| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
000956
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, Council on Foreign Relations Press, 1993.
|
| Description |
xiii,148p.Pbk
|
| Standard Number |
0876091567
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 038879 | 940/GOT 038879 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
129852
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Failing to bolster the U.S. Navy in the face of 21st-century maritime threats could prove disastrous to the international order.
The year 2014 promises to be exceedingly important for the future of America's Navy. As the Pentagon and Congress face continued budget reductions and the Department of Defense is forced to weigh its priorities, the contours of American sea power and our global commitment to an expeditionary posture are at stake. Indeed, the choices made in just the next several years will lock in major trends in shipbuilding, naval aviation, and important research-and-development (R&D) efforts that will define the Navy of the 2020s and beyond.
American economic prosperity and national security have always been tied to the sea in some form. More than two centuries ago, George Washington wrote of the need, "as certain as that night succeeds the day," for effective sea power to achieve decisive military outcomes. Writing long before theorists like Alfred Thayer Mahan or Julian Corbett were heard from, Washington opined that success on land required superiority at sea. 1 Our nation's first foreign conflicts, the Barbary Wars at the dawn of the 19th century, were undertaken to secure global maritime trade against the scourge of international piracy. The growing U.S. ability to defend the maritime commons and project power abroad increased international respect for our fledgling nation and began America's ascent as a great power. Like Great Britain in an earlier era, the United States has used its maritime supremacy to construct an international order predicated on a commitment to unrestricted access to the global commons and deterrence of regional aggression
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
110308
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The establishment of the Icelandic peacekeeping unit (ICRU), in 2001, signalled Iceland's increased participation in various UN peacekeeping projects in conflict-ridden areas, and can be seen as a part of an emphasis during its economic boom years on Iceland as an important international player. Engagement in foreign conflicts has, however, never been a part of Icelandic national identity. Iceland had prided itself on its lack of a national army and non-engagement in war-related activities. In exploring this contradiction the article's claim is that in the public media ICRU participation in conflicts was depoliticized because the Icelandic government placed it within an emerging international humanitarian framework. The Icelandic example indicates how extremely political issues are depoliticized locally by reflecting international discourses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|