of only one specified technology, that being the Airborne Laser system, utilized through a Boeing 747, airplane despite the manufacturing cost of 6.1 US billion present as a weak system dependent on the airplanes capabilities (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). Thus far observing the economic impact of the past undertakings in developing the US AMB defenses, clearly indicate the strain of the nation’s economy, same time some of these systems despite as in the case of the Airborne Laser despite the high cost lack in their performances due to the dependent nature of the weapon. Hence, if the US were to undertake the
~ 88 ~
development of the SDI program in face of the potential threat posed by the nuclear developments in Iran, the argument on Quality vs. Quantity would need serious consideration. The Positive impacts affecting the US Anti Missile Defenses Hence, having observed the evolution of the present US intercepting systems from the NMD to MDA considering their developments paralleling the crisis at hand, in justifying the development of future SDI programs despite the Eurasian stand can be elucidated through three vital segments, which will positively influence our political and economical stand in face of the future. The Possible elevation in Global Power and Bargaining capabilities The nuclear weapons developments despite fallen under the scrutiny of many scholars due to the observed impact of such operation as evident through Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Baker, 1987, p. 36). In addressing the upper hand of having a strong nuclear arsenal as well as a solid intercepting means, that would protect the US and its allies from a rogue nation, is always encouraged. According to the Department of Defense (2007), “the U.S. nuclear arsenal has defended not only the United States and its military forces, but also, and importantly, U.S. allies in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere (DOD, 2007, p. 3). Additionally having a strong nuclear arsenal as the US, alongside out capacities in intercepting long-range missiles, has been a bargaining chip in maintaining our interests US regions with active engagements as the Middle East. According to Department of defense (2007), “Nuclear forces continue to represent the ultimate deterrent capability that supports U.S. national security. Extended deterrence is key to U.S. alliances, both in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and in Asia, assuring allies and friends of the credibility of U.S. security commitments” (DOD, 2007, p. 1). Therefore, by developing our SDI despite the Eurasian super ~ 89 ~
power’s concerns, the US will not only provide means of deterring a possible conflict but also maintain its strong bargaining power. Positive Economical Prospects Furthermore, in addressing the economic advantages of Ballistic Missile defense, it can be observed through two angles, first being the internal benefits, the US nuclear technology industry delegating its various tasks and parts manufacturing to contracts to locals business organization by means of contracts will support the US economy. According to Hunt, Nesiba, and O’Hara (2008), “profits of military contractors have been studied many times by General Accounting office of the US government. The studies generally found that the military contractors admit to a much higher than average profit in their industry” (Hunt, Nesiba, & O'Hara, 2008, p. 574). Moreover, According to Christopher M. Blanchard (2009), “Licensed nuclear technology contracts with UAE could provide commercial benefits to the US nuclear industry.” (Blanchard, 2009, p. 16) International technological transfers, who also would produce potential international commercial benefits, which in turn profit the US economically, also present another positive aspect of the BMD research. Internal Technology Transfers to the commercial market In further addressing the benefits of the Ballistic Missile, defense research, it can also note that the research and studies conducted in nuclear technology will also support the local commercial market. In elaborating further the technological advances we enjoy today as the internet, Ipad’s, androids, and personal computers all derived through the Apollo space program and the military technological developments (Gaudin, 2009, p. n.p). In supporting this theory Daniel Lockney, the editor of Spinoff stated, according to Sharon Gaudin (2009), “Software designed to manage a complex series of systems onboard the capsules is an ancestor to the ~ 90 ~
software that today is used in retail credit card swipe devices, he said. And race car drivers and firefighters today use liquid-cooled garments based on the devices created for Apollo astronauts to wear under their spacesuits” (Gaudin, 2009, p. n.p). The positive impacts of establishing the SDI program despite over powering the negative economic costs in developing such technology, the US as a super power has a great responsibility in ensuring that the actions taken in securing the nation and its allies is a multilateral decision. Hence, it is fundamental by nature that we observe the option of diplomacy as means of seeking answers to the impending danger by scrutinizing nation’s past and present diplomatic efforts. Possibility of utilizing Diplomatic means in finding a solution The United States since July 1, 1968 has been extensively seeking solution to secure its boarders from a ballistic threat through the means of diplomacy. Its first attempt being the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) established in July 1, 1968 focused on preventing “the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, while promoting cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament” (UNODA, 2013, p. n.p). The next phase Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) consisting of bilateral talks between the US and Russia addressing the arms control issue beginning from 1968, leading to 1986, known as SALT I and SALT II paved the way for many developments as the ABM treaty of 1972 (DOS, 2001, p. n.p).
Nevertheless, leading to the Reagan Administration while
upholding the conditions of the ABM treaty the SALT I and II were dissolved, establishing the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty of 1987, where by the US and USSR agreed through the treaty in eliminating the Soviet and US Intermediate –range and short-range ballistic ~ 91 ~
cruise missiles (Viotti, 2005, p. 281). In 1991 following, the fall of communist Russia INF treaty was reassessed by establishing the Strategic Arms Reduction Talks abbreviated as START. In succession these talks were named as START I and START II the START I bringing some light to the debate at the time managed in reducing 6,000 nuclear warheads on both sides (Viotti, 2005, p. 282). However, during the Bush administration in 2002 based on the US Russian relations at the time, while both the ABM treaty and the START program were dissolved, in corresponding to the geopolitics at the time the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT) of 2002 was signed by both parties (Viotti, 2005, p. 282). The present diplomatic attempt in securing nuclear arms being the NEW START program was established in 2010, require the Russian federation and the US to “ reduce the number of nuclear weapons and launchers that the United States and Russia deploy, while fully maintaining America’s nuclear deterrent” (DOS, New START, 2013, p. n.p). The New START treaty though its agreement requires that US and Russia comply with the demand fully by February 5, 2018. Moreover, in laying the foundation to the program during a presidential address to state in Prague, President Barak Obama, in 2009, indicated according to Daryl Kimbal (2013) that “The United States has a “moral responsibility” to prevent nuclear weapons use and proliferation” (Kimbal, 2013, p. n.p). Furthermore, during this speech president Obama further emphasized a systematic plan in eventually ridding the nuclear superpower nations and the emergent nuclear nation of nuclear weapons (Kimbal, 2013, p. n.p). Yet, despite all efforts by the US to date in seeking out a diplomatic solution observing the present impending danger of Iran’s nuclear capabilities, as well as the international concerns of Russia and china supporting the Iran’s developments, it is evident that in the eminent danger despite all the treaties the United States can only count on itself. However, going the extra mile
~ 92 ~
in upholding “moral responsibility” as indicated by president Obama, involving Iran in treaties paralleling the New START, may pose a potential means of diverting the threat in a positive manner. Nonetheless, in preparing for a failure, in our diplomatic efforts, the US paralleling its diplomatic developments must consider a solid secondary plan of response through the means of a solid ABM system. Proposed technology in addressing ballistic defense mechanism The space based missile defense systems being the underpinning of the SDI program, implemented under the Reagan administration in March 1983 due to the futuristic nature of the undertaking was described by its critiques as the “Star Wars” program. Moreover, through this program an array of spaced based technologies were experimented, however due to political influences at the time and the lack of immediate technology at the time the future based program was focused in addressing a short-term plan (Harris, 2001, pp. 1485-1486).
Of these
technologies, which failed due to the lack of technologies and events governing the politics of the time was the Space Based Laser (SBL) system (Harris, 2001, p. 1485). Thus, addressing the potential global crisis at hand in presenting the best ABM solution, the delinquent technology of the SBL program at the time, currently is utilized by the MDA through Airborne Laser system as part of our Boost Phase Defense. The Airborne Laser consisting of an airplane-based laser contains the potential technological advancements needed in developing the once abandoned SBL as the next first line of defense (Peña, 1998, p. n.p). In addressing the functionalities alongside the operations of the SBL, program from its last proposal, a SBL consists of a satellite containing a hydrogen fluoride laser, which upon detecting a potential ballistic warhead would deploy a beam reflected through a large mirror growing to a lethal proportion destroying the incoming warhead (Vizard, 1999, p. 58). Additionally while the
~ 93 ~
detection segment of the SBL with a capacity to detect an object as small as three feet is done through a network of orbiting sensor systems known as, a Space based infrared system (SBIS) (Vizard, 1999, p. 58). The heart of the weapon consists of a hydrogen fluoride laser, which mixes, nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), deuterium (D or 2H), helium (He), and hydrogen (H) to generate a beam in the vacuum of space (Vizard, 1999, p. 58). What’s more, if a shortage of this fuel supply were to occur during operation, it can be delivered to the location through a space shuttle within maximum of a 1-hour period (Hale, Lane, Lulla, & Chapli, 2012, p. 56). Additionally, observing the advantages in utilizing the proposed SBL technology, the SBL deployed, as recommended by the air force by the means of having a 20-laser firing satellites orbiting 800 miles, armed with the hydrogen fluoride laser having a lasing time between 200 and 500 second could potentially destroy approximately 1000 enemy missiles (Vizard, 1999, p. 58). Subsequently, considering the time limitations in developing a technology to strengthen our ballistic defense mechanism from 2016-2020 being four years, the SBL as projected by the Department of Defense in 1983 with the technology at the time would consume approximately 5 years to develop (Vizard, 1999, p. 58). However, granted that the technology is already being utilized in our Boost Phase Defense (BPD), and the estimated cost as indicated by Lt. Col. Possel in 1998 to be 1.5 Billion, presenting the SBL to be 5 billion US less than the BPD and other ABM systems utilized to date (Possel, 1998, p. 2). The economic impacts, which affect the decision made by the congress, through their debates on quality vs. quantity tradeoff the SBL being a low cost ABM system, with the capacity to produce a quality service the SBL present a solid stand in winning the support of the congress. Therefore, combining the financial support obtained from the congress as well as the utilization of the already existing technology through the Airborne Laser system, the SBL system has a high
~ 94 ~
potential of being deployed within a 3-year period. This grants the US ample time in preparing for the next phase in case of diplomatic failure. Conclusion
The present qualitative research compiled in response to the successful nuclear weapons capabilities achieved by Iran in 2016 in presenting the best possible solution in defense of our nation and our allies observed through its study, successively the past US ballistic defense systems and programs scrutinizing their capabilities and technologies experimented. Additionally through the materials, examined pertaining to US theaters of operations uprooted the gravity of an inevitable attack deployed by Iran and the impact it will have in our regional allies. Moreover, the present research taking to consideration the relationship between security and politics scrutinized positive and negative economic impacts as well as the possibility of utilizing further diplomatic means of finding a solution to the impending crisis. Thus in presenting a solid conclusion through findings of the present study it is evident that the US should continue in seeking a diplomatic solution through New START II involving Iraq in a treaty, however in preparing the US and its allies in case of a failure in negotiations, or a breach in the treaty. The US in parallel to the diplomatic means establish a solid ABM system by commencing the developments of the SBL systems as the primary weapon of choice in defending the nation and its allies.
~ 95 ~
Is terrorism an existential threat to National security? The assumption “Terrorism represents an existential threat to security and requires a military response” primarily deriving from a realist perspective for the realist as indicated by Kegley and Raymond (2012), “The anarchic structure of international systems leads even wellintentioned leaders to practice self-help, increasing military strength and aligning with others to deter potential threats” (Kegley & Raymond, 2012, p. 28). The realist American ideologies following the 9/11 attacks observe specifically the nations of the Middle East as a potential threat, additionally they also observe these nations to be somewhat to be rouge nations led by anarchists. A good example of this can be observed in our past Iraq war during the G. W. Bush administration, according to Ruth Dockrill (2008), “ Following the failure of Anglo-American efforts to win second UN resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in march 2003, the United States opted for war regardless of the UN” (Dockrill, 2008, p. 125). The second assumptions also following the same line where the terrorism assumptions, assume the war to be a “contemporary battle between good and evil” where the west is observed as the good and the middle east or the nations which differ in their ideologies on westernization or the global economical changes are observed as the evil. Therefore, the ideologies matching their perception of war, for the realist according to Ksawery Lisinski (2012), “war is unavoidable and a constant element of our nature, while ideas and ideologies are of no importance (Lisinski, 2012, p. n.p). The third assumptions also following the realist ideologies assume that “The United States needs to remake the Middle East in its own image. This is underpinned by the fact that sheltered nature, which the United States expanded, itself from 13 colonies to the present day, without a potential external threat in hindering their expansion, therefore US observes its history,
~ 96 ~
and their political socioeconomic history as the status quo for their dealing with other nations (Tindall & Shi, 1992) . Thus in conclusion all these statements slanting towards the realist ideologies fail to observe the brighter side of human nature, it also fail in understanding the grounded reason for deep seated conflicts as anti Americanization to be protest of westernization, which move parallel to globalization. Hence, it can be stated that the flaws exists in United States’ basic logical foundations are the slanted nature in our foreign policies towards realism than observing the events of world occurring from a combined constructivist and realist approach.
~ 97 ~
Challenges for the DOD in developing strategy for fighting the ‘long war’ In observing future strategies in face of the “Long War” ahead the quality Vs quantity trade debate as well as the expansionist debate argued by the US decision makers present as prominent challenges in executing sound strategies for the future. Quality Vs Quantity Trade off In elaborating, further the argument about the Quality Vs Quantity Trade off as indicated by Steve Saidman (2012), is no longer a debate about “Guns or Butter”, instead it is about “ More guns versus better guns” (Saidman, 2012, p. n.p). The debate, which expanded through several administrations following the cold war, has its foundation in the nature in which the US prepared for a global war with USSR and the events, which followed the fall of communist Russia in 1991. The US, military and its services following 1991, According to Adrian Lewis (2007), “With the fall of the Soviet Union the US army and the air force was “nearly out of work” the counter strike that the United States had prepared for never took place” (Lewis, 2007, p. 27). Additionally the rapid commercial and military technological developments since 1991 in also played a crucial role in supplementing the argument on the debate. In comparison to the World War II, and the cold war, eras reaching the to date widespread and easy access to personal computers, communication devices, and the internet has reiterated the need for re accessing our defense strategies and policies in meeting our threats matching the epoch (Branscomb, Brooks, Carter, & Epstein, 1992). What’s more the present decade, also consisting of a close-knit interdependent global economy, in avoiding an unnecessary conflict among nations, a more elaborate use to our global and regional strategies also play a key role in the Quality Vs Quantity debate (Saidman, 2012, p. n.p).
~ 98 ~
However, when taken into consideration the arguments of the debate paralleling, the polisocioeconomics of the time alongside global technological advancement share pros and cons from either of the sides of the debate. If quality is chosen, with the existing multiple engagements the U.S. Military has embarked in could pose a danger in the military sector, while choosing quantity could pose a danger to the growth in face of the future (Hoeber, 1981, p. 9). Thus, in conclusion the quality vs. quantity tradeoff paralleling through its nature the economic model of supply and demand until a finding the ideal equilibrium between quality and quantity will pose a considerable challenge in developing future strategy for fighting the ‘long war.’ Expansionist debate The theory of expansionism has been observed through two different perspectives; first as promoting economic growth while the second being closely related to imperialism observe this to the theory of a state expanding its territorial sphere through military means (Boyer, Clifford, & Hawl, 2013, pp. 488-491). Hence in linking the United States modern politics to the debate, as elaborated by Norman Graebner (1999), “The United States, its expansionist’s efforts largely preceded twentieth century precepts of self-determination and peaceful change that rendered resorts to force immoral and thus unacceptable. The United States throughout its expansionist career never faced an invincible coalition committed to blocking its expansion and defending the status quo” (Graebner, 1999, p. 256). Therefore, in combining the second question of the final exam, the United States in their view of the world politics has utilized the US economic, social history as a universal model as in dealing with foreign nations in other words “democratizing” the world. This feature of the US expansionism can be observed through the proceedings of the past Bush administration, according to Andrew Ross and Kristin Ross (2004), “Labeling Iraq as “rouge state” and part of
~ 99 ~
an “axis of evil” invoked this essential Anti-Americanism” (Ross & Ross, 2004, p. 87). This argument that obtained a majority support by the American populous following 9/11 leading to the witch-hunt of Weapons of Mass destruction (WMD), and the war on terror not only was disproven of its substance, but due to the unilateral means utilized in the undertaking also solidified the negative implications of American expansionism (Ross & Ross, 2004, pp. 140141). The above being an example of political nature, the nations representation that encompasses the American views observed through tourism and other interaction portray a common stereotype. In South America a North American is perceived as The “pinche gringo is el gordo obeso en la camisa hawaiiana-the fat guy in the Hawaiian shirt, ill spoken, ill mannered, excessively informal, oblivious to the way he is seen by others” (Ross & Ross, 2004, p. 35). In both the cases as in the United States declaring war on the “Axis of Evil” leading to anti American views, and the general stereotypical tourist both clearly, indicate the argument of that the Americans are perceived by the world as a negative influence on the society. Thus in observing the next decade unless these images of what an American is changed in the eyes of our global communities, which depicts the negative imperialist view of our expansion, the contents of the expansionist debate will pose a considerable challenge in developing future strategy for fighting the ‘long war’ of a terroristic nature. However, despite all good efforts by a state or the manner in which the weapons were utilized in suppression of a radical retaliation, another leader or a group would rise in upholding the previous beliefs. Such being a common theme among many of the conflicts US has engaged in, which paved the way for theories as the domino theory better understanding the post coin Hydra is of great need.
~ 100 ~
Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) a consequence of the Bush Doctrines After many month of hibernation, finally getting back my north and the south, looking at the beautiful world of geopolitics, full of intrigue and confusion, the world of the new emergent threat ISIS caught my attention. Thus, engulfing in a study concerning this new threat, which bare a linkage to the Great War on Terror few questions as whom are we really fighting? What the war really doing and did we the U.S. pave the way for ISIS the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and what is the path to be taken in securing these treats needs be scrutinized. The Definition of the War on Terror Thus, observing the white elephant from all paradigms, an answer can be found in a statement made by the Deputy Director, External Relation for the Human rights watch Caroll Bogert (Watch 2014, n.p). Carol during a session at the Scripps College Humanities Institution speaking about “Human Rights in the War on Terror - Are we safer since 9/11” emphasized a very vital element of the war and explain the difficulty the definition of this war has presented in solving or taking a side of who is right and who is wrong. According to Carroll Bogert (2004), “We don’t have a set definition of Terrorism”, “we do not have a set enemy” and “We do not have set definition to the war…we do not even have a battlefield” (Bogert 2005, n.p). Same time in defining the enemy or who and who is not a terrorist decision is left only to a handful of nations where a majority if left out according to Vilho Harle and Sami Moisio (2008), “Who is a terrorist is the exclusive and sovereign right of the U.S. The terrorist is the enemy of the U.S.” (Harke and Moisio 2008, 350). Consequently, it is here that we come across the ongoing issues of this War on Terror, which is seemingly accumulate more and more threats than subduing these emergent enemies of the state.
