scholarly journals Arc of Empire: The Federal Telegraph Company, the U.S. Navy, and the Beginnings of Silicon Valley

2017 ◽  
Vol 91 (2) ