Bush Administration's War Research Articles

Confronting Public Health Imperialism: A Transnational Feminist Analysis of Critical Nurse Responses to the National Smallpox Vaccination Program of 2002

Confronting Public Health ImperialismA Transnational Feminist Analysis of Critical Nurse Responses to the National Smallpox Vaccination Program of 2002 Gwen D'Arcangelis (bio) small acts of resistance: gender and imperialism The juggernaut of US empire known as the "War on Terror" is by now a familiar, ubiquitous part of the twenty-first century. Less familiar to most is one of its early missteps, namely, the National Smallpox Vaccination Program (NSVP), a biodefense program that the Bush Administration devised to protect the US from a bioterror attack. From late 2002 to mid-2003, the federal government, arguing that a potential attack might occur from the likes of Al Qaeda or Iraq, attempted to recruit the health care field into a preemptive vaccination program against smallpox. Nurses were among the prominent occupational categories targeted, and more important, among the leading groups who challenged the program on the grounds of its health risks and role in the Iraq war. In this article I chronicle the multilayered intervention that US nurses made in the NSVP, specifically their reworking of hegemonic scientific and national security discourses. Nurse intervention into the NSVP is significant for two reasons. First, nurses reclaimed their centrality as decision makers in the NSVP, a prominent public health campaign that, as I show, exploited their labor and marginalized their medical expertise. Feminist scholars have analyzed nursing as a feminized labor domain long beset with the historical character of "women's work"—for example, low wages and devalued expertise.1 I demonstrate that nurses' defiance of the NSVP contributes significantly to a legacy of resistance to these conditions. Second, nurses challenged the NSVP based on its connection to the US program of aggression in Iraq and the War on Terror during a period of extreme "patriotism," when it was difficult to wage criticism of the US national security apparatus. Remarkably, US nurses linked their struggles for better safety and protections to a broader critique of US imperialism. In doing so, I argue, they enacted a model of transnational feminist praxis [End Page 95] wherein women in global north and imperial nations hold their governments accountable for perpetrating oppressive practices of imperialism and other forms of structural violence against less powerful nations in the global south. Transnational feminist theory builds on the intersectional analysis forwarded by feminist theorists such as Kimberle Crenshaw2 and Patricia Hill Collins,3 who analyze women's struggles through a gendered lens that considers how race, class, nation, and other socio-structural positions determine gender relations and social power. Transnational feminist theorists focus on the intersection between gender and nation, noting that women across the globe are not only connected by their commonalities but also severely divided, particularly along the axis of colonialism and imperialism. They have noted that many feminist movements in imperial countries have been insufficiently critical of their government's expansionist foreign policy and imperialist practices globally, at times even joining forces to further them. Transnational feminist scholars have criticized the US-based Feminist Majority Foundation, for instance, for aligning itself with the US government's war on Afghanistan and its paternalistic rescue mission to save Afghani women, in the process marginalizing Afghani feminists' work and leadership.4 Transnational feminist theorists espouse that women in imperial nations should attend to their complicity in the actions of their governments. In the context of the most recent bouts of US imperialism targeting Afghanistan and Iraq, transnational feminist scholars such as Chandra Mohanty have challenged global north feminists to be self-reflexive about their political praxis (politically informed theory and action): What role have US feminists who supported the Bush administration's war in the name of "rescuing" Afghan and Iraqi women played in [the] narrative of empire and imperialism? This is one of the questions we need to pose to address the politics of complicity and dissent within contemporary feminist projects.5 In addition to calling for feminists in imperial and global north nations to reexamine their role in US imperial violence, she also highlights US imperialism as a key site for transnational feminist engagement: The militarized US State and its imperial projects are thus a crucial site of feminist struggle both in terms of the violence...

