DOCSLIB.ORG

Understanding the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Overseas Forces for More Information on This Publication, Visit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Understanding the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Overseas Forces for More Information on This Publication, Visit C O R P O R A T I O N BRYAN FREDERICK, STEPHEN WATTS, MATTHEW LANE, ABBY DOLL, ASHLEY L. RHOADES, MEAGAN L. SMITH Understanding the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Overseas Forces For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2533 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0078-9 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: U.S. Army photo by Spc. Andrew McNeil Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of a project entitled Limited War: The Role of Ground Forces in Extended Deterrence and Escalation Management, sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans, and Training (G-3/5/7), U.S. Army. The purpose of the project was to provide the Army with an analysis of the role of ground forces in deterring state adversaries while securing U.S. interests and controlling escalation in the event of a crisis. This research was conducted within RAND Arroyo Center’s Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) sponsored by the United States Army. RAND operates under a “Federal-Wide Assurance” (FWA00003425) and complies with the Code of Federal Regula- tions for the Protection of Human Subjects Under United States Law (45 CFR 46), also known as “the Common Rule,” as well as with the implementation guidance set forth in U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Instruction 3216.02. As applicable, this compliance includes reviews and approvals by RAND’s Institutional Review Board (the Human Subjects Protection Committee) and by the U.S. Army. The views of sources utilized in this study are solely their own and do not represent the official policy or position of DoD or the U.S. Government. iii Contents Preface ............................................................................. iii Figures .............................................................................vii Tables .............................................................................. ix Summary .......................................................................... xi Acknowledgments .............................................................. xix Abbreviations .................................................................... xxi CHAPTER ONE Introduction ....................................................................... 1 CHAPTER TWO Debates over the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Forces.......................... 7 Forward Posture and Crisis Deployments: Where and When Do Forces Deter? .................................................................. 8 The Contributions of Different Domains: Which Forces Deter? ..........13 Research Approach: Testing Arguments About Forward Posture and Crisis Deployments ..........................................................15 CHAPTER THREE General Deterrence ..............................................................21 Measuring U.S. Presence and Interstate Conflict ............................ 24 Research Approach ................................................................31 Results of Statistical Models .....................................................35 Analysis and Implications ....................................................... 40 v vi Understanding the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Overseas Forces CHAPTER FOUR Crisis Deterrence .................................................................47 Research Approach and Data Measurement .................................. 48 Quantitative Findings and Analyses ........................................... 56 Qualitative Analysis of Crisis Deployments .................................. 60 Conclusion .........................................................................69 CHAPTER FIVE 1961 Berlin Crisis ................................................................71 Background and U.S. and Soviet Goals ........................................73 U.S. Conventional Forces ........................................................78 Political Context and Soviet Responses ........................................95 Conclusion ....................................................................... 102 CHAPTER SIX Operation Vigilant Warrior .................................................. 107 Overview of the Crisis and the U.S. Military’s Response .................. 109 Iraq’s Intentions and Goals .................................................... 112 How the United States Perceived Iraq’s Intentions in the 1994 Crisis .... 118 U.S. Efforts to Establish a State of General Deterrence over Iraq ......... 120 U.S. Immediate Deterrence Efforts Against Iraq ........................... 125 Iraq’s Perceptions of and Response to Operation Vigilant Warrior ....... 132 Conclusion ....................................................................... 137 CHAPTER SEVEN Conclusion and Policy Implications ....................................... 139 Summary of Findings........................................................... 139 Policy Implications .............................................................. 141 APPENDIXES A. General Deterrence Models .............................................. 145 B. Crisis Deterrence Models ................................................. 191 References ....................................................................... 205 Figures 3.1. Number of Selected U.S. Forces Overseas Not Engaged in Combat, 1955–2014 ................................................ 26 3.2. Regional Concentration of Selected Types of U.S. Forces Overseas, 1955–2014 ............................................... 27 3.3. Militarized Interstate Dispute Intensity Levels ...................29 3.4. Militarized Interstate Disputes, by Intensity Level, 1946–2010 ........................................................... 