DOCSLIB.ORG

A Comparative Analysis of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump Administration Policies in Afghanistan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Comparative Analysis of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump Administration Policies in Afghanistan City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2-2020 The U.S. Approach to Peacebuilding in Afghanistan: A Comparative Analysis of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump Administration Policies in Afghanistan Mohammad Rasouli The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/3547 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] THE U.S. APPROACH TO PEACEBUILDING IN AFGHANISTAN A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GEORGE W. BUSH, BARACK OBAMA, AND DONALD TRUMP ADMINISTRATION POLICIES IN AFGHANISTAN by MOHAMMAD RASOULI A master’s thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, The City University of New York 2020 © 2020 MOHAMMAD RASOULI All Rights Reserved ii The U.S. Approach to Peacebuilding in Afghanistan, A Comparative Analysis of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump Administration Policies in Afghanistan by Mohammad Rasouli This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Liberal Studies in satisfaction of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts. Date Karen R. Miller Thesis Advisor Date Elizabeth Macaulay-Lewis Executive Officer THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT The U.S. Approach to Peacebuilding in Afghanistan, A comparative analysis of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump administration policies in Afghanistan by Mohammad Rasouli Advisor: Professor Karen Miller This research paper addresses the efforts of the U.S. to achieve some level of reconciliation with the Taliban after more than 18 years of war in Afghanistan. It deals with the history of U.S.- Taliban negotiations and the U.S. initiatives to engage with the Taliban, as well as outlining the challenges to these initiatives and determining how effective they have been. In addition, the prospects of the U.S.-Taliban peace talks are assessed. Since the 2001 U.S. intervention in Afghanistan, the first two U.S. administrations under consideration—those of George W. Bush and Barack Obama—justified intrusive interventions into the political, economic, and social affairs of Afghanistan under a “state-building” approach to address a combination of security and humanitarian challenges. The U.S. promoted state-building initiatives guided by a liberal peacebuilding ideology that were supposed to promote peace, democracy, and market-led development in the region. Two years after Trump came to office, his administration abandoned this state-building approach and hopes of a military victory over the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. The question of how to establish lasting peace in Afghanistan has also proven to be troublesome for the U.S. and the iv Afghans. The process of peace talks between the U.S. and the Taliban, which started in early 2018, has lacked transparency and a clear strategy. However, it seems that the U.S.-Taliban peace talks in Doha have started the beginning of an end to a supposedly “endless war” for the U.S. Nonetheless, this might not end the conflict within Afghanistan, as the U.S. peace deal with the Taliban is more likely to create the conditions for future civil war than a sustainable peace among Afghans. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to offer my sincerest thanks to my professor and thesis advisor Dr. Karen R. Miller for her valuable guidance and instructions throughout my studies at the Graduate Center, CUNY. I also would like to deeply thank Sadaf Ahmadi, Jawid Hamidi, Sayed Nadim, Mohamad Mustafa Naizai, Ahmad Haqparast, Dawod Hosaini, Mohammad Saber Mamozai, and Sayeed Mir Malak for giving me the opportunity to interview them and allowing me to use their insightful comments in my paper. This research would not have been possible without the support of the honorable people mentioned above. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. iv Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................ vi Table of Contents............................................................................................................................. vii Introduction .........................................................................................................................................1 Chapter One: Theoretical Framework for State-Building and Peace building in Afghanistan ...........3 1.1 The Bush Administration’s Strategy for Winning the “War on Terror” ................................4 1.2 Liberal/Democratic Peace Theory .........................................................................................7 1.3 The Evolution of the Concept of Peace ...............................................................................10 1.3.1 The Application of the Liberal Peace ............................................................................13 1.3.2 The Nature of the Afghan State .....................................................................................17 1.4 Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................18 