Rescuing America from Iraq: the gothic remorse of Iraq War documentaries

Taking a rhetorical approach to documentary, this article examines the narrative and aesthetic constructs of policy documentaries about the Iraq War. Focusing on two high-profile films, No End in Sight and Ghosts of Abu Ghraib, the article outlines how these documentaries work to extenuate American transgressions during the occupation by invoking a superficial gothic rhetoric. Within this rhetoric, the neo-conservatives of the Bush administration are cast as shadowy and conspiratorial forces who have corrupted American values. Alternatively, policy-makers and military personnel are cast as virtuous representatives of American democracy and emerge as innocent victims of a seemingly monstrous administration. By relying on this simplistic good and evil construct, which ironically mirrors the rhetoric of Bush administration's War on Terror, and by ignoring outright the question of the war's legitimacy, these films ultimately reaffirm the virtues of the very institutions which oversee American war and occupation. The Iraq War is then memorialised as a catastrophe created by corrupt neo-conservatives and one which does not merit deeper reflection on the use of war as a tool of US foreign policy.

Power in the changing global order: the US, Russia and China

Acknowledgements Introduction: Power in the Changing Global Order 1: Understanding Power 2: Power Resources 3: Hegemony, Unipolarity and the United States 4: The Multipolar Moment? The US and the World in the 1990s 5: A New Era? The George W Bush administration's War on Terror 6: Return to Multilateralism? 7: Russia as a Continuing or Reviving Great Power 8: The Russian Multipolarity Debates 9: China: Rising Power or Constrained State? 10: China, Anti Hegemonism and Harmony Conclusions Notes Index

Beyond the Ends of the Earth: Donald Rumsfeld, the Mantra of Progress, and an Outer-Space View of America's War on Terror

This essay examines the way that US secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld sought to apply one of the central lessons of the Vietnam War to the George W. Bush administration's War on Terror after 9/11. Following the disastrous withdrawal from Vietnam, Rumsfeld had argued that one of the major lessons to be taken forward was that, in future conflicts, the US needed to ensure that the war was portrayed to the public in a way that would ensure ongoing success. The way to do this, Rumsfeld subsequently averred, was to convey a message of perpetual, unstoppable, but not too rapid, progress; victory was at hand, but it would take some time to achieve. As part of this process, Rumsfeld developed an elaborate narrative based around a keyhole satellite picture of the Korean peninsula at night – one half, that of South Korea, bathed in the light of progress; the other, North Korea, nearly completely dark. This photo, Rumsfeld suggested, told you all you needed to know about the fact that the US would ultimately succeed in the War on Terror. In taking this approach, however, Rumsfeld unwittingly revealed an inherent contradiction that has continued to blight the administration of Barack Obama: that there is a very fine line between progress toward an inevitable endpoint of victory and progress toward a position whereby the US is able to withdraw. For Rumsfeld, progress was toward an endpoint of victory and it was only the change in political context after 2006 that derailed his attempts to set out this message; for Obama, on the other hand, progress has become a prerequisite for getting out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Bush's Mythic America: A Critique of the Rhetoric of War

This article offers a mythological critique of the Bush Administration's war rhetoric from 2003 through April 2006. I argue that during this period the administration adapted America's war myth into one shaped largely through opposition to the dissonant narrative known as “the Vietnam Syndrome.” This critique demonstrates how the Vietnam Syndrome functioned as the oppositional narrative premise for a revisionist war mythology composed of three central mythemes: righteous war, democratic salvation, and shock and awe. This critique further explicates rhetorical myth's form and function by revealing how the iconic agents, acts, and sacred scenes of this war myth served to transform the material complexities of the Iraq war into a negation of the cultural dissonance of the Vietnam Syndrome.

Relationship Analysis among Media, Public Opinion and the Presidential Statements during George Bush's War on Drugs

This study tested a path model of agenda building examining the relationship among the media, the public and the presidential statements on the issue of drug abuse during the Bush administration's War on Drugs. The results showed that a dynamic and interactive relationship among aforementioned actors. First, the real-world conditions strongly increased both media coverage and presidential statements. Second, the news media and president influenced each other. Third, public concern, however, did not function as a significant factor in agenda-building process in this study. The result of this study indicates that Bush was not utterly a reactive or proactive president in terms of his relationship with the media. That is, news media and the president interacted regarding the drug issues; the relationship between President Bush and the media for drug issues was reciprocal.