30 3.5. Militarized Interstate Disputes, by Region, 1946–2010 ....... 30 3.6. Hypothetical Illustration of the Relationship Among States in the Statistical Models .................................... 34 3.7. Marginal Effects of Nearby Heavy Ground Forces ..............41 3.8. Marginal Effects of In-Country Light Ground Forces ......... 43 4.1. Number of U.S. Crisis Deployments in Support of Targeted States, by Military Capability, 1946–2015 ............52 4.2. Escalation to Major Violence of International Crises in Targeted States Supported by U.S. Crisis Deployments, by Military Capability, 1946–2015 ............................... 56 4.3. Satisfactory Outcome for Targeted States Supported by U.S. Crisis Deployments, by Military Capability, 1946 –2015 ............................................................58 5.1. West Berlin Refugee Totals, 1960 Versus 1961 ..................75 5.2. Helmstedt-Berlin Autobahn ....................................... 88 6.1. U.S. Military Steady-State Deployments in the Gulf Region, 1990–1999 ................................................ 123 B.1. Number of U.S. Crisis Deployments in Support of Targeted States, by Military Capability and Deployment Magnitude .......................................................... 195 vii viii Understanding the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Overseas Forces B.2. Escalation to Major Violence of International Crises in Targeted States Supported by U.S. Crisis Deployments, by Military Capability and Deployment Magnitude, 1946 –2015 .......................................................... 197 B.3. Escalation to Full-Scale War of International Crises in Targeted States Supported by U.S. Crisis Deployments, by Military Capability and Deployment Magnitude, 1946 –2015 .......................................................... 198 B.4. Satisfactory Outcome for Targeted States Supported by U.S. Crisis Deployments, by Military Capability and Deployment Magnitude, 1946–2015 ............................ 200 B.5. Outright Victory for Targeted States Supported by U.S. Crisis Deployments in Support of Targeted States, by Military Capability and Deployment Magnitude, 1946 –2015 .......................................................... 202 Tables 3.1. Summary of Statistical Results for Nearby U.S. Forces ........ 36 3.2. Summary of Statistical Results for In-Country U.S. Forces ....39 4.1. Details of U.S. Crisis Deployments in Support of Targeted States, 1946–2015 ........................................53 5.1. Ground Enhancements
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Security in Ninewa: Preventing an ISIS Resurgence in Northern Iraq
    The Politics of Security in Ninewa: Preventing an ISIS Resurgence in Northern Iraq Julie Ahn—Maeve Campbell—Pete Knoetgen Client: Office of Iraq Affairs, U.S. Department of State Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Advisor: Meghan O’Sullivan Policy Analysis Exercise Seminar Leader: Matthew Bunn May 7, 2018 This Policy Analysis Exercise reflects the views of the authors and should not be viewed as representing the views of the US Government, nor those of Harvard University or any of its faculty. Acknowledgements We would like to express our gratitude to the many people who helped us throughout the development, research, and drafting of this report. Our field work in Iraq would not have been possible without the help of Sherzad Khidhir. His willingness to connect us with in-country stakeholders significantly contributed to the breadth of our interviews. Those interviews were made possible by our fantastic translators, Lezan, Ehsan, and Younis, who ensured that we could capture critical information and the nuance of discussions. We also greatly appreciated the willingness of U.S. State Department officials, the soldiers of Operation Inherent Resolve, and our many other interview participants to provide us with their time and insights. Thanks to their assistance, we were able to gain a better grasp of this immensely complex topic. Throughout our research, we benefitted from consultations with numerous Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) faculty, as well as with individuals from the larger Harvard community. We would especially like to thank Harvard Business School Professor Kristin Fabbe and Razzaq al-Saiedi from the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative who both provided critical support to our project.
    [Show full text]
  • Chasing Success
    AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Chasing Success Air Force Efforts to Reduce Civilian Harm Sarah B. Sewall Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell Sewall, Sarah B. Copy Editor Carolyn Burns Chasing success : Air Force efforts to reduce civilian harm / Sarah B. Sewall. Cover Art, Book Design and Illustrations pages cm L. Susan Fair ISBN 978-1-58566-256-2 Composition and Prepress Production 1. Air power—United States—Government policy. Nedra O. Looney 2. United States. Air Force—Rules and practice. 3. Civilian war casualties—Prevention. 4. Civilian Print Preparation and Distribution Diane Clark war casualties—Government policy—United States. 5. Combatants and noncombatants (International law)—History. 6. War victims—Moral and ethical aspects. 7. Harm reduction—Government policy— United States. 8. United States—Military policy— Moral and ethical aspects. I. Title. II. Title: Air Force efforts to reduce civilian harm. UG633.S38 2015 358.4’03—dc23 2015026952 AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Director and Publisher Allen G. Peck Published by Air University Press in March 2016 Editor in Chief Oreste M. Johnson Managing Editor Demorah Hayes Design and Production Manager Cheryl King Air University Press 155 N. Twining St., Bldg. 693 Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026 [email protected] http://aupress.au.af.mil/ http://afri.au.af.mil/ Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy or position of the organizations with which they are associated or the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or any AFRI other US government agency.