~ 101 ~
In circulating the issue better, a clear understanding of the definition is at stake, the definition of Terrorism described by the GAO (US General accounting office) states as “politically motivated violence to coerce a government or civilian population” (GAO 2003, 12). Same time in observing a nongovernmental based definition of terrorism Webster’s dictionary describe it as “The state of being terrorized or the act of terrorizing; the use of intimidation to attain one’s goal or achieve one’s cause” (Websters 1997, 308). Both definitions being parallel emphasize the utilization of coerciveness in achieving once goal or cause, who decides the limitation of such oppression and the action to be taken after, the oppressor, the oppressed or a bystander who assumes to know better. Whom are we really fighting? Which leaves the question of whom are we really fighting? To be defined as an infinite enemy who ever that poses an opposite view than the followers of the Bush doctrines, and the western views, According to President Bush in his speech on terrorism (2006), “The terrorists who declared war on America represent no nation. They defend no territory. And they wear no uniform. They do not mass armies on borders or flotillas of warships on the high seas. They operate in the shadows of society. They send small teams of operatives to infiltrate free nations. They live quietly among their victims. They conspire in secret. They operate in the shadows of society” (Bush 2006, n.p). Additionally, in addressing the national security strategy in 2002 President Bush clarified the enemy by stating that any nation which provide aid or safe haven for terrorism, falls as an enemy to the US and ended by stating that “Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists”. Furthermore, the statement by president bush in defining the enemy again establish the theory put forth by Vilho Harle and Sami Moisio that it is only the US and its allies who decide this enemy. ~ 102 ~
President Bush according to Richard Jackson (2005); We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime” (Jackson 2005, 194). The described enemies being so vague present an infinite amount of people or organizations, which only the United States and its allies perceive as dangers or enemies leaving an open-ended declaration of war on multiple entities.
Additionally, in observing another
standard the definition and the utilization of the word terrorism also draw in to consideration the slogan as elaborated by William J Crotty (2004), “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” (Crotty 2004, 5) leaving an unanswered question to who is the enemy. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the loose definition of the war the deployment of troops to Iraq as the execution of the bush doctoring and the national security strategies of 2002 where a war was declared on an undefined enemy and for an undefined cause presented a fertile grounds for retaliation based on the accused. Soon following its implementation, the US policy makers following the Bush doctrines maintained continual pressure on nations, which the US described as the Axis of Evil that included the nations of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea and their allies by naming and undiplomatically dealing with them which began tilting the delicate balance of good nature between the nations. According to Glenn Kessler and Peter Baker (2014): Nearly five years after President Bush introduced the concept of an ‘axis of evil’ comprising Iraq, Iran and North Korea, the administration has reached a crisis point with each nation. North Korea has claimed it conducted its first nuclear test, Iran refuses to
~ 103 ~
halt its uranium-enrichment program, and Iraq appears to be tipping into a civil war 3 1/2 years after the U.S.-led invasion (Cillizza 2014, n.p). What is the War on Terror is really doing? Additionally, observing what is the War on Terror is really doing in the global geopolitical theaters scrutinizing the various implementation of this doctrine is in need. The present loosely defined war that began post 9/11 as a means of retaliation against a known threat, despite knowing the identity of the enemy went on a Salem witch-hunt in Iraq seeking WMD (Weapons of Mass destruction), yet found none. Nevertheless, what it accomplished was the complete destruction of the existing political stability within that nation (Tiffen 2008, 106). The nation of Iraq, which was known in the ancient times as Mesopotamia, housed various indigenous empires including the Akkadian, Sumerian, Assyrian and Babylonian all, which left their own socioeconomic blueprints within the culture of the nation(Davis 2005). What is more the present day Iraq being a nation that house diversity in its ethnicities differing even among themselves despite collectively being an Islamic nation since ancient times follow their own individual customs tightly. Moreover, as understood by T.E Lawrence and the British in their attempts prior to the US intervention and democratizing it Iraq by nature a nation, which cannot be united by western philosophies of unification(Mack 1998, 290-299). However, despite the common belief and hope under the western eyes of democratizing nations as Iraq, they can only be united and sustained by means of a strong militaristic leadership that present its own pros and cons(Brom 2002, 15-67). As evident of failure in the present Iraq intervention of good will from 2003 to 2011, a majority vote concept, and the attempted implementation of a puppet pro US puppet government despite believed as the popular
~ 104 ~
philosophy of the west cannot sustain such nations with an ancient underpinning deep rooted in their diverse Poli socioeconomic philosophies (Girdner 2008, 170-171). Hence, moving forward, the US intervention founded on the loosely defined war “The War on Terror” which did not present a clear enemy or a battleground or a rationally supported purpose accomplished nothing but creating more chaos. The US taking out their active strong leader Saddam Hussein, only created a large vacuum paving the way for Rouge groups that were once under the check to compete among each other with arms in challenging the vacant seat of power overwhelming the US forces onsite (McGeough 2004, 1-81). Thus being a circulation of more violence, with these rouge insurgents causing consistent havoc, the US troops in defense of their territories, and keeping their pledge to their nation began returning fire causing more and more damages equally to both the nations’ socioeconomic infrastructures (Goldstein 2004). History repeats with lessons not learned On the other hand, in making things worst with all the negativities caused by the war in Iraq create in the name of terror, continued to extend this wave paralleling execution of the popular domino theory of the Vietnam epoch which the creator of the theory Secretary of Defense McNamara himself regretted in the latter period of his service. The domino theory according to Cambridge Dictionary (2014), “a belief in the 1950s and 1960s that if one country became communist, other close countries would more easily also become Communist (Dictionary 2014, n.p). Same way the Bush doctrine with its “War on terror” following the domino theory through fear began adding to the nation’s foreign policies in par with the axis of evil list more and more nations, which the administration perceived as a danger. According to Bente Scheller (2013), “President Bush stated that Syria posed “an unusual extraordinary threat to the national ~ 105 ~
security, foreign policy and economy of the united States,” and declared “a national emergency to deal with that threat” (Scheller 2013, 61). These additional nations added to the axis of evil, which the US perceived, dangers being Libya, Egypt, and Syria posed no eminent threat to the United States or its allies, now threatened by the expanding US regional and functional policies, which began causing systematic destabilization of the established delicate political balance of these nations systematically fell (Shoham 2004, 262-270). The falling of these nations with the elimination of their once strong leaders that held the delicate balance enlarged the breeding ground for radical and rouge war lords to penetrate a reign of terror than the original leaders which the US opposed and hope to remove and establish peace (Fuller 2007). Therefore, in establishing the answer to the question of what are we doing, through the findings of the present study it is evident that the post September 11 2001 execution of the US regional policies of the War on Terror” despite its best interest is causing more damage than good in their efforts of suppressing the fractions of global terror. What is next? Therefore, in conclusion the presently recognized emergent threat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or commonly known as ISIS, is in reality a result of the toppling the dominos of the “War on Terror” a loosely defined war against a loosely defined enemy. Additionally, the merging of Rouge organizations as ISIS is the immediate result of successively tumbling the wrong domino. The US overthrowing or supporting the overthrow of these strong leaders who hold the alleged nations at a balance, that suit those nations’ poli socioeconomic infrastructures grant free reign to the lawless, chaotic nations with an empty seat of power. Therefore, in ending the present merging threats, the US must reconsider its execution of the foreign policies in ~ 106 ~
finding the underpinned reason for these radical threats in suppressing them than declaring war on the nation or the organization in question. The nature guerilla forces, is clear, they thrive and service on sources which grant them the invincibility, so in taking down these fountains which such fractions as ISIS obtain their fuel for the cause, through a solid state of post Counter Insurgencies redevelopment plan which suite those nations in question will present a possible solution in reducing emergence of others.
~ 107 ~
Taming the hydra of post COIN operations In every conflict as observed through history, once the main conflicting element was suppressed, another element probed in securing the previous ideologies, which at times present the pits of the second wave in a larger scale than the first. Thus, in addressing this with an US official, I presented the following theory, thus took the liberty in sharing my observation. The popular question in post insurgencies being “The only thing that eliminating the insurgency leaders did was pave way for more ruthless leaders and individuals with no guidance” disagreeing with this statement same time agreeing on the fact that by cutting the head of the snake a conflicts did not contribute in stopping the initial conflict. Elaborating further, all conflicts where we managed in eliminating the leader or the initial head despite exploding in another direction stopped the immediate conflict. Same time, the cutting the head of the viper was rarely done by mass bombing’s it was always the CQC units, which managed in capturing or eliminating the head. Observing our past conflicts, in US history during the modern era, WWII, the great defeat by the Allies in World War I despite militaristically defeating the Axis made mistake, they won the war but failed in establishing a good postwar development plan. Thus the default came back to haunt us in the form of “November Criminals” and the rise of Adolf Hitler (Schmitt & Vedeler, 1984). Hitler despite the negative implication was a charismatic leader; he used our failures in establishing the war torn nations in re arming the nation to the next level of a world power as your stated “ the Hydra” (Bullock, 1962). However, World War II ended with Hitler dying the strong unifying factor fell, which crumbled the structure, we do not have death camps in Poland right now, which indicate that particular conflict ended with the fall of Berlin and the death of Hitler (Beevor, 2002). However, ~ 108 ~