The Torture Memos and the Demands of Legality

This review essay considers five recent books concerning the role of governmetn lawyers in the Bush Administration's war on terror: Harold Bruff, Bad Advice (2009); Jack Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency (2007); Jane Mayer, The Dark Side (2008); Philippe Sands, Torture Team (2008); John Yoo, War by Other Means (2006). One theme running through all of these books is whether there is a difference between legal and policy (or moral) advice, and whether lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel can be criticized in terms of norms of legal ethics for the advice they provided. What divides critics and defenders of the OLC lawyers, I claim, is difference on whether the rule of law has normative significance apart from the substantive content of policies furthered by the law. For example, John Yoo's defenses appeal directly to moral and policy considerations, while Jack Goldsmith's critiques appeal to values associated with the rule of law. In my view, the role of lawyers should be understood in connection with the value of legality -- i.e. the distinction between government genuinely constrained by the law and government that aims at doing the right thing all-things-considered, and which regards the law as only a pragmatic constraint.

Americans and the Wars of the Twentieth Century (review)

Reviewed by: Americans and the Wars of the Twentieth Century Robert Francis Saxe Americans and the Wars of the Twentieth Century. By Jenel Virden. Houndmills, Basingstoke, U.K.: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008. ISBN 978-0-333-72661-7. Maps. Annotated bibliography. Index. Pp. xv, 203. £21.99. In this slim volume, Jenel Virden attempts to discuss American participation in the major wars of the twentieth century through the lens of just war theory. In particular, the author provides an overview of the American government's rhetoric during wartime and action on the battlefield, but also expands her focus to investigate the home front in order "to test whether the application of theory to the way governments treat their own citizens during war can provide previously unarticulated insights into the broader issue of just war" (p. 7). This is an admirable approach, as too many histories seek to segment the battlefront from the home front in their discussions of America's wars. And it is as a general primer on America's twentieth century wars that this study succeeds. Chapters on World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War are all laid out identically, each containing sections labeled "The Pre-War Period," "Beginnings," "How the War Was Fought," "US Home Front," and "The Consequences." Virden does an excellent job of synthesizing the voluminous information on the fighting, diplomacy, economics, leadership, rhetoric, and home front issues of all four conflicts. After providing her case studies, she ties all the information together in a chapter simply titled "Conclusions." It is in this chapter where she compares and contrasts the wars, using the idea of just war to critique the wars' origins, how they were fought, their conclusions, and notions of justice on the home front. In these conclusions, Virden makes some controversial assessments, such as her statement that "the targeting or indiscriminate killing of non-combatants… [makes] it difficult if not impossible to suggest the United States fought these [End Page 664] wars justly"(p. 159). Further, after cataloguing numerous injustices on the American home front, she finds that "civil liberties and civil rights, and the American people, became the victims of wartime injustice"(p. 168). In a powerful epilogue, Virden critiques the Bush administration's War on Terror and shows how the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and the mistreatment of inmates at Abu Ghraib prison, as well as the civil liberties questions raised by the Patriot Act, seem to suggest that America has learned very little from its past conduct in wartime. Much of the information in Americans and the Wars of the Twentieth Century is quite useful and provocative, and this would be a fine selection for a survey course for undergraduates or someone with a general interest in the topic. In terms of construction, however, I had some reservations. Though the just war theme is the guiding force of the book, just war theory is dealt with substantially only in the introduction and conclusion. Increased discussion throughout the chapters would have linked the sections together concretely and made the author's conclusions even more powerful. For instance, the just nature of America's entry into the wars is dealt with in a complex way, but the comparative discussion of their beginnings is so brief in the "Conclusions" chapter that the implications of the similarities and differences of the wars' origins are never fully realized. With greater attention to just war theory throughout, more time might have been spent on expanding the author's analysis. But this is a criticism that comes from the fact that the questions being raised by the book are numerous and important. If the purpose of Americans and the Wars of the Twentieth Century is to start a conversation, then it has succeeded. Robert Francis Saxe Rhodes College Memphis, Tennessee Copyright © 2009 The Society for Military History

Government and Science: The Unitary Executive versus Freedom of Scientific Inquiry