Chapter Two: Peacebuilding Through Coercion ...............................................................................20 2.1.1 Bush’s “War on Terror” ....................................................................................................21 2.1.2 “Accelerating Success”: A Step Toward State-Building ................................................23 2.2.1 Obama’s “Good War” .......................................................................................................25 2.2.2 New Strategy: A Fragile Progress ..................................................................................26 2.2.3 The War in Afghanistan: A Black Hole .........................................................................29 2.3.1 Trump’s Strategy: Reversal or Continuity? .......................................................................31 2.3.2 Trump’s Least Bad Option .............................................................................................33 2.3.3 The Flaw in Trump’s Strategy ........................................................................................34 2.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................35 Chapter Three: Peacebuilding Through Dialogue ............................................................................37 3.1.1 Early Negotiation ...............................................................................................................40 3.1.2 The Afghan Government Reintegration Program ..........................................................42 3.2.1 Obama’s Peacemaking With the “Moderate Taliban” ......................................................43 3.2.2 U.S. Allies’ Pressure to Find a Political Solution ..........................................................45 3.2.3 The Peace Process: Pragmatism in Play ........................................................................46 3.3.1 Trump’s Peace Policy ........................................................................................................50 3.3.2 Trump’s Afghan Policy Debacle ...................................................................................52 3.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................53 Chapter Four: Conclusion ..................................................................................................................55 4.1 Interviews and Findings........................................................................................................58 vii 4.2 The U.S. Presence in Afghanistan .......................................................................................59 4.3 U.S. Peacebuilding in Afghanistan .......................................................................................61 4.4 The Future Prospects of the Afghanistan Conflict ...............................................................63 Bibliography ......................................................................................................................................66 viii INTRODUCTION The U.S. peacebuilding efforts in Afghanistan began after the fall of the Taliban regime in December 2001. When the U.S. military, its Western allies, and the Afghan Northern Alliance— the Taliban’s opposing party in the civil war—removed the Taliban regime from power, many Afghan technocrats and Western diplomats hoped to create a stable and representative government. However, establishing a Western-style democracy in a country that had undergone two decades of unrest was a daunting task, given the fact that Afghanistan’s economy is underdeveloped, several ethno-sectarian issues exist among different ethnicities, and most importantly, parallel sources of power to the government—the warlords—were empowered during the two decades of unrest and challenged the legitimacy of the central
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Women's Rights Unveiled: Taliban's Treatment of Women in Afghanistan
    WOMEN'S RIGHTS UNVEILED: TALIBAN'S TREATMENT OF WOMEN IN AFGHANISTAN I. INTRODUCTION I have four children. Life is very difficult under the Taliban, especially because of what they have done to women. During the past year, I have been out of my house only three times, always accompanied by a male family member, or my husband. Once, I went to the baker's [sic]. There I saw another woman. She was picking up some bread, and her sleeves moved up her arms a bit, and a Talib came and beat her. I became very afraid, and I ran away. My house in Afghanistan is not very big. It has two rooms, one bathroom, and a kitchen. All the day, I am inside the house, doing housework-cooking, washing, cleaning, things like this. My husband is a shopkeeper. We have a courtyard, so sometimes I can go outside and feel the sun on my face. It is surrounded by a high wall, so no one can see in. I do not see my women friends. If the women have the time to go outside, the male members of the family don't have time to escort them, or don't want to. So we all stay in our houses.' It is hard for people in other countries to believe that we women in Afghanistan are beaten everyday by the Taliban. The sadness in our story is endless. I know that they [the Taliban] beat us, lash us, and lock us in our homes all because they want to destroy the dignity of women.
