e11th hour...seeking solutionsabout usemail informationquestions? comments?submit an article for publicationregister for our free newslettersite map
disaster responseforeign policymediaregional securityresource directoryarchived articles
search for

recommended sites

"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and
what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great
propaganda accomplishments of the dominate political mythology."
Michael Parenti

main directory

f o r e i g n . p o l i c y

new article
Post Sept 11 Arms Sales and Military Aid Demonstrate Dangerous Trends

Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the United States has employed as many means as possible to fight the war on terror. In one aspect, however, an alarming trend has emerged. The United States is more willing than ever to sell or give away weapons to countries that have pledged assistance in the global war on terror. In the past, the United States has used arms sales to "reward" countries for their loyalty. And, today, if one examines each sale or change in policy individually, there does not appear to be a paradigm shift in U.S. arms export policy. However, when one looks at these transfers together, it becomes clear that the United States has altered its relationships with a significant number of countries, many of which are now receiving military aid that would have been denied before Sept. 11.

The United States has revised the list of countries that are ineligible to receive U.S. weapons. Since Sept. 11, the United States has waived restrictions on arms or military assistance to Armenia, Azerbaijan, India, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Yugoslavia. | read article

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
new article
The Challenges of Political Reconstruction in Iraq

The strategic payoff from a successful invasion of Iraq is compelling and easily seen. The attendant risks are, however, less easily measured. Much would depend on the commitment of the U.S. administration to rebuild Iraq physically and reconstruct the Iraqi body politic, essentially from scratch...Producing a stable, post-war Iraq may well prove more challenging than eliminating the regime. Such an endeavor will require a long-term and large-scale U.S. commitment. Nevertheless, rehabilitating Iraq as a responsible member of the international community should remain the paramount goal of any operation to unseat Saddam Hussein. | read article

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
new article
Bypassing the Security Council: Ambiguous Authorizations to Use Force, Cease-Fires & the Iraqi Inspection Regime

In January and February 1998, various United States officials, including the President, asserted that unless Iraq permitted unconditional access to international weapons inspections, it would face a military attack. The attack was not to be, in Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's words, "a pinprick," but a "significant" military campaign. U.S. officials, citing United Nations Security Council resolutions, insisted that the United States had the authority for the contemplated attack. Representatives of other permanent members of the Security Council believed otherwise; that no resolution of the Council authorized U.S. armed action without its approval. | read article

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
new article
The Intervention Debate: Towards a Posture of Principled Judgment

Dr. John Garofano argues that American policymakers must take an approach based on "principled judgment" when deciding on the use of force. The 1990s showed the extremes of deciding when and how to use force, one of the central elements of strategy. Throughout American history, debate has raged over whether force is appropriate only in defense of the homeland and vital national interests or whether it should also be used to promote more expansive objectives like regional security and stopping humanitarian disasters in regions with few tangible U.S. interests. Dr. Garofano concludes with a discussion of Army roles and requirements for future contingencies. | read article

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
new article
The Inescapable Global Security Arena

Dr. Max G. Manwaring outlines the violent characteristics of the new security-stability environment and briefly examines the problem of terrorism and the related problem of governance. He then analyzes the complex threat and response situation and outlines a multidimensional response to these problems. Finally, he enumerates civil-military implications for playing effectively in the contemporary global security arena. Dr. Manwaring's recommendations focus on interagency and the military in general, and the U.S. Army in particular. | read article

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
new article
Growing U.S. Security Interests in Central Asia

Dr. Elizabeth Wishnick assesses U.S. security interests and military activities in Central Asia. She notes that strengthening the Central Asian states against terrorism and assisting their transition to stable and prosperous nations are difficult and fraught with danger. In particular, there is the risk that the U.S. military presence in the region and security assistance to repressive regimes might taint America. If not astutely managed, this strategy could have the opposite of the intended results and generate increased instability, spark anti-Americanism, and antagonize Russia and China. To avoid this, Dr. Wishnick advocates a multilateral strategy that integrates the military, political, and economic elements of national power and prods the Central Asian regimes toward reform. | read article


privacy policy | editorial policy | disclaimer | terms & conditions
copyright © 2002 e11th-hour.org. All rights reserved.
questions? webmaster | design & development: creative license, ltd