President Barack Obama pledged in his inaugural address restore science its rightful place and promised that federal policy would be informed by most complete, accurate, and honest scientific information. (1) The president joined a chorus of condemnation against the Bush administration's war on science, ranging from former surgeon generals, senior agency scientists, and the Union of Concerned Scientists the General Accountability Office and Congress. Showing respect for science is not only crucial affirming democratic ideals of openness and freedom of inquiry. It is also essential the long-term well-being of society, which benefits from scientific research and innovation. During the Bush administration, once-strong, independent agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health came under political influence perhaps more than at any other time in history, threatening the effectiveness and credibility of the executive Consider three examples: In 2006, the GAO revealed that the Bush administration had spent over $1.6 billion in a two-year span on public relations, including payments columnists, media firms, and networks editorialize in favor of the administration's policies. (2) The Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and the FDA distributed prepackaged news clips promote Medicare reform and antidrug messages and warn consumers not buy prescription drugs from Canada. Other reports placed the government in a favorable light on issues ranging from childhood obesity and drunk driving preservation of the environment. The GAO found that federal agencies violated a congressional ban on covert propaganda. (3) Also in 2006, a DHHS appropriations act required that scientific information shall be transmitted [to Congress] uncensored and without delay. (4) But in his statement, President Bush affirmed his power to withhold information that could impair the workings of the executive branch. The American Bar Association called this--and the other 750-plus presidential signing statements declaring an intent not enforce legislation (including a torture ban, protection of whistleblowers, and the independence of an Institute of Education Sciences)--contrary the rule of law and our constitutional system. (5) In 2004 and 2005, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) reported that the Bush administration systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, and biomedical research. (6) Illustrations included the FDA delaying approval of emergency contraceptives against the advice of staff scientists and two independent advisory panels, the DHHS obscuring scientific evaluation of abstinence-only education and pressuring scientists promote abstinence, the CDC altering its Web site raise doubts about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission, and the EPA undermining climate change science by suppressing reports and publicly misrepresenting scientific consensus. Health officials even concealed scientific evidence that social and racial disparities affect health care. In some instances, one might give a nod the government's benign intentions (antidrug messages on television, for example), but does beneficence justify deceit? In other instances, the government's suppression or disregard of science seemed coldly calculated buttress its political ideology or favor special interests. Above all, transparency and honesty are essential in setting and enforcing health policy. The public expects the state listen carefully, be objective, and promote the common good. Constitutional Freedoms of Scientists President Bush justified political control over science on a theory of a unitary executive, according which the president holds a tight grip on federal policy. …

Guantanamo, Geneva, and Western Values

This paper analyzes the Bush Administration's War on Terror, particularly its treatment of enemy combatants, in light of American, and more generally Western or modern values. The U.S. Constitution, court opinions, and the text of the Geneva Conventions are used as authoritative expositions and applications of these values. Bush Administration arguments that its actions comply with or respect these values are found to be specious, if not ludicrous.

Beyond the Realist Theories: "Neo-Conservative Realism" and the American Invasion of Iraq

The American war on terror and the invasion of Iraq remain spectacular developments in the history of international relations. This article probes the explanatory powers of the existing academic realist theories to account for the Bush administration's war against Al-Qaeda, a nonstate shadowy organization, and the invasion of Iraq. It argues that the realist theories are largely deficient frameworks to provide any satisfactory explanation of the war on terror and its subsequent extension to Iraq. This paper also proposes an alternative framework, the framework of “neo-conservative realism,” to offer a more satisfactory explanation of America's war on terror. The framework of “neo-conservative realism,” in contrast to the existing realist theories, is more flexible to account for the current neo-conservative outgrowth of American foreign policy and national security strategy.

The Strategic Implications of Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Middle East