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan: the Consolidation of a Rogue State Zalmay Khalilzad, Daniel Byman
    Afghanistan: The Consolidation of a Rogue State Zalmay Khalilzad, Daniel Byman The Washington Quarterly, Volume 23, Number 1, Winter 2000, pp. 65-78 (Article) Published by The MIT Press For additional information about this article https://muse.jhu.edu/article/36511 [ This content has been declared free to read by the pubisher during the COVID-19 pandemic. ] Zalmay Khalilzad and Daniel Byman Afghanistan: The Consolidation of a Rogue State Afghanistan has gone from one of Washington’s greatest foreign policy triumphs to one of its most profound failures. During the Cold War, U.S. support to the anti-Soviet Afghan resistance resulted in a debacle for Moscow, humiliating the vaunted Red Army and discrediting the Soviets throughout the Muslim world. After the Soviets withdrew, however, Af- ghanistan has become a disaster for U.S. policy. The master terrorist ‘Usama bin Laden has taken shelter in Afghanistan, using it as a base to indoctri- nate and train militants who strike at the United States and its allies. Af- ghan women face a horrifying array of restrictions, among the most repressive in the world. The country is now the world’s leading producer of opium, which in turn is used to produce heroin. These problems, however, are only symptoms of a more dangerous disease. Though policymakers are loathe to say it openly, Afghanistan is ruled by a rogue regime, the Taliban. The outrages that draw headlines in the West stem from its misrule and will continue as long as the movement dominates Afghanistan. If anything, the danger is growing. “Talibanism”—a radical, backward, and repressive version of Islam similar to the Saudi “Wahhabi” credo but rejected by the vast ma- jority of Muslims worldwide—is gaining adherents outside Afghanistan and spreading to other countries in the region.
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan, 1989-1996: Between the Soviets and the Taliban
    Afghanistan, 1989-1996: Between the Soviets and the Taliban A thesis submitted to the Miami University Honors Program in partial fulfillment of the Requirements for University Honors with Distinction by, Brandon Smith May 2005 Oxford, OH ABSTRACT AFGHANISTAN, 1989-1996: BETWEEN THE SOVIETS AND THE TALIBAN by, BRANDON SMITH This paper examines why the Afghan resistance fighters from the war against the Soviets, the mujahideen, were unable to establish a government in the time period between the withdrawal of the Soviet army from Afghanistan in 1989 and the consolidation of power by the Taliban in 1996. A number of conflicting explanations exist regarding Afghanistan’s instability during this time period. This paper argues that the developments in Afghanistan from 1989 to 1996 can be linked to the influence of actors outside Afghanistan, but not to the extent that the choices and actions of individual actors can be overlooked or ignored. Further, the choices and actions of individual actors need not be explained in terms of ancient animosities or historic tendencies, but rather were calculated moves to secure power. In support of this argument, international, national, and individual level factors are examined. ii Afghanistan, 1989-1996: Between the Soviets and the Taliban by, Brandon Smith Approved by: _________________________, Advisor Karen L. Dawisha _________________________, Reader John M. Rothgeb, Jr. _________________________, Reader Homayun Sidky Accepted by: ________________________, Director, University Honors Program iii Thanks to Karen Dawisha for her guidance and willingness to help on her year off, and to John Rothgeb and Homayun Sidky for taking the time to read the final draft and offer their feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Doe V. Unocal Decision
    Volume 1 of 2 FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN DOE I, individually & as Administrator of the Estate of his deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; JANE DOE I, on behalf of herself, as Adminstratrix of the Estate of her deceased child Baby Doe I, & on behalf of all others similarly situated; JOHN DOE II; JOHN DOE III; JOHN DOE IV; JOHN DOE V; JANE DOE II; JANE DOE III; JOHN DOE VI; JOHN DOE VII; JOHN Nos. 00-56603 DOE VIII; JOHN DOE IX; JOHN DOE 00-57197 X; JOHN DOE XI, on behalf of D.C. No. themselves & all others similarly CV-96-06959- situated & Louisa Benson on RSWL behalf of herself & the general public, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNOCAL CORPORATION, a California Corporation; TOTAL S.A., a Foreign Corporation; JOHN IMLE, an individual; ROGER C. BEACH, an individual, Defendants-Appellees. 14187 14188 DOE I v. UNOCAL CORP. JOHN ROE III; JOHN ROE VII; JOHN Nos. 00-56628 ROE VIII; JOHN ROE X, 00-57195 Plaintiffs-Appellants, D.C. No. v. CV-96-06112- UNOCAL CORPORATION; UNION OIL RSWL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, OPINION Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Richard A. Paez and Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judges, Presiding1 Argued and Submitted December 3, 2001—Pasadena, California Filed September 18, 2002 Before: Harry Pregerson, Stephen Reinhardt, and A. Wallace Tashima, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Harry Pregerson; Concurrence by Judge Reinhardt 1Judge Paez initially authored the orders granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.