    [Show full text]
  • 24Th Infantry Division Association
    24th Infantry Division . • 2 ECH) . l \C iO RY'O/ V ~T ~ ISIOty - - - ~ .- ,;;..'-'-' .. \;-.,. ~ Welcome to the 24th InfanCfll, Division, soldier. now a menib~\2u9h) combat-ready unit- with a -..Lor through two majo"4!~rs. Inltlally,~guestlQJIs ari~rdin!il your newlml,l or the country'-"""which you are SlaliO~iS booklet, cQn1IQe!"oraling the division's 26th anniversary; may gIve you some answers .- 2 ,~ , ......... ,.. '" .... ' ~, ~ <.... , "" ---.. ~ ........ ~--_., ..;:,"" --. ~-.., - - T1>t....,G.. _ d ,I>< Uth W....u-1 n""f"'" ~1"(" ....... 0\ .... ,1'",.• ........ 11k.I, to !orV'. Ttl. V!":" ..""" ......, ...~ ",,,b tIl<R'--~'" 0., ..... l.c>yto. ~ I/IdoO<O. lJ.o ,,,,,. CO"''';-' MInd''''"' Ta'l"'" ,td ~ .."" ... .... <0 ....... ,Iv"'. ""''''~ ..... ~. So "..,m>< y I><"'"~'' ' " ......00 ",... ,ItO pr'<tl<;:o: d «",,'\0.'" ,b< " "t~'1 L-""I>k>o ,...a.) ,B tit • .,.'" CO" "".~ .,Uo P''''''' Tot- T>r~ V" ... bo.l~" ~ ..Il""''''''' fPl"ltioc. " . ,,<or" ... ""'".,.,.. 01 ••n~ .""."".,,..! I'.••• , .... ""'01 .",:l <0""",,0«. AJJ Uo' ~ ~ 'b 1tlI;u>1'~ Ih<l"''' c~"...,~, .... ,t; lEI. fur .. .. r""" '0 ....... ,10>.. I ()::,~''''. ,II< dU"" ..,.d ".""n' ..... ' ,~- .. ", be ""'.... ,. , ..04.. rt~ ..., ~ '<<I" n,y ....... ,...... lOr M~'~ >~« ... ,n the ,n<I" ioO" thO \'''''''f 1)<""0<\. "' ... ...u .f to. .m.. '" .... ... " .f .... 1<11.1,"" , .. "...".o"."..,o! • ...,... .... 1 ....... _","'0"- ......." ",.".0 .. -" .. , .. ",,,, I"'''''''' .. .-1"_" "'" ....'" ~ f ..... ,-'>''''1><.0 AMI .... ..,.· ....... .,.u.'" ..... .... ,,""
    [Show full text]
  • US Military Policy in the Middle East an Appraisal US Military Policy in the Middle East: an Appraisal
    Research Paper Micah Zenko US and Americas Programme | October 2018 US Military Policy in the Middle East An Appraisal US Military Policy in the Middle East: An Appraisal Contents Summary 2 1 Introduction 3 2 Domestic Academic and Political Debates 7 3 Enduring and Current Presence 11 4 Security Cooperation: Training, Advice and Weapons Sales 21 5 Military Policy Objectives in the Middle East 27 Conclusion 31 About the Author 33 Acknowledgments 34 1 | Chatham House US Military Policy in the Middle East: An Appraisal Summary • Despite significant financial expenditure and thousands of lives lost, the American military presence in the Middle East retains bipartisan US support and incurs remarkably little oversight or public debate. Key US activities in the region consist of weapons sales to allied governments, military-to-military training programmes, counterterrorism operations and long-term troop deployments. • The US military presence in the Middle East is the culmination of a common bargain with Middle Eastern governments: security cooperation and military assistance in exchange for US access to military bases in the region. As a result, the US has substantial influence in the Middle East and can project military power quickly. However, working with partners whose interests sometimes conflict with one another has occasionally harmed long-term US objectives. • Since 1980, when President Carter remarked that outside intervention in the interests of the US in the Middle East would be ‘repelled by any means necessary’, the US has maintained a permanent and significant military presence in the region. • Two main schools of thought – ‘offshore balancing’ and ‘forward engagement’ – characterize the debate over the US presence in the Middle East.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations
    S. HRG. 109–130 Senate Hearings Before the Committee on Appropriations Department of Defense Appropriations Fiscal Year 2006 109th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION H.R. 2863 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES Department of Defense Appropriations, 2006 (H.R. 2863) S. HRG. 109–130 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ON H.R. 2863 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2006, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Department of Defense Nondepartmental witnesses Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 99–854 PDF WASHINGTON : 2005 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 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L.