despite ending and crusting the NSDAP and their ideologies nevertheless, failed to stop the hydra of conflicts as the Hydra came up in the form of the Cold War “Iron Curtain closing in the Eastern front” (Applebaum, 2012, pp. 331-361). Now adding onto this drawing parallel with your observations, the cold war, underpinned by Marxism (Communism), Stalinism, and Trotskyism becoming popular ideologies among handful of leaders and through their actions paved the way for the cold war (Harmstone, 1984, pp. 8-10). In the east Mao, Stalin, from the southeast Pol Pot, Hochi Man, and Rohana Wijeweera then from the west we have Castro, Che and the Cuban revolution (Mann, 2005, pp. 318-353). The Late Gen. Mao, Gen. Starlin, Hochi Man, all died from natural causes. On the other hand, Pol Pot or brother number one alongside was taken down by a small-armed band. With Pol Pot, being captured and placed on arrest the Cameroon guerilla regime became decimated (Hai, 1997, p. n.p). Same way following the killing of Ernesto Che Guevara in Bolivia by a small-armed team, the South American revolution movement that threatened the US was defused by its collapsing (Abrams, 2010, pp. 102-113). Furthermore, the J.V.P (Janatha Vikukthi Peramuna) movement in Sri Lanka, which started in the 70’s by Mr. Rohana Wijeweera adopting the ideologies of the Cuban Revolution, began a reign of insurgencies against the government. The government in numerous occasions deployed counterinsurgencies against the JVP but all were rendered useless (Samarasinghe & Samarsinghe, p. 87). In November 12, 1989, a small team led by Late Gen. Janaka Perera captured Mr. Rohana Wijeweera and brought him in, but was shot in November 13, 1989 details of who are yet unknown. Nevertheless, will Mr. Wijeweera’s the JVP insurgencies against the government immediately halted (Samarasinghe & Samarsinghe, pp. 88-89). On the other hand, did this completely annihilate the JVP? The answer is no, but due to the manner in which the Sri ~ 109 ~
Lankan government in 90’s handled the post conflict JVP they have adopted a new philosophy in dealing with differences and asking their needs (Uyangoda, 2000, pp. 70-73). They have become a legal political party of the Sri Lankan political system. Now the JVP, argues in the parliament, leaving the guns behind, the demand create disruptions in words, literature etc. No one being is killed (Uyangoda, 2000, pp. 70-73). Thus observing these situations, drawing parallels the present conflicts, the small armed units have accomplished in cutting the head of the viper, but the nature in which these conflicts occur or the foundation to these conflicts are yet to be solved thus as you have indicated the Hydra will have a new head sometimes even more. That is why our jobs are crucial to world peace or stability, once the leaders are taken and the initial conflicts are halted, we MUST immediately follow up on addressing the roots of the conflict, and by eliminating the supply of fuel, which keeps the heads from coming we can stop or divert these conflicts. Two examples are post world war II Japan, and Germany with the NSDAP ideologies, soon after the WWII ended the allied forces despite the initial conflicts ending with the death of Mr. Hitler took a next step starting with the Nuremberg Trials. The allies began an elaborate system of Nazi hunting, and prosecuting then while suppressing the small pockets as the Odessa that could pave the way for the Hydra to reincarnate (Horvitz & Catherwood, 2006). These actions taken post World War II put a stop to the dominant Nazi ideologies and the followers of their views, today there are small segment of undedicated sects excising in fraction some of the views the Reich processed but they are as of now not strong enough to pose a threat. Furthermore, in observing Japan, with the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what we knew as the pacific war ended but what followed the initial combat phase is what made the impact of the Japanese Hydra from getting another head. The incident with the Hiroshima and
~ 110 ~
Nagasaki and the events, which followed, left Japan in the worst case possible, their country was affected with more long-term impacts than any other nation affected with the war (Allinson, 2004, pp. 45-52). But due to great post war development plans and execution of these plans from the office of the supreme commander of the allied powers (SCAP) headed by Gen. Douglas Mc Arthur following the American strategy of “reverse course” killed the hydra completely, making Japan today a well developed nation following the fall back of the war (Allinson, 2004, pp. 53-56). Thus, in conclusion, the Hydra that addressed is foundation of any conflict, the small team units, which I described in the initial response to the conflict or the willingness of cutting the initial head. The hydra’s power comes in many forms but all boils down to suffering and retaliation due to prolonged suffering. Consequently, until you kill the power source of the hydra, no matter how or what we do it will always come up with another head. Therefore, in sustaining true peace and freedom, in eliminating the hydra of post counter insurgencies, a solid post conflict development plan and it’s execution in paving a concrete foundation is a must. Failures of such can be observed as present day Sudan, Egypt, and Libya the need to fight for freedom or just in caparison to the monetary and human lives being meager, following such victory in obtaining the needed just, continued conflicts within the nations present far damaging consequences than the originating reason for the conflict.
~ 111 ~
The Fifth Estate a New Emergent Threat to Geopolitics January 1789, before the outbreak of the French revolution, a political pamphlet called “Qu Est Ce Que Le Tiers Etat”, or “What is the third estate?” written by a French Roman Catholic Clergyman named Abbe Emmanuel Joseph Sieyes, put forth an argument which represented the poli-socioeconomic stratum of the time (Sieyès, 2003). Here Abbe Sieyes present rhetorically the three estates of France, the first estate being the entire clergy divided into higher and lower clergy, the second, consisted of the French nobles. Yet the Third estate, which compromised of 97% of the French populous, making it the majority, consisted of men and women that shared the life of corporeal labor being born and having died in the same social stratum found it impossible to make it up to the other stratums of the society (De Bourbon, 2006, p. 13). In balancing this social scale, which is tilting more towards the first and second estate Sieyes, voices through his pamphlet few question followed by the answers. As elaborated by sieyes “What is the third estates? Everything, what has it been until now? Nothing, and what does it ask? To be something,” in this manner Sieyes in his text establishes that the third estate should be given more influence than the first and the second, which he consider as futile to the nation (Sewell, 1994, pp. 44-66). However, prior to Sieyes and his illumination of the French social stratums and the problems of the third estate, a Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle and an Irish political leader named Edmund Burke brought forth the idea of an independent fourth estate. The fourth estate as defined then was “a societal or political force or institution whose influence is not consistently or officially recognized,” now it is known as the printed journalism or the “Press” (Darwish, 2010, pp. 70-75). In his debate, Thomas Carlyle indicated that the fourth estate being the reporters,
~ 112 ~
were more important than the other three estates of the parliament, which consisted of the Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons (Darwish, 2010, p. 70). The modern age being an age of global community and wide spread of technology, in association with the fourth estates of classic Estates of the Realm, the theory of the Fifth estate follow a similar strain. The theory, first debated by a media researcher Stephen Cooper, states that the bloggers are the present fifth estate (Cooper, 2006). However, William Dutton professor of the Oxford Internet Institute argues that the fifth estate includes not only bloggers as an extension of the media but the collective of networked individuals linked through the internet paving the way for other estates be included as well (Dutton, 2007, p. 14). Nevertheless, in support of Stephen Cooper’s view Dr. Neyef Al- Rodhan emphasize the validity of placing the weblogs at the pinnacle of the fifth estate of the realms, he establishes that blogs play a crucial role in influencing policymaking. Rodhan explains that the ability of blogs to directly influence elections, reporting from conflicts zones, and uprooting dissent over cooperate and congressional policies, which collectively bare the foundation to an array of governmental actions and processes while granting easy access for civilians to observe the events, make the blogging a true estate of the realms (Al-Rodhan, 2007). In summarizing his established argument, anyone with access to a computer and the internet can contribute to global political change and security. Yet, this freedom and ease of access to such a powerful force present an imminent danger to the decisions, which are introduced through this medium. The present fifth estate of blogs and the decisions taken on behalf of these blogs are founded on the emotions and the knowledge of the person or people writing the blog. Also being a unique feature of blogs, which separate them from all other media forms, the blogs does not mandate supervision, editing, having the simplest,
~ 113 ~
and the easiest form of entry present a challenge for governments to control such the output processed through such medium. In turn could pose a greater danger to a nation’s indignity as well as the decision-making done on behalf of that nation’s interest. Present example of such bare as the media incident with the Asiana Flight 214 crash. Following the fatal crash of the Asiana Flight 214, KTVU news channel with a desire to be the first, utilized mass media in finding details of the crash, and presented the names of the pilots found on a blog without verifying the source (Park, 2013, p. n.p). The names found on the web media utilized by KTVU being artificial names that sounded Chinese, poked fun of the crash as well as posed a racist theme (Park, 2013, p. n.p). The event placing foremost importance in presenting to the mass, without prior investigation of their sources KTVU presented the news in the public Television as well as their web media with the bogus names causing a large uproar from the Chinese populous of the US as well as China (Park, 2013, p. n.p) Thus in addressing such events, as well as other threatening elements of free and open web media as blogs Al- Rodhan, states, the danger such medium could pose on national security (Al-Rodhan N. R., 2009). As elaborated by Rodhan the web mediums with ease access can contribute to terrorist plots through facilitating cross-border communication as well as connecting in mass people whose ideas resemble beyond the mainstream ideologies generating hateful and violent messages as well as encourage other negative elements as organized crime (Al-Rodhan N. R., 2009). Thus paralleling the global growth in face of the future, scrutinizing the present internet medium usage statistics in the internet linked global community, based on the stats from WordPress 75,418,929 WordPress blogs alone have appeared and are active to date (WordPress, 2014, p. n.p). What’s more, based on global digital statistics for 2014, of the 52% of urban global
~ 114 ~
population, 35% utilizes the internet, and 26% of that is actively involved with social media making 1,856,680,860 of the total global population active social media users (Kemp, 2014, p. 5) . Thus, in par with Dr. William Dutton’s theory of the fifth estate, the platform of the fifth estate impose a clear danger of it being a complete free medium untainted by any governmental control, observing historical factors the 13 days of the Cuban missile crisis reminds clearly the implications of miss communication. The standoff between USSR and the US from October 14 28, 1962 nearly ending in another global conflicts following World War II, is not a lesson to be taken lightly (Kennedy & Schlesing, 1999). A singular strain of miss communication of events forged in representing another nation by masking the authenticity, could present a series of regrettable results. Therefore, in conclusion in the best interest of the nation’s future, authorities must bare more caution in the unchallenged, unedited, and unfiltered media as internet-based blogs, or social media. Taking to warning Al-Rhoden’s observation and impose as he states surveillance of blogs and develop legal, administrative, and technological tools to dissuade bloggers from posting potentially harmful information, such as calls to incite terrorism.