    [Show full text]
  • CNOOC's Failed Bid to Purchase Unocal Michael Petrusic
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of North Carolina School of Law NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 84 | Number 4 Article 9 5-1-2006 Oil and National Security: CNOOC's Failed Bid to Purchase Unocal Michael Petrusic Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael Petrusic, Oil and National Security: CNOOC's Failed Bid to Purchase Unocal, 84 N.C. L. Rev. 1373 (2006). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol84/iss4/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Oil and the National Security: CNOOC's Failed Bid To Purchase Unocal On August 2, 2005, the China National Offshore Oil Company ("CNOOC") withdrew its bid to purchase U.S. oil company Unocal in response to significant political opposition.! CNOOC's bid aroused intense opposition from Members of Congress and outside observers. Within weeks of the bid's announcement, the House of Representatives urged the Bush administration to review the bid on national security grounds.2 The House based its arguments on the Exon-Florio Amendment to the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (the "Amendment"),3 legislation designed to provide for the review and restriction of foreign direct investment in
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy
    Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy July 18, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45818 SUMMARY R45818 Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy July 18, 2019 Afghanistan has been a significant U.S. foreign policy concern since 2001, when the United States, in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, led a military Clayton Thomas campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban government that harbored and supported it. Analyst in Middle Eastern In the intervening 18 years, the United States has suffered approximately 2,400 military Affairs fatalities in Afghanistan, with the cost of military operations reaching nearly $750 billion. Congress has appropriated approximately $133 billion for reconstruction. In that time, an elected Afghan government has replaced the Taliban, and most measures of human development have improved, although Afghanistan’s future prospects remain mixed in light of the country’s ongoing violent conflict and political contention. Topics covered in this report include: Security dynamics. U.S. and Afghan forces, along with international partners, combat a Taliban insurgency that is, by many measures, in a stronger military position now than at any point since 2001. Many observers assess that a full-scale U.S. withdrawal would lead to the collapse of the Afghan government and perhaps even the reestablishment of Taliban control over most of the country. Taliban insurgents operate alongside, and in periodic competition with, an array of other armed groups, including regional affiliates of Al Qaeda (a longtime Taliban ally) and the Islamic State (a Taliban foe and increasing focus of U.S. policy). U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2007 Proxy Voting Report 3M Company Ticker Security ID: MMM
    2007 Proxy Voting Report 3M Company Ticker Security ID: Meeting Date Meeting Status MMM CUSIP9 88579Y101 05/08/2007 Voted Issue Mgmt For/Agnst No. Description Proponent Rec Vote Cast Mgmt 1.1 Elect Linda Alvarado Mgmt For For For 1.2 Elect George Buckley Mgmt For For For 1.3 Elect Vance Coffman Mgmt For For For 1.4 Elect Michael Eskew Mgmt For For For 1.5 Elect W. James Farrell Mgmt For For For 1.6 Elect Herbert Henkel Mgmt For For For 1.7 Elect Edward Liddy Mgmt For For For 1.8 Elect Robert Morrison Mgmt For For For 1.9 Elect Aulana Peters Mgmt For For For 1.10 Elect Rozanne Ridgway Mgmt For For For 2 Ratification of Auditor Mgmt For For For Amendment to Eliminate Supermajority 3 Voting Requirements Mgmt For For For Amendment to Eliminate Fair-Price 4 Provision Mgmt For For For 5 Executive Annual Incentive Plan Mgmt For For For Approve Material Terms of 6 Performance Unit Plan Mgmt For For For Shareholder