    [Show full text]
  • US Army, Berlin, 1961-1994
    COLD WARRIORS, GOOD NEIGHBORS, SMART POWER: U.S. ARMY, BERLIN, 1961-1994 Rex A. Childers A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2015 Committee: Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Advisor Marc V. Simon Graduate Faculty Representative Bill Allison Michael E. Brooks © 2015 Rex Childers All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Beth Griech-Polelle, Advisor The end of the Cold War and the manner in which it was “won” by the Allied nations ignited debate over the utility of military power as a source of American leadership in the new unipolar world. A popular theme arose, that a new form of state power, soft power, had the capacity to achieve America’s interests as it prepared to enter the 21st century. The idea that expensive and dangerous technologies could be replaced by investments in peaceful means of influence, wielded by America’s foreign policy professionals to foster a new cooperative spirit in the world, was naturally attractive. The United States could be relieved of much of its global military presence and reduce its military’s intrusions upon foreign people and their cultures. This dissertation challenges the assumption that the impact of military stationing in the Cold War was limited to hard power. In the case of the U.S. Army in Berlin, the unit and its members practiced civic, social, cultural, and political behaviors that meet the criteria of the post-Cold War branded term, soft power. In their daily interactions with Berliners, they exercised the full spectrum of foreign policy smart power tools, as Cold Warrior defenders of West Berlin and in compliance with U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington Update
    WASHINGTON UPDATE A MONTHLY NEWSLETIER Vol 6 No 7 Published by the AUSA Institute of Land Warfare August 1994 National security strategy statement signed by Readiness Task Force submits report. The find­ President Clinton. Titled "AN ational Security Strategy ings and recommendations of the Defense Science Board of Engagement and Enlargement, July 1994," this paper Task Force on Readiness, chaired by Gen. Edward C. outlines the administration's goals and guidelines under ·Meyer, former Army Chief of Staff, were released by three broad headings: security, economics and democ­ OSD on July 22. Based on preliminary releases, there racy. It is, therefore, considerably broader than national were no surprises in the final report. It found that the defense. readiness of forces today was generally acceptable for missions as currently defined. It did, however, note Such a statement has been long awaited, but it adds pockets of unreadiness and raised red flags for the future. nothing new with respect to national military strategy. Rather, it confirms the DoD Bottom-Up Review along The report strongly emphasized the need to keep readi­ with the adjusted five-year budget as basic defense ness as a top priority concern and the need to guard against the negative pressures (force reductions, fre­ guidelines. It endorses the need for capability to handle quent mission deployments, budget cuts, turbulence, two nearly simultaneous regional conflicts as the basis etc.) which could push forces into a "hollow state." for planning, and stresses the need to draw the line against further cuts that would undermine the force Special note was made of the need to address joint structure or erode U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mythology and the Air Campaign in the Liberation of Iraq
    Journal of Military and Strategic Studies, Spring 2005, Vol. 7, Issue 3. MYTHOLOGY AND THE AIR CAMPAIGN IN THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ Major J.R. McKay, DAT 4-6 (Capability and Force Development Training Support), Department of National Defence Myths about the Liberation of Iraq Despite the unprecedented degree of media scrutiny, the coalition’s liberation of Iraq in 2003 strayed into the realm of mythology with regard to the air campaign. Two myths have developed about the air campaign and these are: • Its simultaneity. • Its ‘strategic’ focus, that is the air campaign sought to deal with Iraq’s ‘capacity to wage war’ through attacks on Iraq’s strategic command and control systems, its infrastructure and forces out of contact with the coalition’s forces. Such myths are not borne out by the available body of facts and can lead to faulty conclusions about the nature and role of air power in contemporary war. This article will dispel these two myths. The coalition’s presence in Iraqi skies between 1991 and 2003 allowed the coalition to prepare and execute operations well in advance of the recognised start of the war (the air attack against a leadership target early on 19 March 2003) let alone land operations. It will also demonstrate that the intended focus of air effort was placed against Iraq’s fielded forces as opposed to its war-making capacity, and as such was ‘tactical’ as opposed to ‘strategic’. Launch of operations The 1991 Gulf War represented the sequential application of air power and ground forces where an air campaign preceded the commencement of offensive operations on ©Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute, 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Saddam's Generals: Perspectives of the Iran-Iraq