The expansion of democracy in Europe, Latin America, and East Asia over the last 30 years has spurred extensive debate on the internal and external factors that facilitate political reform. In this context, many observers view the greater Middle East and Islamic world as an anomaly in that authoritarian rule continues to dominate, albeit in varying degrees. The spread of democracy elsewhere set in motion internal reforms that contributed to greater openness and multiparty competition in the Middle East during the 1990s. Ultimately, the drive toward more substantive reform was cut short, as incumbent leaders did not risk endangering their positions by embarking on genuine democratization processes. (1) Despite the end of the Soviet threat, US relations toward the Middle East continued to be driven by Cold War calculations. Supporting and guaranteeing the security of friendly autocratic regimes to ensure access to the region's energy resources and favorable pricing mechanisms, containing the rise of regional powers with the potential to threaten US interests, deterring aspiring powers such as a revamped Russia, China, and even Europe from gaining a foothold in the region, supporting Israel as a surrogate of US power and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, nonproliferation, Islamic radicalism, and terrorism took precedence over all else. In contrast, Washington paid scant attention to the question of democracy in the region--or lack thereof--adopting a markedly different approach compared to its engagement of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, Latin America, East Asia, and sub-Sahara Africa. This posture exemplifies the ongoing dilemma facing American Presidents of whether to subjugate realist-based interests to Washington's democratic ideals. The 9/11 tragedy forced Washington to reevaluate its posture toward the region. The attacks amplified the threat of international terrorism unlike ever before and highlighted the deep-seated anger, frustration, and resentment harbored by millions of Muslims and the extreme lengths to which a minority of radicals would to go to further their cause. Rooting out and killing terrorists everywhere emerged as a pillar of America's post-9/11 national security strategy. (2) Draining the Swamp In addition to initiating an aggressive strategy that attacks terrorists and their sponsors, the Bush Administration determined that the long-term defense of the American homeland rests on draining the pool of recruits available to organizations such as al Qaeda by eliminating the conditions that breed extremism. Washington attributes the spread of Islamic radicalism to the persistence of authoritarianism in the Middle East. It acknowledges that the status quo in the region is illegitimate, unacceptable, and unsustainable, given the failure of incumbent autocratic regimes to address social and economic problems and meet the basic demands of their citizens. As a consequence, the issues of reform and democracy were elevated to a level of critical importance. (3) In doing so, the Administration reversed a pillar of American policy predicated on the notion that pro-US authoritarian regimes served to protect against radicalism and terrorism. Traditional US policy toward the region was meant to ensure stability and enhance American security. The 9/11 attacks proved the opposite. Indeed, promoting democracy has become a strategic imperative in the Bush Administration's war on terrorism. This strategy marks a dramatic shift from longstanding American policy, at least in rhetoric. Washington is accustomed to dealing with compliant authoritarian regimes in places such as Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, all staunch allies that flout public opinion when it comes to maintaining close ties to the United States. (4) In contrast, citizens in democracies can think and act freely in that they can question their leaders and hold them to account without fear. …

U.S.‑ Thai Relations after 9/ 11: A New Era in Cooperation?

Three years ago, the United States and Thailand seemed headed for u more strained and distant relationship. U.S. policy-makers viewed Bangkok us increasingly insignificant while Thailand sought to move out of its traditional U.S. orbit and increasingly balance the influence of Washington China, Europe, and the Muslim world. Yet, since 2001, the United States and Thailand have become extremely close. This article examines the U.S.-Thai relationship from the 1980s to the present day, particularly focusing on the post-9/ 11 era in light of the Bush administration's war on terrorism and growing linkages between Thailand and the United States. Ultimately, the article analyses what has accounted for warmer ties, why some strains still remain, and whether U.S.-Thai relations hove in fact returned to their previous 1980s intimacy. Introduction When George W. Bush and Thaksin Shinawatra took office in 2001, U.S.-Thai relations were cordial though jittery. In the post-Cold War world, U.S. policymakers had relegated Thailand to a lesser level of importance. Meanwhile. Thailand had increasingly sought to transform its traditionally pro-U.S. tilt towards a foreign policy more evenly balanced to include China, Europe, and the Muslim world. Yet, since 2001, the United States and Thailand have embarked on an increasingly intimate partnership unseen since the 1980s. This article examines the changing priorities of U.S.-Thai relations from the 1980s, 1990s, through the events of 9/11, to the present day. It particularly focuses on the post-9/11 era in light of the Bush administration's international war on terrorism, and growing security and economic ties between Thailand and the United States. Ultimately, the paper emphasizes how common interests have led to warmer ties while certain strains remain. Until Thailand's brief 1975 to 1976 experiment democracy, U.S.-Thai relations were quite close and might even be described as patron--client. (1) The relationship was built on shared anti-communist security concerns and paralleled the military elites' dominance of Thai society. The U.S. began supplying Thailand military aid in 1950 and both states signed the 1954 Manila Pact of the former Southeast Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO). Despite SEATO's demise in 1977, the Pact remains in force. Meanwhile, the Thanat-Rusk communique of 1962 committed each nation to defend the other if one was attacked. The 1975 to '76 period saw a policy of equidistance whereby Thai policymakers sought alliance not only the United States but also with new friends and former enemies. (2) Thailand in the 1980s followed a policy of omnidirectionality which recognized the importance of ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), China, Vietnam, the USSR, as well as the United States. The success of omnidirectionality showcased the evolution of Thailand from being a simple client of the United States to becoming a key regional player in its own right. (3) But omnidirectionality did not distance the close U.S.-Thai security relationship. Indeed, the U.S.-Thai Cobra Gold annual air, land, and sea operations (begun in 1982), took on added importance during the 1980s, given the occupation by Vietnam of Cambodia. By the late 1980s, economic growth, the winding down of Vietnam's Cambodia venture, and the Cold War's end led to a reassessment by the U.S. and Thailand over their alliance's very nature. The civilian administration of Chatchai Chunhaven (1988-91) stressed greater disengagement from the United States. Chatchai's government sought to turn Indochina from a battlefield into a marketplace, and separate economic agreements Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Myanmar. Thailand's post-1988 foreign policy toward Myanmar was guided by constructive engagement. This friendly approach toward Myanmar's military sought profits for Thai investors in Myanmar and security for the Thai-Myanmar border. …