Proposal Regarding Pay- 7 for-Superior-Performance ShrHoldr Against Against For Abbott Laboratories Inc Ticker Security ID: Meeting Date Meeting Status ABT CUSIP9 002824100 04/27/2007 Voted Issue Mgmt For/Agnst No. Description Proponent Rec Vote Cast Mgmt 1.1 Elect Roxanne Austin Mgmt For For For 1.2 Elect William Daley Mgmt For For For 1.3 Elect W. James Farrell Mgmt For For For 1.4 Elect H. Laurance Fuller Mgmt For For For 1.5 Elect Richard Gonzalez Mgmt For For For 1.6 Elect David Owen Mgmt For For For 1.7 Elect Boone Powell, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • Madeleine Albright, Gender, and Foreign Policy-Making
    Journal of Political Science Volume 33 Number 1 Article 2 November 2005 Madeleine Albright, Gender, and Foreign Policy-Making Kevin J. Lasher Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Lasher, Kevin J. (2005) "Madeleine Albright, Gender, and Foreign Policy-Making," Journal of Political Science: Vol. 33 : No. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.coastal.edu/jops/vol33/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Politics at CCU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Political Science by an authorized editor of CCU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Madeleine Albright , Gender, and Foreign Policy-Making Kevin J. Lashe r Francis Marion University Women are finally becoming major participants in the U.S. foreign policy-making establishment . I seek to un­ derstand how th e arrival of women foreign policy-makers might influence the outcome of U.S. foreign polic y by fo­ cusi ng 011 th e activities of Mad elei n e A !bright , the first wo man to hold the position of Secretary of State . I con­ clude that A !bright 's gender did hav e some modest im­ pact. Gender helped Albright gain her position , it affected the manner in which she carried out her duties , and it facilitated her working relationship with a Repub­ lican Congress. But A !bright 's gender seemed to have had relatively little effect on her ideology and policy recom­ mendations . ver the past few decades more and more women have won election to public office and obtained high-level Oappointive positions in government, and this trend is likely to continue well into the 21st century.
    [Show full text]
  • Safeguarding Women's Rights in Afghanistan
    153 Oxfam Briefing Paper 3 October 2011 A place at the table Safeguarding women‟s rights in Afghanistan www.oxfam.org Participants from the Women for Women programme, Afghanistan. © Women for Women International. Women in Afghanistan have achieved real progress in areas such as political participation, the rule of law, and education since 2001, but these hard-won gains remain fragile. With the imminent withdrawal of international forces, there is a risk that the government may sacrifice women’s rights in order to secure a political deal with the Taliban and other armed opposition groups. The government and its international partners must do much more to support Afghan women’s efforts and uphold their rights while ensuring that women have a strong voice in any future negotiations and political settlements. Summary ‘Women want peace but not at the cost of losing our freedom again.’ Noorjahan Akbar, co-founder of Young Women for Change.1 Ten years on from the start of the Western intervention in Afghani- stan, Afghan women are facing an uncertain future. Women have strived for and made important gains since the fall of the Taliban in 2001, including in political participation and access to education, but these gains are fragile and reversible. The precarious situation for Afghan women is set against a backdrop of spreading insecurity across Afghanistan. Civilian casualties are in- creasing, with May 2011 the deadliest month of the war for civilians since 2007.2 As security deteriorates across the country, violence against women is also on the rise. Both the Afghan and US governments are attempting to engage in parallel talks with the Taliban to reach a political solution to the con- flict before international military forces withdraw by the end of 2014.
