| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
149818
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
concerns about government stability ahead of the 2018 presidential election are driving Vladimir Putin into reforms of Russia's security apparatus. Mark Galeotti surveys changes that could substantially reorient Moscos's internal security and espionage posture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
094817
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Studies on active duty military families indicate that deployment disrupts normal functioning of the family. Scholars still, however, lack the necessary knowledge to fully grasp the impact that the current Iraq and Afghanistan wars have had on Army National Guard (ARNG) families who have experienced deployment. A grounded theoretical approach to interviews with ARNG spouses yields insight into how these families are coping with the often-unexpected event of wartime deployment. The authors identify stressors and coping strategies used by these spouses and offer suggestions for future research that will allow scholars to more fully understand the present situation ARNG families are facing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
051631
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
116066
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Countries with a federalist system of government have different arrangements for providing national security. US national security is provided by national and State defense forces. The quintessential national function - national defense - experienced some changes that enhanced the role of the States. Policy changes in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 (2008 NDAA) introduced new roles for the Governors and the State defense forces, or the National Guard. This article explores how the interests of Congress and States aligned in the 2008 NDAA such that the national defense function changed. This article finds that the national government continues to have the central coordinating role, but that the politics and provisions of the 2008 NDAA changed the national-State relationship in mission, decision-making, and command and control so that US federalism in the national defense function is evolving in unexpected ways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
074750
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
132429
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
171567
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
127248
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
104510
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
173119
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
U.S. National Guard (NG) military personnel experience many barriers to care such as limited access to health-care services and geographic separation from service providers. Although stigma and barriers to mental health care have been examined in the military, little is known about how different facets of stigma and barriers to care might impact different military subgroups. In a sample of 965 NG personnel, latent class analysis was used to identify distinct subgroups of stigma and barriers to care. Four groups were identified: no stigma or barriers (31%), mild stigma and barriers (30%), high stigma and career concerns (20%), and moderate stigma and barriers (20%). Classes significantly differed with respect to several demographic characteristics, rates of mental health conditions, and rates of previous suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Results suggest that different subgroups of NG personnel vary with respect to levels of perceived stigma, barriers to care, and mental health needs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|