DOCSLIB.ORG

The Public Diplomacy of the United States of America in the “War on Terror”

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Public Diplomacy of the United States of America in the “War on Terror” THE PUBLIC DIPLOMACY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE “WAR ON TERROR” by Marina Botes 7911386 Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF DIPLOMATIC STUDIES in the FACULTY OF HUMANITIES DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA Pretoria February 2007 DANKBETUIGINGS Dankie aan Anton, Antonie, Andriana en Jan-Hendrik Botes vir baie liefde en geloof. Dankie aan Eben en Janie Labuschagne vir wie alles moontlik was, en Marie Louw vir ondersteuning. My dank aan Marieta Buys van die Akademiese Inligting Sentrum van die Universiteit van Pretoria vir professionele hulp. My dank aan Prof Anton du Plessis vir akademiese leiding en volgehoue ondersteuning. My dank aan God vir geleenthede. Marina Botes Pretoria Februarie 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH THEME 1 2. AIM AND RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY 2 3. FORMULATION AND DEMARCATION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 3 3.1. Formulation of the research problem 3 3.2. Demarcation of the research problem 4 4. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 5. METHODOLOGY 7 6. STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH 8 7. CONCLUSION 9 CHAPTER 2 PUBLIC DIPLOMACY: THEORY, PRACTICE AND PROPAGANDA 11 1. INTRODUCTION 11 2. THE CONTEXT OF PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 12 2.1. Foreign policy and international relations 12 2.2. Diplomacy 15 3. PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 16 3.1. Definitions 17 3.2. Aims and objectives 22 3.3. Operating guidelines 22 3.4. Modes 24 3.4.1. Information activities 24 3.4.2. Educational and cultural activities 25 3.4.3. Head(s) of state and government visits and summits 26 3.4.4. Mega-events 27 3.4.5. Personal public diplomacy 27 i 4. PROPAGANDA 28 4.1. Origins 28 4.2. Definitions 30 5. THE PUBLIC DIPLOMACY-PROPAGANDA NEXUS 33 5.1. Institutions 33 5.2. Activities 34 5.3. The target audience 36 6. CONCLUSION 37 CHAPTER 3 PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 39 1. INTRODUCTION 39 2. ORIGINS AND DEVELOPMENT OF US PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 39 3. DIMENSIONS OF US PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 45 3.1. Public diplomacy institutions 46 3.2. Public diplomacy activities 48 3.2.1. International information programmes 49 3.2.2. Educational and cultural activities 51 3.2.3. Public diplomacy content 54 3.3. The target audience 56 4. FOREIGN POLICY CONTEXT 56 5. CONCLUSION 58 CHAPTER 4 PUBLIC DIPLOMACY IN THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ 60 1. INTRODUCTION 60 2. AGENTS AND ACTIVITIES 60 2.1. President George W Bush 61 2.1.1. Setting foreign policy objectives 61 2.1.2. Acting as public diplomacy agent 64 2.2. The Department of State 72 2.2.1. The Secretary of State 72 2.2.2. The Under-secretary for Public Diplomacy and Foreign Affairs 75 ii 2.3. The Vice President 77 2.4. The Secretary of Defense 79 2.5. The National Security Advisor 81 2.6. The Mass media 83 3. THE CONTENT 85 3.1. ‘We’re at war’ 85 3.2. A just cause 86 4. CONCLUSION 88 CHAPTER 5 THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ IN THE PUBLIC DIPLOMACY-PROPAGANDA NEXUS 90 1. INTRODUCTION 90 2. THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ AND PROPAGANDA 90 2.1. The repetition of ideas, images and rumours 91 2.2. The exploitation of hate and resentment 97 2.3. The exploitation of self-justification 101 2.4. Transferring evil to the adversary 108 3. THE MASS MEDIA 111 4. CONCLUSION 115 CHAPTER 6 EVALUATION 117 BIBLIOGRAPHY 126 SUMMARY 148 SAMEVATTING 150 iii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH THEME After the attacks on 11 September in 2001 (hereafter, September 11) on the United States of America (US), the comment that ‘the world will not be the same again’ has become a truism. Although targeted before in February 1993, the scale and horror of September 11 was a watershed event in US history and foreign policy. While prior mention was made by US officials of a ‘war on terrorism’, September 11 ‘institutionalised’ the ‘war on terror’ as the primary US foreign policy objective. Therefore, as an instrument of foreign policy, US diplomacy pursues this objective, which has serious implications for international relations. Although the most salient feature of current international relations is the dominance of the US, it perceives itself as being under threat. Even before September 11, the US government was aware of a growing anti-American sentiment (House of Representatives 2002). This was confirmed by opinion polls conducted in Muslim countries. This negative perception was not confined to Arab countries and polling in Europe found similar negativity (CFR 2004b). This prompted Senator H.J. Hyde (House of Representatives 2002), Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, to ask: “Why ... when we read or listen to descriptions of America in the foreign press, do we so often seem to be entering a fantasyland of hatred?” The anti-American feeling was not only a contributing factor to September 11, but was also hampering the US efforts in its ‘war on terror’. On the basis of this evidence and September 11, US policy makers identified public diplomacy as a foreign policy instrument with which to remedy the negative perceptions and their consequences. Policy makers and commentators were unanimous in their 1 assessment that the US government “[was] losing its voice before foreign audiences and need[ed] to get it back” through reinvigorated public diplomacy (Johnson & Dale 2003). The Bush administration thus embarked on an extensive public diplomacy campaign to control the discourse of the ‘war on terror’. However, the ‘war on terror’ has proved to be a defining phenomenon in international relations and by extension the role of the concomitant US public diplomacy campaign has gained political relevance. These developments illustrate the importance of public diplomacy and US public diplomacy in particular, in international relations. 