Minority report on the Bush doctrine*

This essay provides a framework for understanding the implications of the Bush administration's War on Terror, through an analysis of Stephen Spielberg's 2002 futuristic film, Minority Report. In brief, the film explores the trade‐offs between security and freedom, overlaid upon intersections between free will and external determinism, by following the fate of John Anderton, an anti‐crime crusader in the US government's Department of Precrime. Anderton is a true believer in Precrime, a government agency that uses “precognitive” human psychics and advanced brain‐imaging technology to discover and prevent violent crime before it occurs. Spielberg's film, released in summer 2002, has been called prescient for the eerie similarity between Precrime and post‐Patriot Act Department of Justice operations. The analysis suggests a broader relevance, in illuminating the ethical dilemmas and practical political pitfalls of the administration's new foreign policy doctrine of “anticipatory self‐defense,” or preemptive war, in battling international terrorism; and specifically inquires into the neoconservative project's novel reading of the line between security/freedom and free will/determinism in the construction of post‐September 11 foreign policy.

Misreading Islamist Terrorism: The “War Against Terrorism” and Just‐War Theory

Abstract: The Bush administration's military war on terrorism is a blunt, ineffective, and unjust response to the threat posed to innocent civilians by terrorism. Decentralized terrorist networks can only be effectively fought by international cooperation among police and intelligence agencies representing diverse nation‐states, including ones with predominantly Islamic populations. The Bush administration's allegations of a global Islamist terrorist threat to the national interests of the United States misread the decentralized and complex nature of Islamist politics. Undoubtedly there exists a “combat fundamentalist” element within Islamism. But the threat posed to U.S. citizens by Islamist terrorism neither necessitates nor justifies as a response massive military invasions of other nations. Not only does the Bush administration's war on alleged “terrorist states” violate the doctrine of just war, but in addition these wars arise from a new, unilateral, imperial foreign‐policy doctrine of “preventive wars.” Such a doctrine will isolate the United States from international institutions and long‐standing allies. The weakening of these institutions and alliances will only weaken the ability of the international community to deter terrorism.

Human rights in U.S. policy: a casualty of the ‘war on terrorism’?

This article examines the disturbing trend away from human rights protection and promotion in post September 11 U.S. foreign and domestic policy. It argues that human rights, both abroad and at home, are under attack and advancements of the past decades are desperately being defended in the face of the Bush administration's war on terrorism. It attempts to gauge the breadth and depth of this assault on human rights by chronicling the downplaying of rights promotion in bilateral relations and the growing debate around, and in some cases implementation of, policies advocating political assassinations, secretive military tribunals, massive detainment and breaches of the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners, and the spectre of torture in interrogations.