~ 115 ~
REFERENCES Abrams, D. (2010). Ernesto "Che" Guevara. New York: Infobase Publishing. Adams, R. J. (1994). The British Appeasement and the Origins of World War I. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company. Addington, L. H. (2000). America's war in Vietnam: a short narrative history. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Agar, C. (2006). Frommer's Vietnam (1st Edition ed.). Hoboken, New Jersery, United States: Wiley Publishing, Inc. Allinson, G. D. (2004). Japan's Postwar History. New York: Cornell University Press. Allison, G. (2007). Nuclear Terrorism. In R. L. Kugler, & H. Binnendijk, Seeing the elephant (p. 336). Dulles: Potomac Books Inc. Allison, G. (2004). Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe. New York: Times Books. Aloise, G. (2012). Nuclear Nonproliferation: Further actions needed by U.S Agencies to secure vulnerable nuclear and radiological materials. Government Accountability Office. Washington DC: Government Accountability Office. Al-Rodhan, N. R. (2009). Neo-statecraft and Meta-geopolitics: Reconciliation of Power, Interests and Justice in the 21st Century. Zurich: LIT Verlag. Al-Rodhan, N. R. (2007). The Emergence of Blogs as a Fifth Estate and Their Security Implications. Geneva, Switzerland: Slatkine. Amarasinghe, R. (2005, June 27). P-TOMS could open the door to peace. (R. Wijayapala, Interviewer) Applebaum, A. (2012). Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956. Toronto: Random House. Army, U. S. (2014, December 03). History. Retrieved Decembe4 03, 2014, from US Army Europe: Army Strong, Strong Europe Official Homepage of United States Army Europe: http://www.eur.army.mil/organization/history.htm#wwii ~ 116 ~
Auerswald, P. E., Duttweiler, C., & Garofano, J. (Eds.). (2003). Major Foreign Policy Speeches. Frederick, Maryland, United States: Kluwer Law International. Baker, D. (1987, July 9). The Making of Star Wars. New Scientist , pp. 35-40. Barnhill, J. (2005). Domino Theory. In R. W. McColl, Encyclopedia of World Geography (1st Edition ed., Vol. I, pp. 254-256). New York: Golson Books, Ltd. Beevor, A. (2002). The Fall of Berlin 1945. New York: Penguin Books. Bennendijk, H., & Kugler, R. K. (2007). Seeing the Elephant The U.S. Role in Global Security. Dulles: Potomac Books Inc. Benvenisti, E. (2012). The International Law of Occupation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Blanchard, C. M. (2009). United Arab Emirates Nuclear Program and Proposed U. S. Nuclear Cooperation. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service. Bock, P. (2001). Getting It Right: R&D Methods for Science and Engineering. San Diego: Academic Press. Bogert, C. (2005, November 12). Reflections on the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Beyond. Our Search for Security Post 9/11. UCTV. UCTV, Santa Barbara. Bourne, C. B. (Ed.). (1986). Canadian Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 23). Victoria: University of British Colombia Press. Boyer, P. S., Clifford, E. C., & Hawl, S. (2013). The Enduring Vision: A History of the American People. Boston: Wadsworth. (1992). The Changing Role of Technology in Military and Economic Power. In L. M. Branscomb, H. Brooks, A. B. Carter, G. L. Epstein, & J. A. Alic (Ed.), Beyond spinoff: military and commercial technologies in a changing world (1st Edition ed., pp. 3-54). Watertown, MA , United States of America: Harvard Business School Press. Brewer, S. (2006). Borders and Bridges: A History of U.S.-Latin American Relations. West Point: Praeger Security International. Broad, W., & Sanger, D. E. (2008, June 16). Asia Pacific: Officials Fear Bomb Design Went to Others. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from The New York Times: ~ 117 ~
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/world/asia/16nuke.html?ref=abdulqadeerkhan&_r= 0 Brom, S. (2002). Major Developments in the Middle East. In S. Brom, & Y. Shapir (Eds.), The Middle East Military Balance, 2001-2002 (Vol. Belfer Center Studies in International Security, pp. 15-67). Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America: Harvard University Press. Brooks, S. M. (2010). The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts (1st Edition ed., Vol. IV). (S. C. Tucker, Ed.) Santa Barbara, California, United States: ABC-CLIO,LLC. Bruce, H. A. (1909). The Romance of American Expansion. New York: Moffat, Yard & Company. Bullock, A. (1962). Hitler: a study in tyranny. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Bush, G. W. (2006, September 6). Transcript: President Bush's Speech on Terrorism . Retrieved June 17, 2014, from The New York Times: Washington: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/washington/06bush_transcript.html?pagewanted=all Calvocoressi, P., & Wint, G. (1972). Total War: Causes and Courses of the Second World War. Middlesex: Penguin Books. Cillizza, C. (2014, January 25). The 4th best State of the Union address: “Axis of evil”. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from The Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/01/25/the-4th-best-state-of-theunion-address-axis-of-evil/ Clarke, J. (1988). Advice and Support: The Final Years, 1965-1973 The U.S. Army in Vietnam. Washington DC: Center for Military History. Clayton, L. D. (2011). War Powers Act. In M. J. Manning, & W. R. Clarence (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Media and Propaganda in Wartime America (pp. 684-685). Santa Barbara, California, United States: Greenwood Publishing Group. Cohen, J. (2007). One Hundred Days of Silence: America and the Rwanda Genocide. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ~ 118 ~
Collier, M., & Marriott, B. (2002). Colonisation and Conflict 1750-1990. Oxford, United Kingdom: Heinemann Educational Publishers. Colucci, L. (2012). Obama Doctrine:Leading from Behind. In L. Colucci, The National Security Doctrines of the American Presidency: How They Shape (Vol. II, pp. 474-500). Santa Barbara, California, United States of America: Praeger Publications. Cooper, S. D. (2006). Watching the watchdog: Bloggers as the fifth estate. Spokane, Washington, United States of America: Marquette Books LLC. Cordesman, A. H. (2013, March 4). Challenges and Opportunities in the CENTCOM AOR. Retrieved March 22, 2013, from CSIS Center for Strategic & International Studies: http://csis.org/publication/challenges-and-opportunities-centcom-aor Cordesman, A. H. (2003). The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons. Washington DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Council, N. R. (2002). Making the Nation safer: The Role of Science and Technology in Counter Terrorism. Washington DC: National Academies Press. Covarrubias, J., & Lansford, T. (2009). Osama Bin Laden, Radical Islam and the United States. In T. Lansford, & R. P. Watson (Eds.), America's War on Terror (2nd Edition ed., pp. 1737). Farnham, Surrey, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Crabtree, J. D. (1994). On Air Defense. West Point: Praeger Publishers. Crandall, R. (2006). Gunboat Democracy: The United States Interventions in the Dominican Republic. Oxford, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield. Crimmins, E. (2005). White House Under Fire. (B. Rhatican, Ed.) Bloomingtom, Indiana, United States of America: Virginia Professionall Educators. Crotty, W. J. (2004). The Politics of Terror: The U.S. Response to 9/11. Lillington, North Carolina, United States of America: Northeastern University Press. Crozier, A. O. (1915). Nation of nations: the way to permanent peace; a supreme constitution for the Government of Governments. Cincinnati, United States of America: Stewart & Kidd Company.
~ 119 ~
Cypher, J. M. (1991). Military Spending after the Cold War. Journal of Economic Issues , 25 (2), 607-615. Daddis, G. A. (2011). No Sure Victory:Measuring U.S. Army Effectiveness and Progress in the Vietnam War. New York: Oxford University Press. Darwish, A. (2010). Translation and News Making in Contemporary Arabic Television. Pattreson Lakes, Victoria, Australia: Writescopy Pty Ltd. Davis, E. (2005). Memories of State: Politics, History, and Collective Identity in Modern Iraq. Berkeley: University of California Press. Davis, P. K., Kulick, J., & Egner, M. (2005). Implications of Modern Decision Science for Military Decision-Support Systems (1st ed.). Santa Monica, California, United States of America: RAND Coperation. De Bourbon, C. L. (2006). I Exist. Bloomington, IN, United States of America: Trafford Publishing. Defense, S. o. (2001). Proliferation: Threat and Response, January 2001. Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department of Defense. Washington DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense. DeFeo, M. A. (2008). Hostage Taking and Kidnapping as form of Terror Violence. In C. M. Bassiouni (Ed.), International Criminal Law: Sources, Subjects and Contents (Vol. I, p. 1037). Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. Dictionary, C. (2014, June 17). Domino theory. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from Cambridge Dictionaries Online: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/americanenglish/domino-theory Dockrill, R. S. (2008). Dealing with Fear: Implementing the Bush Doctrine of the U.S. "War on Terror. In J. Owens, & J. Dumbrell (Eds.), America's War on Terrorism: New Dimensions in U.S. Government and National (1st Edition ed., pp. 113-139). Plymouth, United Kingdom: Lexington Books. DOD. (2007). National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century. Washington DC: Department of Defense. ~ 120 ~
DOS. (2013). New START. Retrieved May 23, 2013, from Department of State: http://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/index.htm DOS. (2001, January 20). STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITATION TALKS (SALT I). Retrieved May 23, 2013, from Department of State: http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/salt1.html DOS. (2013). The Eisenhower Doctrine, 1957. Retrieved May 31, 2013, from United States Department of State: Office of the Historian: http://history.state.gov/milestones/19531960/EisenhowerDoctrine Drachman, E. R., & Langran, R. (2008). You Decide: Controversial Cases in American Politics (2nd Edition ed.). Plymouth, United Kingdom: Rawman & Littlefield Publishers. Duiker, W. J., & Spielvogel, J. J. (2012). World History (7th Edition ed., Vol. II). Boston, MA, United States of America: Cengage Learning. Dutton, W. (2007, October). The Fifth Estate . Retrieved February 8, 2014, from Oxford Internet Institute: http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/research/projects/?id=57 Dye, T. R., & Zeigler, H. (2009). The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage. Elliot, J. M., & Reginald, R. (1989). The Arms Control, Disarmament, and Military Security Dictionary. Rockville: Borgo Press. Engle, S. D., & Krick, R. K. (2003). The American Civil War: This Mighty Scourge of War (1st Edition ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing. Faiola, A. (2013, January 13). Africa. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from Washington Post: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-17/world/36384003_1_algerian-forcesforeign-hostages-algerian-government FAS. (2013, May 9). Shahab-3 / Zelzal-3 . Retrieved May 09, 2013, from Federation of American Scientists: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/militarysumfolder/shahab3.html Feng, N. (2013, January 22). New aspects in US Asia-Pacific strategy. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from People's Daily Online: http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90883/8101378.html ~ 121 ~