2. AIM AND RELEVANCE OF THE STUDY Against this background, the aim of this study is to analise public diplomacy as a foreign policy instrument but with reference to US public diplomacy, and US public diplomacy activities in the ‘war on terror’ in particular. In view of the limitations of existing public diplomacy theory, there is also the concern that, what is practised as public diplomacy by the US, significantly differs from the meaning as understood by other practitioners, academics and the public. This study postulates that this US effort will, by virtue of US dominance of world politics and International Relations as a science, have a far-reaching influence on the theory and practice of public diplomacy. This indicates the theoretical and practical relevance of the study. The theoretical relevance pertains to the fact that, firstly, despite the recent upsurge in academic interest, ample scope remains for conceptual clarification of public diplomacy. Secondly, the general increase of public diplomacy activities, evident from this case, presents new opportunities for academic scrutiny. At the theoretical level this analysis thus presents a current evaluation of public diplomacy. Thirdly, due to the dominance of the US in International Relations, this case will determine future theoretical analysis in the field. The practical relevance of the analysis of US public diplomacy in the ‘war on terror’ derives from the influence of the US as a superpower. Firstly, US practices create 2 precedents in international relations. Secondly, its public diplomacy has a profound political and personal impact on the target audience. At the practical level this analysis thus indicates trends that can affect future public diplomacy, but also indicates the socio-political effects of US public diplomacy. 3. FORMULATION AND DEMARCATION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM The limitations of the theory on public diplomacy belie the importance currently attached to it by foreign policy makers and its prominence in the US ‘war on terror’. Although public diplomacy is also scrutinized in, amongst others, Communications, Cognitive, Linguistic and Marketing Studies, studies in International Relations and Diplomatic Studies lack conceptual clarity and critical analysis. 3.1. FORMULATION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM As indicated, the aim of this study is to analyse the meaning of public diplomacy in the context of the US’ ‘war on terror’. With its roots in propaganda and with recent intrusions of corporate communications and advertising, public diplomacy is a vague and confusing concept. Therefore, the main research question is: What are the meaning, nature and scope of public diplomacy? However, in view of the political and academic dominance of the US, three sub-questions inform the main research question: How does the US as the superpower practice public diplomacy? How does US public diplomacy manifest in the ‘war on terror’? Does US public diplomacy in the ‘war on terror’ constitute propaganda? The latter question specifically addresses the distinction between public diplomacy and propaganda, which informs the main question on the meaning, nature and scope of public diplomacy. 3 3.2. DEMARCATION OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM The research problem is demarcated conceptually, geographically and temporally. In respect of the conceptual demarcation, this analysis considers public diplomacy within the theoretical framework of International Relations and Diplomatic Studies, in the process also distinguishing it from and relating it to propaganda. In respect of the geographic demarcation, the case study is confined to the public diplomacy of the US and in particular the information disseminated through public diplomacy institutions and activities. This study thus focuses on the content of public diplomacy. Although US pronouncements of a war on terrorism pre-dated 11 September 2001, the ‘war on terror’ has become a stated US foreign policy objective from 2001 and is still continuing. The time demarcation therefore is from 2001 to 2006. 4. LITERATURE REVIEW This analysis consults these, and other primary and secondary sources: (a) Literature on the theoretical context of public diplomacy: In consideration of the broader theoretical context of public diplomacy, this analysis draws from standard works such as International politics: A framework for analysis (1995) by K.J.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Reining in the Imperial Presidency