    [Show full text]
  • My Life with the Taliban
    MY LIFE WITH THE TALIBAN Courtesy of www.pdfbooksfree.pk ABDUL SALAM ZAEEF My Life with the Taliban Edited by Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn Courtesy of www.pdfbooksfree.pk Columbia University Press Publishers Since 1893 New York Chichester, West Sussex Copyright © Abdul Salam Zaeef 2010 Editors’ introduction and translation Copyright © Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn, 2010 Foreword Copyright © Barnett R. Rubin, 2010 All rights reserved Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Za’if, ‘Abd al-Salam, 1967 or 8– My life with the Taliban / Abdul Salam Zaeef. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-231-70148-8 (alk. paper) 1. Za’if, ‘Abd al-Salam, 1967 or 8– 2. Taliban—Biography. 3. Afghan War, 2001—Biography. 4. Prisoners of war—Afghanistan—Biography. 5. Prisoners of war—United States—Biography. 6. Guantánamo Bay Detention Camp—Biography. I. Title. DS371.33.Z34A3 2010 958.104'7—dc22 [B] 2009040865 ∞ Columbia University Press books are printed on permanent and durable acid-free paper. This book is printed on paper with recycled content. Printed in USA c 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 References to Internet Web sites (URLs) were accurate at the time of writing. Neither the author nor Columbia University Press is responsible for URLs that may have expired or changed since the manuscript was prepared. Courtesy of www.pdfbooksfree.pk CONTENTS Kandahar: Portrait of a City ix Editors’ Acknowledgements xxv Editors’ Notes xxvii Character List xxix Foreword by Barnett R. Rubin xxxvii Preface by Abdul Salam Zaeef xli Maps xlviii–xlix 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Operation Freedom's Sentinel, Report to the United States Congress, April
    OPERATION FREEDOM’S SENTINEL LEAD INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT TO THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS APRIL 1, 2019‒JUNE 30, 2019 ABOUT THIS REPORT In January 2013, Congress enacted legislation creating the Lead Inspector General (Lead IG) framework for oversight of overseas contingency operations. This legislation, which amended the Inspector General Act, requires the Inspectors General of the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of State (DoS), and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to, among other things, provide quarterly reports to Congress on the contingency operations. The DoD Inspector General (IG) is designated as the Lead IG for Operation Freedom’s Sentinel (OFS) and the DoS IG is the Associate Inspector General. USAID’s humanitarian assistance and development efforts in Afghanistan fall outside the OFS mission. However, the USAID Office of Inspector General conducts audits and investigations of its programs in Afghanistan and summaries of USAID oversight work are included in this report. The Offices of Inspector General of the DoD, DoS, and USAID are referred to in this report as the Lead IG agencies. Other partner agencies also contribute to oversight of OFS. The Lead IG agencies collectively carry out their statutory missions to: • Develop a joint strategic plan to conduct comprehensive oversight of the contingency operation. • Ensure independent and effective oversight of programs and operations of the Federal Government in support of the contingency operation through either joint or individual audits, inspections, and investigations. • Report quarterly and biannually to Congress and the public on the contingency operation and activities of the Lead IG agencies. METHODOLOGY To produce this quarterly report, the Lead IG agencies submit requests for information to the DoD, DoS, and USAID about OFS and related programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate
    Order Code RL31607 Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate October 16, 2002 name redacted, Meaghan Marshall, name redacted Research Associates Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division name redacted Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Iraq: Differing Views in the Domestic Policy Debate Summary The debate over whether, when, and how to prosecute a major U.S. military intervention in Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein is complex, despite a general consensus in Washington that the world would be much better off if Hussein were not in power. Although most U.S. observers, for a variety of reasons, would prefer some degree of allied or U.N. support for military intervention in Iraq, some observers believe that the United States should act unilaterally even without such multilateral support. Some commentators argue for a stronger, more committed version of the current policy approach toward Iraq and leave war as a decision to reach later, only after exhausting additional means of dealing with Hussein’s regime. A number of key questions are raised in this debate, such as: 1) is war on Iraq linked to the war on terrorism and to the Arab-Israeli dispute; 2) what effect will a war against Iraq have on the war against terrorism; 3) are there unintended consequences of warfare, especially in this region of the world; 4) what is the long- term political and financial commitment likely to accompany regime change and possible democratization in this highly divided, ethnically diverse country; 5) what are the international consequences (e.g., to European allies, Russia, and the world community) of any U.S.
    [Show full text]