Ferguson, N. (2012, May 22). Civilization: The West and the Rest with Niall Ferguson . Retrieved December 5, 2014, from PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/civilization-west-andrest/killer-apps/property/map-american-expansion-u-s-a-and-gran-colombia/ Fierke, K. M. (2007). Critical Approaches to International Security. Cambridge: Polity Press. Filo, J. (2010). Kent State Killings, 1970. In B. Ward (Ed.), The 1960s: A Documentary Reader (pp. 205-209). Malden, United States: Wiley Blackwell. Flint, C. (2011). Introduction to Geopolitics. New York, New York, United States of America: Routledge Publishing. Folly, M., & Palmer, N. (2010). The A to Z of U.S. Diplomacy from World War I Through World War II. Lanham: Scarecrow Press. Foner, E. (Ed.). (1990). A House Divided: America in the Age of Lincoln. Chicago, Illinois, United States of America: Chicago Historical Society. Freese, J. J. Heavenly Ambitions: America's Quest to Dominate Space. Fuller, J. (2007). Introduction:Perspectives on American Power and Empire. In S. Lawrence, & J. Fuller (Eds.), America, War and Power: Defining the State, 1775-2005 (pp. 11-29). New York, New York, United States: Routledge. GAO. (2003). Combating terrorism interagency framework and agency programs to address the Overseas Threat. General Accounting Office, United States Government. Washington DC: United States General Accounting Office. Gates, D. (2003). Sky Wars: A History of Military Aerospace Power. London: Reaktion Books Ltd. Gaudin, S. (2009, 20 July). NASA's Apollo technology has changed history. Retrieved May 8, 2013, from Computer World: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9135690/NASA_s_Apollo_technology_has_cha nged_history?taxonomyId=11&pageNumber=2 Girdner, E. J. (2008). U.S.A. and the New Middle East. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House. Goldstein, J. (2004). The Real Price of War: How You Pay for the War on Terror. New York: New York University Press. ~ 122 ~
Goodrich, N. D. (2004). The Democratic Constitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Government, U. (2013). Fiscal Year 2013 Historical Tables: Budget of the U.S. Government. United States Government, Office of Management and Budget. Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office. Graebner, N. (1999). The Oxford Companion to American Military History. (J. W. Chambers, & F. Anderson, Eds.) New York: Oxford University Press. Green, M. H. (1988). The Rarotonga South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty. In W. R. Walker, & M. Sutherland (Eds.), The United Nations University Studies on Peace and Regional Security The Pacific: Peace, Security and the Nuclear Issue (p. 235). London, United Kingdom: Zed Books Ltd. Green, R. (Ed.). (2006). The Commonwealth Yearbook. Cambridge: Nexus Srategic Partnerships. Greenberg, M. (1989). The buck stops here: a biography of Harry Truman. Minneapolis: Dillion Press. Greinier, J. (2008). The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607-1814. New York: Cambridge University Press. Grimmett, R. F. (2005). War Powers Resolution: After Thirty Years. New York: Novinka Books. Gugliotta, G. (2012, April 12). New Estimate Raises Civil War Death Toll. Retrieved February 26, 2014, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-wartoll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Gunn, L. (2010). Climate Change and National Security. (J. C. Bersia, G. Othon, M. Freeman, & J. A. Smith, Eds.) Worldviews for the 21st Century , 8, 3-12. Hai, M. (1997, July). Cambodia: POL POT THE INTERVIEW AND CONFESSION. (N. Thayer, Interviewer) Hale, W., Lane, H., Lulla, K., & Chapli, G. (Eds.). (2012). Wings In Orbit: Scientific and Engineering Legacies of the Space Shuttle 1971-2010. Washington DC: Government Printing office. Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. (1818). The Federalist, on the New Constitution: Written in 1788. Philadelphia: Benjamin Warner. ~ 123 ~
Harke, V., & Moisio, S. (2008). Structural setting for Global Enviornmental Politics in a Hierarchic International System: A Geopolitical View. In H. G. Brauch, Ú. O. Spring, & C. Mesjasz (Eds.), Globalization and environmental challenges (Vol. III, pp. 345-355). New York, New York, United States of America: Springer Publications. Harmstone, T. R. (Ed.). (1984). Communism in Eastern Europe. Manchester: Indiana University Press. Harris, P. (2001). Routledge encyclopedia of international political economy (1st Edition ed., Vol. III). (B. R. Jones, Ed.) London, United Kingdom: Routledge Publications. Healy, D. (1970). U. S. Expansionism: The Imperialist Urge in the 1890's. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Heffner, R. D. (2002). A Documentary History of the United States. New York: New American Library. Heine, J. (1990). A Revolution Aborted: The Lessons of Grenada. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press. Hildreth, S. A. (2010). Ballistic Missile Defense and Offensive Arms Reductions: A Review of the Historical Record. Congressional Reserach Service. Washington DC: Congressional Reserach Service. Hodge, C. C., & Nolan, C. J. (Eds.). (2007). US Presidents and Foreign Policy from 1789 to the Present. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Hoeber, F. P. (1981). Military Applications of Modeling Selected Case Studies. London, United Kingdom: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Inc. Holman, K. (2013, March 29). ACLU, Congress Await Obama's Next Action on Overseas Drone Strikes . Retrieved March 29, 2013, from PBS New Hour: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/03/aclu-others-await-presidents-nextaction-on-overseas-drone-strikes.html Hook, S. W., & Spainer, J. (2013). American Foreign Policy Since WWII (19th Edition ed.). London: Sage.
~ 124 ~
Hook, S. W., & Spanier, J. W. (2013). American Foreign Policy Since WWII (19th Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks, California, United States of America: Sage Publications. Horvitz, L. A., & Catherwood, C. (2006). Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide. New York: Fact on File Inc. House, W. (2003, February). National Security Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from National Security Strategy: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf Huchthausen, P. (2003). Americ's Splendid Little Wars Short History of U.S. Military Engagements: 1975-2000. New York: Viking Press. Hunt, E. K., Nesiba, R. F., & O'Hara, P. A. (2008). Economics: An Introduction to Traditional and Progressive Views. New York: Sharpe, Inc. Ingram, D. (2013, March 15). U.S. court pressures Obama for drone policy details. Retrieved March 29, 2013, from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/15/us-usa-dronescourt-idUSBRE92E0NW20130315 Jackson, R. (2005). Writing the War on Terrorism: Language, Politics and Counter-terrorism. New York, New York, United States: Manchester University Press. Johnson, M. O. (1990). The Role of U.S. Military Forces in Gulf War. In C. C. Joyner (Ed.), The Persian Gulf War: lessons for strategy, law, and diplomacy (pp. 127-136). West Port, United States of America: Greenwood Publishing Group. Kaplan, D. (1983). Lasers for Missile Defense. (R. Adams, R. Young, S. McGuire, & B. T. Field, Eds.) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , 39 (5), 5-8. Kegley, C. W., & Raymond, G. A. (2012). The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Kemp, S. (2014, January 9). Social, Digital & Mobile World Wide in 2014. Retrieved February 9, 2014, from We are Social: http://wearesocial.net/blog/2014/01/social-digital-mobileworldwide-2014/ Kengor, P. (2007). The Crusader Ronal Reagan and the fall of Communism. New York: Herper Perennial. ~ 125 ~
Kennedy, R., & Schlesing, A. (1999). Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Keynes, E. (1991). Undeclared War: Twilight Zone of Constitutional Power. University Park: Pennsylvania State University. Kimbal, D. G. (2013, February). Obama’s Second Chance. Retrieved May 24, 2013, from Arms Control Today: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2013_01-02/Focus Kirshner, J. (1998). Political Economy in Security Studies after the Cold War. Review of International Political Economy , 5 (1), 64-91. Knight, O. (1960). Following the Indian Wars: The Story of the Newspaper Correspondents Among the Indian Campaigners. Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press. Kommers, D. P. (1952). Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. Et Al.V.Sawyer. In D. P. Kommers, J. E. Finn, & J. G. Jaco (Eds.), American Constitutional Law: Essays, Cases, and Comparative Notes (pp. 133-137). Oxford: Rowman Littlefield. Kugler, R. L. (2006). Policy Analysis in National Security Affairs New Method for New Era. Washington DC: National Defense University Press. Lanka, C. S. (2014, February 09). Trading Economics. Retrieved February 2014, 2014, from Sri Lanka Government Debt to GDP: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/srilanka/government-debt-to-gdp Lantis, J. S. (2013). US Foreign Policy in Action: An Innovative Teaching Text. West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell. Lardner, R. (2013, February 02). Pentagon: Budget Cuts Are 'Particularly Tragic,' 'Collateral Damage'. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/pentagon-budget-cuts_n_2669769.html Lee, L. E., & Higham, R. D. (1997). World War 2 in Europe, Africa, and the Americas, with General Sources. Westport, Connecticut, United States: Greenwood. Lehto, M., & Kuokkanen, P. (2007). Development of Command and Control in Air ForceTransformation or Gradual Evolution. In D. Remenyi (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th
~ 126 ~
European Conference on Information Warfare & Security (pp. 163-170). Reading, United Kingdom: Academic Conferences Limited. Lewis, A. R. (2007). The American Culture of War: A History of US Military Force from World War II to Operation Enduring Freedom. New York: Routledge. Lincoln, A. (2001). Abraham Lincoln: His Speeches and Writings. (R. P. Basler, Ed.) Cleveland, Ohio, United States of America: Da Capo Press. Lindsay, J. M., & O'Hanlon, M. E. (2001). Defending America: The Case for Limited National Missile Defense. Washington DC: Brooking Institution. Lisinski, K. (2012, May 3). Explaining War: A Comparison of Realism and Constructivism. Retrieved May 31, 2013, from E- International Relations: http://www.eir.info/2012/05/03/explaining-war-a-comparison-of-realism-and-constructivism/ Lucas, R. E. (2004). A concise history of economic growth: from mercantilism to menetarism. Cambridge, MA, United States of America: Harvard University Press. Mack, J. E. (1998). A Prince of Our Disorder: The Life of T. E. Lawrence. Boston, Massachusets, United States of America: Harvard University Press. Mann, M. (2005). The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Manning, R., & Clawson, P. (1997, December 29). The Clinton Doctrine. Retrieved May 31, 2013, from The Washington Institute: Policy Analysis: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/the-clinton-doctrine Marcus, M. (2004). Presidential Power In Times of Crisis. In G. Ivers, & K. T. McGuire (Eds.), Creating Constitutional Change: Clashes Over Power and Liberty in the Supreme Court (pp. 65-79). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Marcus, M. (1994). Truman and the Steel Seizure Case: The Limits of Presidential Power. New York: Duke University Press. Marley, D. F. (2014). Mexico at War: From the Struggle for Independence to the 21st-Century Drug Wars. Santa Barbara, California, United States: ABC-CLIO, LLC.