    REINING IN THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:13 Apr 07, 2009 Jkt 048026 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 E:\HR\OC\G026A.XXX G026A hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING with PROD1PC76 on hsrobinson VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:13 Apr 07, 2009 Jkt 048026 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 E:\HR\OC\G026A.XXX G026A hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with HEARING Reining in the Imperial Presidency: Lessons and Recommendations Relating to the Presidency of George W. Bush C O N T E N T S Page Foreword ................................................................................................................ 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 9 Preface: Deconstructing the Imperial Presidency ...................................... 17 I. The September 25, 2001 War Powers Memorandum .................................... 20 II. Critique of John Yoo’s Flawed Theory of Presidential Supremacy .............. 25 III. The Need for a Judiciary Committee Staff Report ........................................ 32 Section 1—Politicization of the Department of Justice ............................. 33 I. Politicization of the Prosecution Function ...................................................... 35 A. Hiring and Firing of U.S. Attorneys and other Department Personnel ......................................................................................... 35 B. Selective Prosecution ............................................................................ 42 II. Politicization
    [Show full text]
  • The Fraudulent War, Was Assembled in 2008
    Explanatory note The presentation to follow, entitled The Fraudulent War, was assembled in 2008. It documents the appalling duplicity and criminality of the George W. Bush Administration in orchestrating the so-called “global war on terror.” A sordid story, virtually none of it ever appeared in the mainstream media in the U.S. Given the intensity of the anti-war movement at the time, the presentation enjoyed some limited exposure on the Internet. But anti-war sentiment was challenged in 2009 by Barack Obama's indifference to his predecessor's criminality, when the new president chose “to look forward, not backward.” The “war on terror” became background noise. The Fraudulent War was consigned to an archive on the ColdType website, a progressive publication in Toronto edited by Canadian Tony Sutton. There it faded from view. Enter CodePink and the People's Tribunal on the Iraq War. Through testimony and documentation the truth of the travesty was finally disclosed, and the record preserved in the Library of Congress. Only CodePink's initiative prevented the Bush crimes from disappearing altogether, and no greater public service could be rendered. The Fraudulent War was relevant once more. It was clearly dated, the author noted, but facts remained facts. Richard W. Behan, November, 2016 ------------------------------------------------- The author—a retired professor—was outraged after reading a book in 2002 subtitled, “The Case for Invading Iraq.” Unprovoked aggression is prohibited by the United Nations charter, so he took to his keyboard and the Common Dreams website in vigorous dissent. Within months thereafter George Bush indeed invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq, committing an international crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on Failure of Compliance with Article 20 Prohibiting Propaganda for War
    REPORT ON FAILURE OF COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 20 PROHIBITING PROPAGANDA FOR WAR prepared for the UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHT COMMITTEE Eighty-seventh session for its review of the Second and Third Periodic Report of the United States of America under the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights June 2006 INTRODUCTION This report regarding United States violations of Article 20, paragraph one, is submitted to the Committee to inform and support its consideration of the paramount issues the Committee requested the United States to address in its written and oral presentation to the Committee in July, 2006. Article 20 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights implicitly recognizes that the condition of war jeopardizes the integrity and exercise of all of the political and civil rights elsewhere declared in the Covenant. The Committee has expressed concern and requested clarification of actions and policies of the United States which are in apparent violation of even the core, non-derogable protections States Parties undertake to assure under the treaty. The US government has sought to justify its actions and policies on the basis of the “war on terror” and the exigencies of its illegal war in Iraq. Because of the pervasive impact of war the propaganda campaign prohibited by Article 20, the fear and xenophobia it stoked, and the resulting illegal war have all contributed to violations, both here and abroad, of many other rights protected by this Covenant including articles 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 26 and 27. The non-governmental organizations which have prepared this report regarding US violation of Article 20 are filing it with the Committee in order to bring greater visibility and attention to the full significance and implications of the Covenant’s prohibition of propaganda for war.