Styles of Image Management During Crises: Justifying Press Censorship

Press freedom is crucial in times of national crisis such as rampant terrorism or war. But press freedom is likely to become a casualty at such times because of legitimate concerns about security for civilians and military personnel and because of fears of compromising the confidentiality of important public policies. What kinds of appeals do partisans and opponents of both formal and informal censorship use to win approval of their points of view? Using the Bush administration's war on terrorism as an ongoing case study, I examined official pronouncements about censorship made by members of the legislative and executive branches in the United States and views quoted in selected mass media or expressed editorially. The study revealed three types of verbal strategies: excuses, justifications, and transformations. They were used by proponents as well as opponents of censorship. This article details the various types of framings used within the three strategic categories and the circumstances surrounding their use.

Cracking Down on Diaspora: Arab Detroit and America's "War on Terror"

[Note to Readers: This essay was submitted to Anthropological Quarterly on March 14, 2003. Since then, U.S. has invaded Iraq, deposed Saddam Hussein, and commenced its military occupation of that country. We have decided not to update our arguments, largely because recent events support our original conclusions ways we had not entirely anticipated. In a brief postscript, we will try to explain how.] Introduction It is hard now to portray Arab Detroit outside framework provided by attacks of September 11, 2001. idea, popular not so long ago, that Arabs of metropolitan Detroit had finally entered cultural mainstream, producing U.S. senators (Spencer Abraham) and union bosses (Steve Yokich, President of UAW) and captains of industry (Jacques Nasser, CEO of Ford), is likely to be dismissed today as wishful thinking. Once hailed as immigrant success story, as the capital of Arab America, image of Arab Detroit changed within hours of 9/11 attacks. Suddenly, it was a scene of threat, divided loyalties, and potential backlash. In suburb of Dearborn, home to 30,000 Arab Americans, began, after 9/11, to describe their neighborhoods as ghettoes and enclaves, a terminology of Otherness that was popular 19th century newspaper accounts of Detroit's newly arrived immigrants from Mt. Lebanon. Non-Arabs, for their part, began to use terms like you people when talking to Arab neighbors, relatives, and friends. In language of polite society, you people is replaced by unctuous, incessant references to the Muslim American or the Arab American community, a double-edged jargon that effectively subordinates individual citizens to a logic of collective responsibility even as it protects them from accusations of collective guilt. The 9/11 attacks, Arabs Detroit tell set us back a hundred years. collapse of history is a powerful motif. It captures much of what is happening Detroit. Arab community has played a critical role development of Detroit's economy and culture throughout 20th century, and its influence on high politics and everyday life Arab homelands-which are linked to Detroit by an irregular flow of money, information, ideas, and people-is so pervasive, so taken-for-granted, that scholars of Arab immigration to Americas are only now beginning to study it systematically (Khater 2000). As Bush administration's War on Terror expands, however, Arab Detroit's rich history of domestic integration and transnational connection is truncated, questioned, re-politicized, Americanized, and selectively erased. This radical transformation is rooted anxiety about boundaries: Arabs and Muslims are clearly in Detroit, with us, but their hearts might still be over there, with them. opposition is stark, and unrealistic, yet having it both ways, cultivating an identity that is both here and there-a sensible option that, an era of multicultural tolerance, is still possible for many immigrant and ethnic Americans-is no longer a position Arabs Detroit can easily embrace. defense of boundaries, we will argue, only accentuates centrality of state placing them; it also points to moral dimension of boundary maintenance, to being on right side of line and law. Rules, regulations, security protocols, and law enforcement technologies are never adequate to task of moralizing national boundaries. Loyalty to state (also known as patriotism) is affective medium which proper identity placement is made and measured. In aftermath of 9/11, Arab and Muslim Americans have been compelled, time and again, to apologize for acts they did not commit, to condemn acts they never condoned, and to openly profess loyalties that, for most U.S. citizens, are merely assumed. Moreover, Arabs Detroit have been forced to distance themselves from Arab political movements, ideologies, causes, religious organizations, and points of view that are currently at odds with U. …