~ 127 ~
Marquis, S. L. (1997). Unconventional Warfare: Rebuilding U.S. Special Operations Forces. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution. McElroy, D. (2009, August 28). Profile: A.Q. Khan, godfather of Pakistan's nuclear programme. Retrieved April 23, 2013, from The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/6105988/Profile-A.Q.-Khangodfather-of-Pakistans-nuclear-programme.html McGeough, P. (2004). The Sheikhs, the U.S. and the Future of Iraq. In P. McGeough, A. Vanstone, R. Manne, & G. Greer, Quarterly Essay Issue 14. Mission Impossible: The Sheikhs, the U.S. and the Future of Iraq (p. 117). Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: Schwartz Publishing. McPherson, J. (1988). Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Meštrović, S. G. (2008). Rules of Engagement?: A Social Anatomy of an American War Crime. New York: Algora Publishing. Middlebrook, K. J., & Rico, C. The United States and Latin America in the 1980s. Mitchell, D. J. (2005). U.S. Self - Image Pride and Vulnerability in a Changing World. In C. McGiffert (Ed.), Chinese Images of the United States (Vol. 3, pp. 134-141). Washington D.C., Washington D.C., United States of America: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Mosher, D. E. (1997). The grand plans ballistic missile defense. (S. Hassler, Ed.) IEEE Spectrum , 34 (9), 28-39. Mowthrope, M. (2004). The militarization and weaponization of space. Oxford: Lexington Books. Nagler, R. G. (1992). Ballistic Missile Proliferation: An Emerging Threat. Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, Department of Defense. Arlington: System Planning Corporation. Natcher, P. R. (1977). The American Indian Wars, 1860-1890. (M. Windrow, Ed.) Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey Publishing.
~ 128 ~
Network, L. (2012, March 23). March 23, 1983 | Reagan Proposes ‘Star Wars’ Missile Defense System. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from New York Times: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/march-23-1983-reagan-proposes-star-warsmissile-defense-system/ Northhouse, P. G. (2010). Leadership Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Oberdorfer, D. (2001). The two Koreas: a contemporary history. New York: Basic Books. Park, M. (2013, July 17). Asiana jokes: Racist or just bad taste? Retrieved February 9, 2014, from CNN U.S.: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/17/us/asiana-name-blunder-race/ Peña, C. V. (1998, June 22). Theater Missile Defense:. Retrieved May 7, 2013, from Cato Policy Analysis: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-309.html Perry, D. J. (2011). Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) 1983. In C. Clark (Ed.), American Economy: A Historical Encyclopedia (Vol. I, pp. 418-419). Santa Barbara, California, United States of America: ABC-CLIO, LLC. Perry, W. L., & Gordon, J. (2008). Analytic Support To Intelligence In Counterinsurgencies. Santa Monica: RAND Publications. Pierpaoli, P. G. (1999). Truman and Korea: The Political Culture of the Early Cold War. Colombia: University of Missouri Press. Possel, W. H. (1998). Laser Weapons in Space : A Critical Assesment. Air University , Department of Defense. Alabama: Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base. Raines, E. F., & Stewart, R. W. (2008). Operation Urgent Fury: The Invasion of Grenada, October 1983 (1st Edition ed.). Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. Reed, J., & Schaller, M. (1995). Chinese American Relations. In A. C. Venzon, & P. L. Miles (Eds.), The United States in the First World War: An Encyclopedia (pp. 141-147). New York, New York, United States: Garland Publishing, INC. Ross, A., & Ross, K. (2004). Anti-Americanism. New York: New York University Press. Saidman, S. (2012, December 14). The 21st-Century Conundrum: What good is the best fighter jet if you can't afford to fly it? Retrieved May 28, 2013, from Canadian International Council: http://opencanada.org/features/blogs/roundtable/the-21st-century-conundrum/ ~ 129 ~
Samarasinghe, S. W., & Samarsinghe, V. Historical Dictionary of Sri Lanka. Sanger, D. E., & Shanker, T. (2013, March 10). Cuts Give Obama Path to Create Leaner Military. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/11/us/politics/mandatory-cuts-could-open-path-todeeper-defense-trims.html?pagewanted=all Sathasivam, K. (2005). Uneasy Neighbours: India, Pakistan and United States Foreign Policy. Aldershot, Hampshire, United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Sauer, T. (2005). Nuclear Inertia: US Weapons Policy After the Cold War. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Scheller, B. (2013). The Wisdom of Syria's Waiting Game: Foreign Policy Under the Assads. London: C.Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd. Schmitt, B. E., & Vedeler, H. C. (1984). Rise Of Modern Europe: The World in the Crucible 1914-1919. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Schweitzer, J. (2011, April 14). Slavery and the Civil War: Not What You Think. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffschweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html Sewell, W. H. (1994). A Rhetoric of Bourgeois Revolution: The Abbé Sieyes and What is the Third Estate? Durham, NC, United States of America: Duke University Press. Sharps, M. J. (2010). Processing Under Pressure: Stress, Memory and Decision-Making in Law Enforcement. New York: Looseleaf. Shea, D. A. (2010). Nuclear Terrorism: Strengthening our Domestic Defense, Part I. Resources, Science and Industry Division, Congressional Research Service. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service. Shoham, D. (2004). The Chemical and Biological Threat of Islam. In D. Bukay (Ed.), Muhammad's Monsters: A Comprehensive Guide to Radical Islam for Western Audiences (pp. 255-281). Green Forest, AR, United States of America: Ariel Center for Policy Research.
~ 130 ~
Sieyès, E. (2003). Sieyès: Political Writings: Including the Debate Between Sieyès and Tom Pain in 1791. (S. Michael, Ed.) Indianapolis, MN, United States of America: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Skar, O. H. (2007). Terror, Insurgency, and the State: Ending Protracted Conflicts. (M. Heiberg, B. O'Leary, & J. Tirman, Eds.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Smith, C. S. (2010). THE PATRIOT ACT: Issues and Controversies. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD. Sorcher, S. (2013, March 19). 5 Key National-Security Issues for 2013. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from National Journal: http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/5-keynational-security-issues-for-2013-20121227 Staff. (2013). 6.5 Post Tsunami Operational Management Structure (P-TOMS). Retrieved March 22, 2013, from PT Sri Lanka: People's Tribunal on Sri Lanka: http://www.pptsrilanka.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&catid =34&Itemid=36 Staff. (1999, Aug 18). NATO agency turns down MEADS protest. Retrieved May 22, 2013, from Flight Global: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/nato-agency-turns-downmeads-protest-55117/ Staff, W. (2011, September 23). Pakistan slams U.S. allegations on spy agency. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from CNN World: http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/09/23/pakistan.us.accusations/index.html Stinnett, R. (2000). Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. New York: Touchstone. Stueck, W. (1995). The Korean War: An International History. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Summers, H. G. (2007). American Strategy in Vietnam: A Critical Analysis. Mineola, New York, United States: Dover Publications. Tiefer, C. (2004). Veering Right: How the Bush Administration Subverts the Law for Conservative Causes. Los Angeles: University of California Press. ~ 131 ~
Tiffen, R. (2008). The Public Case of War: Australian use of Intelligence and the Case of war in Iraq. In J. P. Pfiffner, & M. Thythian (Eds.), Intelligence and National Security Policymaking on Iraq: British and American Perspectives (pp. 106-126). Texas, United States: Manchester University Press. Tindall, G. B., & Shi, D. E. (1992). America : A Narrative History. New York: W.W.North & Company, Inc. Totten, S., Bertrop, P., & Iarkusen, E. (2008). Dictionary of Genocide. West Point: Green Wood Press. Tucker, S. C. (Ed.). (2013). Almanac of American Military History. Santa Barbara, California, United State of America: ABC-CLIO, LLC. Tucker, S. C. (Ed.). (2011). The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War: A Political, Social, and Military History (2nd Edition ed.). Santa Barbara, California, United States. Tucker, S. (Ed.). (2011). The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars, 1607–1890: Political, Social and Military History (1st Edition ed.). Santa Barbara, California, United States of America: ABC-CLO, LLC. U.S.Congress. (1992). Building future security : Strategies for Restructuring the Defense Technology and Industrial Base. Washington DC, United States: U.S. Government Printing office. UNODA. (2013). Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved May 23, 2013, from United Nations Office for Disarment Affairs: http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt Urofsky, M. I. (Ed.). (2000). The American Presidents: Critical Essays. New York: Garland Publishing Inc. Uyangoda, J. (2000). Post Independence Social Movements. In W. D. Lakshman, & A. C. Tisdell, Sri Lanka's Development Since Independence: Socio-Economic Perspectives and Analyses (pp. 60-76). New York: Nova Science Publications. Vatis, M. (2003). International Cyber Security Cooperation: Informal Bilateral Models. (J. A. Lewis, Ed.) Significant Issues Series , XXV, 1-10. ~ 132 ~