    [Show full text]
  • White House Iraq 'Plumbers Unit' Behind Plame Leak
    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 32, Number 29, July 22, 2005 EIRNational White House Iraq ‘Plumbers Unit’ Behind Plame Leak by Jeffrey Steinberg On Jan. 22, 2004, just three weeks after his appointment, Iraq War. As Washington Post reporters Barton Gelman and independent counsel Patrick Fitzgerald issued a wide-ranging Walter Pincus described it, “Systematic coordination began subpoena to the Bush White House, demanding telephone in August, when Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card, Jr. formed records from Air Force One, and all documents pertaining to the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG, to set strategy for each the July 2003 activities of a little-known but high-powered stage of the confrontation with Baghdad. A senior official who Administration unit called the White House Iraq Group participated in its work called it ‘an internal working group, (WHIG). Fitzgerald was charged with investigating the leak like many formed for priority issues, to make sure each part by “two senior Administration officials” of the identity of of the White House was fulfilling its responsibilities.’ . The CIA “non-official cover” officer Valerie Plame, the wife of group met weekly in the Situation Room. Among the regular former Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV. Wilson had been sent participants were Karl Rove, the President’s senior political by the CIA to Niger in February 2002 on a fact-finding mis- advisor; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary sion, to determine the credibility of reports that Iraq had been Matalin, and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas seeking large quantities of “yellowcake” uranium from the E.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction
    The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia Intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD December 2003 Canberra © Commonwealth of Australia 2004 ISBN [Click here and type ISBN Number] Contents Foreword...................................................................................................................................................vii The Conduct of the inquiry .........................................................................................................vii Membership of the Committee................................................................................................................. ix Terms of reference.................................................................................................................................... x List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................. xi List of recommendations.........................................................................................................................xiii REPORT 1 The Baseline Intelligence ...................................................................................... 1 Baseline figures - UNSCOM..........................................................................................................1 UNSCOM Inspections ......................................................................................................................2 UNMOVIC update
    [Show full text]
  • The 2003 Iraq War and George W. Bush's Grand Strategy of Primacy
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2020-12-10 Wounded Hegemon: The 2003 Iraq War and George W. Bush's Grand Strategy of Primacy Veneracion, Paulo A. Veneracion, P. A. (2020). Wounded Hegemon: The 2003 Iraq War and George W. Bush's Grand Strategy of Primacy (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112839 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Wounded Hegemon: The 2003 Iraq War and George W. Bush’s Grand Strategy of Primacy by Paulo A. Veneracion A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE CALGARY, ALBERTA DECEMBER, 2020 © Paulo A. Veneracion 2020 Abstract The 2003 Iraq War stands as one of the most consequential events in the post-Cold War period and yet its causes remain its least understood aspect. This project aims to add to existing discussions by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the war. Using neoclassical realism as its analytical lens, this project argues that the 2003 Iraq War occurred largely as a result of American hegemony combined with the effects of the September 11 terror attacks on the George W.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Recovered
