Suchergebnisse

This is one of the first books on U.S. foreign policy and NATO in the international system published in the immediate wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The book assesses the extent to which the Russian invasion of Ukraine pushed both the U.S. and NATO into making necessary changes to contend with a multipolar world structured in terms of Cold War 2.0 great power competition. The North Atlantic space is now a complex and complicated strategic environment. In addition to the persistent confrontation between NATO and Russia over Ukraine, multi-dimensional security challenges emanate from China. In addition, hybrid war operations and competition over advanced technologies are fast becoming disruptive threats as are transnational threats like climate change, pandemics, and migration. Moreover, a Cold War 2.0 system of tension and rivalry is playing out along military, economic, and technological lines with two bounded orders between the U.S. and NATO allies on one side and China and Russia on the other. The consequences will likely force to NATO wrestle with whether the alliance is transatlantic with a global outlook or a global alliance with responsibility for upholding the liberal world order.

Chapter 1: Continuity and Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Toward NATO -- Chapter 2: American Public Perceptions and U.S. Foreign Policy toward Europe -- Chapter 3: Foreign Policy Elites and the National Security State -- Chapter 4: Democracy Promotion and Euro-Atlantic Integration -- Chapter 5: From Nation-Building at Home to America First and Make America Great Again -- Chapter 6: A Foreign Policy for the Middle Class? -- Chapter 7: Conclusions. .

Introduction : president Obama and the foreign policy landscape -- Structure, power, and actors in foreign policy -- Breaking away from the international order : international and domestic pressure -- Points -- NATO and Europe : collective security, burden-sharing, and Russian resurgence -- Asia and the Pacific : a costly pivot -- The Middle East : a risky strategy -- Nation-building at home and America first

"There is a long-standing tradition in Western culture of differentiating between 'just' and 'unjust' wars. 11 September 2001 has stimulated a debate in the West which holds that although people who are opposed to war in principle may disagree that any such distinction can possibly be made, the basic ideas involved seem to present a plausible argument that there are times when war is, at the very least, just and politically necessary. These and other issues are addressed in this study. The consistent theme throughout this book is that significant ethical issues and moral dilemmas have been raised as they pertain to the forceful expression of American power via the Bush Doctrine's assertion of the right to engage in first strikes against states and non-states in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. This book is intended for those with an interest in political science, history, leadership studies and foreign policy analysis."--Provided by publisher.

Research has demonstrated considerable diversity in the evolution of foreign policy beliefs of elite opinion leaders. Holsti and Rosenau's three‐headed eagle, Wittkopf's four‐headed eagle, and Rosati and Creed's six‐headed eagle produced a number of categories that help to explain the significance of this diversity since the collapse of the Cold War consensus. This article expands upon this research by observing even greater complexity and diversity in the shape of foreign policy beliefs of elite opinion leaders since the end of the Cold War. Using a content analysis of national opinion and foreign policy journals between 1992 and 2004, it identifies and details nine foreign policy orientations (missionaries, hegemonists, globalizers, global capitalists, narrow realists, progressive internationalists, anti‐imperialists, neighbors, and disengagers) held by elite opinion leaders. It also suggests that elites are altering their foreign policy orientations by absorbing profound global changes into their belief systems.

AbstractIn recent years, terrorist organizations have become increasingly dependent on drug trafficking as one of several primary sources of revenue to fund terrorist activities. In response, the United States' security and intelligence efforts against narco‐terrorism have increasingly merged into one unified policy approach. Moreover, the convergence of United States policy wars against terrorism and illicit drugs have produced complex and dynamic contingency factors. As a result, a relatively coherent nexus now exists between the United States' antinarcotics and antiterrorist policies. The objective of this article is to explain and assess the contingency factors and implications resulting from this convergence and to provide policy scholars with an analytical perspective into the implications of the United States' narco‐terrorism policy. It is believed that this article is significant to both policy practitioners and policy scholars concerned with the domestic impact of the United States' narco‐terrorism policy.

In recent years, terrorist organizations have become increasingly dependent on drug trafficking as one of several primary sources of revenue to fund terrorist activities. In response, the United States' security & intelligence efforts against narco-terrorism have increasingly merged into one unified policy approach. Moreover, the convergence of United States policy wars against terrorism & illicit drugs have produced complex & dynamic contingency factors. As a result, a relatively coherent nexus now exists between the United States' antinarcotics & antiterrorist policies. The objective of this article is to explain & assess the contingency factors & implications resulting from this convergence & to provide policy scholars with an analytical perspective into the implications of the United States' narco-terrorism policy. It is believed that this article is significant to both policy practitioners & policy scholars concerned with the domestic impact of the United States' narco-terrorism policy. 1 Figure, 85 References. Adapted from the source document.