Vego, M. N. (2009). Joint Operational Warfare: Theory and Practice (Ist edition ed.). Dept. of the Navy. Viotti, P. R. (2005). American Foreign Policy and National Security A Documantary Record. New Jersey: Peason Prentice Hall. Viotti, P. R. (2005). American foreign policy and national security:. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Viotti, P. R. (2005). American foreign policy and national security:. New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc. Vizard, F. (1999, April). Star Wars. Popular Science , pp. 56-61. Voskresenskiĭ, A. D. (2002). Russia and China: A Theory of Inter-State Relations. London: Routledge. Watch, H. R. (2014). Carroll Bogert. Retrieved June 17, 2014, from Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/bios/carroll-bogert Watson, C. A. (2002). United States National Security. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, Inc. Watson, D. (2016). Developments in Iranian Nuclear Capabilities. Central Security Services, Department of Defense. Fort Meade: National Security Agency. Websters. (1997). Websters Dictionary: "Terrorism". Ashland, Ohio, United States: Landoll's Publications. Weinreb, A. (2003, April 14). Unilateral vs. Multilateral. Retrieved April 9, 2013, from Canada Free Press: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2003/media041403.htm Weisgerber, M. (2013, March 18). DoD reviewing strategy in wake of budget cuts. Retrieved March 18, 2013, from Marine Corps Times: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2013/03/ap-chuck-hagel-orders-review-defensestrategy-031813/ Whitlock, C. (2013, January 18). National Security. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from Washinton Post: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-18/world/36474487_1_mali-algerianleaders-aqim
~ 133 ~
Wickremasekara, D. (2012, February 6). Ugly Face of Facebook. Retrieved February 9, 2014, from The Sunday Times: http://sundaytimes.lk/120205/News/nws_26.html Wilentz, S. (2008). The Age of Reagan: A History, 1974-2008. New York: Herper Perennial. Wilson, W. (1914). American neutrality: Statement of the President. In American neutrality: An appeal by the President of the United States to the citizens of the republic requesting their assistance in Maintaining a State of Neutrality during the present European War (pp. 3-4). Washington: Government Printing Office. Wittkopf, E. R., & Jones, C. M. (2008). American Foreign Policy: Pattern And Process. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. Wood, D. (2013, April 11). Defense Budget Cuts Hinder B-52 Bomber Missions. Retrieved April 11, 2013, from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/29/defensebudget-cuts-b52_n_2978892.html Wood, G.-Z. (1921). The Genesis of the Open Door Policy in China. New York: University of Colombia Press. WordPress. (2014, February 9). A live look at activity across WordPress.com. Retrieved February 9, 2014, from WordPress.com: http://en.wordpress.com/stats/
~ 134 ~
APPENDIX Tables
Table 1: Ballistic Missile and NBC Capabilities of Developing Countries
Developing Country
Ballistic Missile
Chemical Warhead Capable X X X X X
Afghanistan Argentina Brazil China Egypt
Scud B Alacran SS-300, SS-600 M-9/11 Scud B, Scud 100/"Project T"
India Iran Iraq Israel Libya North Korea Pakistan South Korea Syria Taiwan
Prithvi, Agni Mushak, Scud, Iran 700, Tondar 68 Al Hussein, Al Abbas Jericho I & II Al Fatah, Scud B Scud, No Dong, Taep'o Dong I/II Hatf, Ghauri NHK-1/2 Scud B/Mod.C Ching Feng
X X X X X X
Nuclear Make/Buy Effort
X X Current nuclear power X X X X X X X X X X X
Source: Derived from Systems Planning Corporation, Ballistic Missile Proliferation: An Emerging Threat, 1992; (Nagler, 1992, pp. 11-21)
~ 135 ~
Table 2: Missile Recipients and Producers of Ballistic Missiles
Source: Obtained from Systems Planning Corporation, Ballistic Missile Proliferation: An Emerging Threat, 1992; (Nagler, 1992, p. 23)
Table 3 : Primary U.S. Theater Missile Defense Programs
Source: Obtained from Brooking Inst Press, Feiveson H.A, Blair B.G. , “The Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-Alerting of Nuclear Weapons”, 1999, (P.75)
~ 136 ~
Table 4 : The Summary of BMDO and TMD programs
Source: Information for the table “The Summary of BMDO and TMD programs” was obtained from David E. Mosher, "The Grand Plans," IEEE Spectrum, September 1997.
Table 5: Military Expenditure by Administration from 1961-2013 War
Cold War Cold War Cold War Cold War Cold War Cold War Gulf War I Eurasia Iraq War War on Terror
Administration
J.F. Kennedy Lyndon B Johnson Richard Nixon Gerald Ford James Carter Ronald Reagan George H.W. Bush William J Clinton George W Bush Barak Obama
Years
1961-1963 1963-1969 1969-1974 1974-1977 1977-1981 1981-1989 1989-1993 1993-2001 2001-2009 2009-Todate
Total US$ Millions
105,745 298,814 237,720 295,638 1,232,209 1,878,608 1,174,507 2,218,363 3,698,244 3,478,327
Source: Information for the table “Military Expenditure by Administration from 1961-2013” was obtained from the executive office of the president of the United States. "Fiscal Year- 2013 Budget of the U.S. Government".
~ 137 ~
Table 6 : Looking for Information on Different Media
Source: The table “Looking for information on Different Media (QA1)” was obtained from Dr. Bill Dutton’s presentation, “The Internet and the Rise of a Fifth Estate," prepared for 2012 China new media communication association annual conference, located in slide share.
~ 138 ~
Maps Map 4: Plains Indians territory before 1800s
~ 139 ~
Map 5: American Expansion 1783 - 1917
Source: The obtained the Map “American Expansion 1783 - 1917” PBG civilization “West and the Rest with Niall Ferguson” (Ferguson, 2012, p. n.p)
~ 140 ~
Map 6: Estimated Ranges of Current and Potential Iranian Ballistic Missiles
Source: The obtained the map “Estimated Ranges of Current and Potential Iranian Ballistic Missiles” from the Federation of American Scientists website, “Shahab-3 / Zelzal-3”; (FAS, 2013, p. n.p)
~ 141 ~
Map 7: Estimated Ranges of a Potential N. Korean Ballistic Missiles
Source: obtained from the report by the Office of the secretary of Defense, Proliferation: Threat and Response, 1997, (Defense, 2001, p. 12)
~ 142 ~
Map 8: Estimated Ranges of a Potential Pakistani Ballistic Missiles
Source: obtained from the report by the Office of the secretary of Defense, Proliferation: Threat and Response, 1997, (Defense, 2001, p. 29)
~ 143 ~
Map 9: Estimated Ranges of a Potential Indian Ballistic Missiles
Source: obtained from the report by the Office of the secretary of Defense, Proliferation: Threat and Response, 1997, (Defense, 2001, p. 26)
~ 144 ~
Map 10 : North Atlantic Treaty Organization: members and partners
Source: The author obtained the Image “North Atlantic Treaty Organization: members and partners” from the “Britanica.com” web site, in webpage “North Atlantic Treaty Organization: members and partners” Link: http://www.britannica.com/bps/media-view/169034/1/0/0
~ 145 ~
Figures Figure 4 : Punch or the London Charivarl comic on the American Civil War
Source: The author obtained the Image “Punch, or the London Charivarl on November 1864” from the “Yesterday’s paper” blog site, in webpage “Punch’s Opinion of the American Civil War” Link: http://john-adcock.blogspot.com/2012/04/punchs-opinion-of-american-civilwar.html
~ 146 ~
Figure 5: Bodies on the battlefield at Antietam Sept 17, 1862
Source: The author obtained the Image “Bodies on the battlefield at Antietam Sept 17, 1862” through a public domain in the US, licensed with PD-USGov
~ 147 ~
Figure 6: US Entering Mexico to Capture Poncho Villa in 1916
Source: The author obtained the Image “US entering mexico to capture Pancho Villa in 1916” from the Maskaryk TV website, in webpage “Cultura.” Link: http://masaryk.tv/73356/larevolucion-mexicana-en-el-espejo-de-la-caricatura-estadounidense
~ 148 ~
Figure 7 : The SDI Strategy and the “Brilliant Pebbles Program”
Source: the image of the SDI‘s proposed plan was obtained through Global Security Organization webpage under Strategic Defense Initiative, 2013
~ 149 ~
Figure 8 : An artist's rendering of an X-ray laser hit an incoming missile.
Source: The author obtained the Image “An artist's rendering of an X-ray laser hit an incoming missile”, from the atomic archives website, under the webpage “Reagan's Star Wars”. Link: http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page20.shtml
Figure 9 : The Brilliant Pebbles Satellite
Source: The author obtained the Image “Brilliant Pebbles” satellite from the missile threat website, from webpage “Brilliant Pebbles.” Link: http://missilethreat.com/defense-systems/brilliant-pebbles/
~ 150 ~
Figure 10: Author with a Blue Scout Junior Launch Vehicle
Source: The author obtained the image “With a Blue Scout Junior Launch Vehicle” from his private collection, taken from a Nikon Camera on 2013
~ 151 ~
Figure 11: Thor IRBM SM-75/PGM-17
Source: The author obtained the Image “Thor Missile IRBM” from the VNFAWING.com website, webpage “SM-75/PGM-17A/PTM-17A/USM-75 Thor IRBM (Martin, Douglas, and GE)” Link http://vnfawing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=625&sid=452480ff8f2d6390b4b82102ebff8f9c
~ 152 ~
Figure 12: Thor Missile Scale Data
Source: The author obtained the Image “Thor Missile Scale Data” from the Rocketertonline website, from webpage “Thor.” Link http://www.rocketryonline.com/jimball/alway/images/Thormissile.gif
~ 153 ~
Figure 13: Standard Missile - 3 (SM-3)
Source: The author obtained the Image “Standard Missile - 3 (SM-3) is launched from the Pearl Harbor-based Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie (CG-70)” through a public domain in the US, licensed with PD-USGov
~ 154 ~
Figure 14: US Army Nike Zeus missile, the first ABM system
Source: The author obtained the Image “US Army Nike Zeus missile, the first ABM system” through a public domain in the US, licensed with PD-USGov
~ 155 ~
Figure 15 : Signing of the North Atlantic Treaty April 4, 1949
Source: The author obtained the Image “Photograph of President Truman signing the document implementing the North Atlantic Treaty at his desk in the Oval Office, as a number of dignitaries look on” through a public domain in the US, licensed with PD-US Gov
~ 156 ~
~ 157 ~