    Copenhagen Business School DK-2000 Frederiksberg When Diplomacy Fails: The Political Road to War with Iraq Forfatter: Jens Thorsen Vejleder: Niels Bjerre-Poulsen Aflevering: 17. juni 2009 Summary in Danish Titlen for mit speciale er: When Diplomacy Fails: The Political Road to War with Iraq. Jeg har valgt at beskæftige mig med beslutningsprocessen forud for invasionen af Irak, fordi jeg blev skuffet, da konflikten mellem USA og Irak udviklede sig til krig og ikke blev løst ved diplomatiske forhandlinger i FN’s sikkerhedsråd. Mit speciale har fokus på perioden fra efteråret 2002 til invasionen af Irak den 20. marts 2003. Min metode er Rational Actor Model, fordi jeg beskæftiger mig med et udenrigspolitisk emne. Det er min hensigt at analysere Bush-regeringens beslutningsproces på den politiske vej til invasionen af Irak. I denne sammenhæng er det min hensigt at analysere de neokonservative rådgiveres indflydelse på Bush-regeringens beslutningsproces. Desuden vil jeg analysere den demokratiske oppositions rolle, da resolutionen om at føre krig mod Irak blev debatteret og vedtaget i kongressen. Endelig vil jeg analysere den britiske premierminister Tony Blairs indflydelse på Bush-regeringens beslutningsproces. Til min analyse har jeg udvalgt nogle nøgleaktører, og jeg vil fokusere på, hvad disse siger og gør. Bush-regeringens beslutningsproces var todelt. For det første besluttede præsident George W. Bush at gå til FN’s sikkerhedsråd for at få vedtaget en ny resolution. For det andet besluttede præsident Bush at anmode kongressen om at vedtage en resolution om krig mod Irak. Han ønskede kongressens støtte, men han anerkendte ikke at være forpligtet til at søge støtte.
    [Show full text]
  • Rove and Cheney Are Now Caught in Fitzgerald’S Web. Will They Go Down Too?
    Rove and Cheney Are Now Caught In Fitzgerald’s Web. Will they Go Down too? By Jason Leopold Region: USA Global Research, October 29, 2005 In-depth Report: Prosecute Bush/Cheney 29 October 2005 Now it’s about the Niger forgeries. On Friday, after securing a five-count criminal indictment against Vice President Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, for lying to a grand jury about what he knew and when he knew it in regard to the outing of a covert CIA agent, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald plans to pursue broader conspiracy charges against Cheney senior White House officials, and top officials at the State Department and the National Security Council, that may finally shed light on how the Bush administration came to use erroneous intelligence that claimed Iraq tried to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger, lawyers involved in the two year old investigation said. While many federal officials and the media have long speculated that Fitzgerald was not only looking into the identity of administration officials who leaked undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson to a handful of reporters, it was only recently that those rumors were confirmed. According to a court filing posted on the website of Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor investigating who leaked the name of undercover CIA agent to reporters, was interested in questioning New York Times reporter Judith Miller about the CIA agent or whether she discussed Iraq’s alleged efforts to purchase uranium from Niger. “On August 12 and August 20, 2004, grand jury subpoenas were issued to reporter Judith Miller and her employer, the New York Times, seeking documents and testimony related to “conversations between Miller and a specified government official occurring between on or about July 6, 2003 and on or about July 13, 2003, concerning Valerie Plame Wilson (whether referred to by name or by description)or concerning Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium.” the filing made by Fitzgerald last year states.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of Markup of House Resolution of Inquiry
    REQUESTING THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND DIRECTING THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CERTAIN DOCUMENTS IN THEIR POSSESSION RELATING TO THE WHITE HOUSE IRAQ GROUP MARKUP BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H. Res. 505 NOVEMBER 9, 2005 Serial No. 109–134 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 24–519PDF WASHINGTON : 2006 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 VerDate Mar 21 2002 10:33 Jun 15, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 F:\WORK\FULL\110905M\24519.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa TOM LANTOS, California CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, HOWARD L. BERMAN, California Vice Chairman GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American ELTON GALLEGLY, California Samoa ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey EDWARD R. ROYCE, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio PETER T. KING, New York BRAD SHERMAN, California STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ROBERT WEXLER, Florida THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York RON PAUL, Texas WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts DARRELL ISSA, California GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona BARBARA LEE, California JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York MARK GREEN, Wisconsin EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon JERRY WELLER, Illinois SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MIKE PENCE, Indiana GRACE F.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Alleged Intelligence Failure in The