Laskar Jihad and the Political Position of Conservative Islam in Indonesia

Introduction The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States have focused unprecedented attention on militant Muslim groups across the world and prompted strategists and commentators alike to scour the globe for possible targets in the Bush Administration's war against terrorism. In the case of Indonesia, considerable coverage has been devoted to the militant conservative Muslim group, Laskar Jihad, and allegations of links between this organization and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. Laskar Jihad is a Java-based paramilitary group which, since April 2000, has intervened on behalf of local Muslims in the vicious fighting between Christians and Muslims in Maluku, which is estimated to have claimed more than 9,000 lives. (1) Laskar Jihad leaders have repeatedly expressed their intent to eradicate Christians from Ambon island (Maluku's political and economic hub) and have used murder and terror in their efforts to achieve these ends. (2) In November 2001, the group carried out its oft-stated threat to enter a conflict between Christians and Muslim populations in the region of Poso, Sulawesi, provoking a rapid escalation in the level of violence. In an interview with the New York Times on 7 January 2002, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defence, Paul Wolfowitz, drew attention to the dangers of ungoverned regions within certain countries which had become havens for terrorists. Wolfowitz chose to illustrate his point with reference to Maluku and central Sulawesi, two areas ravaged by communal violence where Muslims, not outside Indonesia, have come in and exacerbated that situation -- a clear reference to the armed interventions of Laskar Jihad. This article examines what can be ascertained about the political position of conservative Islam in Indonesia from the emergence and activities of the Laskar Jihad. As President George Bush and bin Laden, in different ways, project a polarizing vision of a world unequivocally divided into friendly and hostile forces, how should we view Indonesia? Do groups such as Laskar Jihad have the capacity to make a difference to whose side, or which list, or axis Indonesia finds itself on? Subsequent to a brief examination of the context in which Laskar Jihad emerged, the article focuses on the activities of the group in Maluku in eastern Indonesia since April 2000. Laskar Jihad's intervention in this region provided the justification for its creation, and has been its primary zone of operation. As such, it provides useful indicators as to the possible impact on central Sulawesi, and Indonesia as a whole, of the Laskar Jihad's recent intervention in Poso. It also offers substantial evidence for the central contention of this article: that what Laskar Jihad reveals about conservative Islam in Indonesia is the fundamental weaknesses in its political position and its lack of support among the largest Muslim population in the world. Laskar Jihad: The Context Laskar Jihad was established in the early months of 2000 at a time when political gains made by conservative modernist Muslim groups during the final years of Soeharto's New Order were in danger of being overturned. Conservative modernist organizations, such as DDII (Indonesian Council for Islamic Predication) and its offshoot KISDI (Indonesian Committee for Solidarity with the Islamic World), which spent the first two decades of the New Order set in lonely and dangerous opposition to the regime's pro-Western, secular outlook, had been co-opted by Soeharto as he sought to establish new sources of support outside the senior ranks of the armed forces from the late 1980s onwards. (3) This co-optation saw the Muslim hardliners attacking Soeharto's opponents in return for state patronage and new freedom to carry out their activities, which included undermining more moderate Muslim rivals. (4) It broadly coincided with Soeharto's elevation of a socalled Green (the colour symbolizing Islam) tendency within the TNI (the Indonesian armed forces) -- officers distinguished less by personal piety than by willingness to use Islam as a political tool. …

America's Imperial Ambition

IN THE SHADOWS of the Bush administration's war on terrorism, sweeping new ideas are circulating about U.S. grand strategy and the restructuring oftoday's unipolar world. They call for American unilateral and preemptive, even preventive, use of force, facilitated if possible by coalitions of the willing-but ultimately unconstrained by the rules and norms ofthe international community. At the extreme, these notions form a neoimperial vision in which the United States arrogates to itself the global role of setting standards, determining threats, using force, and meting out justice. It is a vision in which sovereignty becomes more absolute for America even as it becomes more conditional for countries that challenge Washington's standards of internal and external behavior. It is a vision made necessary-at least in the eyes of its advocates-by the new and apocalyptic character of contemporary terrorist threats and by America's unprecedented global dominance. These radical strategic ideas and impulses could transform today's world order in a way that the end of the Cold War, strangely enough, did not. The exigencies of fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and the debate over intervening in Iraq obscure the profundity of this geopolitical challenge. Blueprints have not been produced, and Yalta-style summits have not been convened, but actions are afoot to dramatically alter the political order that the United States has built with its partners since the 1940s. The twin new realities of our age-catastrophic terrorism