    SADDAM’S GENERALS Perspectives of the Iran-Iraq War Kevin M. Woods, Williamson Murray, Elizabeth A. Nathan, Laila Sabara, Ana M. Venegas SADDAM’S GENERALS SADDAM’S GENERALS Perspectives of the Iran-Iraq War Kevin M. Woods, Williamson Murray, Elizabeth A. Nathan, Laila Sabara, Ana M. Venegas Institute for Defense Analyses 2011 Final July 2010 IDA Document D-4121 Log: H 10-000765/1 Copy This work was conducted under contract DASW01-04-C-003, Task ET-8-2579, “Study on Military History (Project 1946—Phase II)” for the National Intelligence Council. The publication of this IDA document does not indicate endorsement by the Department of Defense, nor should the contents be construed as reflecting the official position of the Agency. © 2010 Institute for Defense Analyses, 4850 Mark Center Drive, Alexandria, Virginia 22311-1882 • (703) 845-2000. This material may be reproduced by or for the U.S. Government pursuant to the copyright license under the clause at DFARS 252.227-7013 (November 1995). Contents Foreword............................................................................................................................................ vii Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1 Summary and Analysis........................................................................................................................ 5 Background ..................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • War on Terrorism: Immigration Enforcement Since September 11, 2001
    WAR ON TERRORISM: IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION MAY 8, 2003 Serial No. 21 Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 86–954 PDF WASHINGTON : 2003 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 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas RICK BOUCHER, Virginia ELTON GALLEGLY, California JERROLD NADLER, New York BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia STEVE CHABOT, Ohio MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee ZOE LOFGREN, California CHRIS CANNON, Utah SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama MAXINE WATERS, California JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts MARK GREEN, Wisconsin WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida ROBERT WEXLER, Florida MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin JEFF FLAKE, Arizona ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York MIKE PENCE, Indiana ADAM B. SCHIFF, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia LINDA T. SA´ NCHEZ, California STEVE KING, Iowa JOHN R. CARTER, Texas TOM FEENEY, Florida MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS JOHN N.
    [Show full text]
  • The Divided City - Berlin 1965-67
    THE DIVIDED CITY - BERLIN 1965-67 The Battalion (Bn) went off to Berlin in September 1965, leaving me behind to complete the Regimental Signal Officers’ Course in Hythe. Their destination was Brooke Barracks, Spandau, where they had already been stationed in the mid-fifties. The whole Bn went in a standard move taking families, children and pets with them. In those days, few soldiers had cars and only some officers, so most of them went by air, and others by ferry and train. I arrived in Berlin in late November, to a cold and icy city. As my first time stationed in Germany, in its old capital, it was going to be quite a special experience. I knew about ‘The Wall’ and the divided nation, and the Four Power Agreement, and that it was a very old, very grand, very proud capital city. I spoke no German at that time, and had a jaundiced view about Berlin, acquired from my Mother who came from Hamburg. However, I realised it would be useful to know some German phrases, so she taught me enough to get going. One gem I remember especially is not exactly vital but is amusing: ‘Ich muss mal auf clo gehen!’ which means ‘I must go to the loo’! On arrival at Tempelhof Airport in the centre of Berlin, from Gatwick, I was most impressed with the modern art-nouveau design. The airport was very clean and spacious. There seemed to be many cleaners about to keep the place going. Tempelhof Airport was very avant-garde and shiny.
    [Show full text]
  • The Anglosphere: a Genealogy of an Identity in International Relations
    THE ANGLOSPHERE: A GENEALOGY OF AN IDENTITY IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Srdjan Vucetic, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2008 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Ted Hopf, Adviser _____________________________ Professor Jennifer Mitzen Adviser Professor Alexander Wendt Political Science Graduate Program © Copyright by Srdjan Vucetic (2008) ABSTRACT The Anglosphere refers to a grouping of English-speaking states, whose core is said to consist of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. In international relations, the term is usually used to describe and/or prescribe civilization, empire, military coalitions, customs union or even a political association. The Anglosphere is a neologism, but one rooted and reflected in long-standing international phenomena such as the Anglo-American Special Relationship, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Australia-New Zealand-United States Pact (ANZUS) Pact and the Commonwealth of Nations. In addition, quantitative research on the sources of international security cooperation clearly shows a pattern of behavior particular to the Anglosphere. While it offers no shortage of explanations of international conflict and cooperation across different groupings of states, the field of International Relations (IR) is silent on the subject of the Anglosphere. This dissertation seeks to open up the research agenda by investigating two basic questions: how did the Anglosphere become possible and what effects does it have on international politics? The dissertation considers these questions in parallel, via two complementary analytical tasks. The first task is to provide a genealogy of the Anglosphere as a grouping of states characterized by shared identity.
    [Show full text]