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2017 America’s Alleged Intelligence Failure in the Prelude to Operation Iraqi Freedom: A Study of Analytic Factors Cake, Timothy Cake, T. (2017). America’s Alleged Intelligence Failure in the Prelude to Operation Iraqi Freedom: A Study of Analytic Factors (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/24784 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/3688 doctoral thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY America’s Alleged Intelligence Failure in the Prelude to Operation Iraqi Freedom: A Study of Analytic Factors by Timothy Cake A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN MILITARY, SECURITY, AND STRATEGIC STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA APRIL, 2017 © Timothy Cake 2017 ABSTRACT In the prelude to Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), notables in the G. W. Bush administration declared Iraq to be an existential threat as it had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and connections to transnational terrorist groups. After the 2003 invasion of that state, coalition forces engaged in a search effort that found no significant evidence of WMD.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—House H5192
    H5192 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE June 10, 2008 and the energy industry for these kinds But when those people respond, they drive three times a week 30 miles each of problems. say, ‘‘If you would just do the things way to get dialysis so that I can be I just want to conclude quickly with we have asked you to do year after treated for diabetes.’’ He said, ‘‘Con- a story. I do represent a district that is year after year, we could solve this gressman, I am down to the point now one of the top 20 energy producers in problem.’’ of having to choose whether I can af- the United States, so we are more than So I am sorry I went on. You have ford dialysis, afford gasoline, or afford doing our part. I convened about a year been very generous with your time, and food.’’ ago, actually before this extraordinary I appreciate that very much. But it is Madam Speaker, it is time to say rise in prices, a group of independent a frustrating problem when the solu- yes. We have heard you say no; no to energy people that have spent a life- tions are sitting here waiting to be new drilling, no to building additional time trying to provide energy to this acted upon by this House and none of power plants in this country; no to new country. them are being dealt with at all. refineries. America is wanting you to I asked them, ‘‘Give me your sugges- Mr. WALBERG. I thank you for shar- say yes, because America is tired of tions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Literature Review of Recent Evaluations of the Bush Presidency
    NORTEAMÉRICA. Year 2, number 2, July-December 2007 Arrogant Denial: A Literature Review of Recent Evaluations of the Bush Presidency BERNARDETTE VEGA* You aren’t going to be a successful diplomat if you don’t understand the strategic context in which you are actually negotiating. It is not deal making. It’s not. Instead…it was a matter of waiting until the underlying conditions were right, and then acting. Condoleezza Rice Quoted in Glenn Kessler, The Confidante How does one understand the Bush presidency? It has been one of the most controversial and analytically rich periods of American politics, both foreign and domestic, and the reason for this attraction lies in the character of one man and the intricate relationships between him and his staff. The administration of George W. Bush created a personality of its own that started to define itself at the core of the Republican Party dur- ing his 2000 primary campaign and was confirmed with the September 11 terrorist attacks. On the verge of the 2008 presidential elections in the United States, it seems appropriate to evaluate the Bush presidency beyond its many political failures, its dogmatic decision-making processes, and its reliance upon flawed intelligence. Understanding the forty-third president as a complicated human being may not justify the poor decisions he made, but it may help us to comprehend better the rationale behind his agenda. The most frequent evaluations of the Bush presidency have been negative. Already, he is sometimes portrayed as the worst president in * Centro de Investigaciones sobre América del Norte, UNAM.
    [Show full text]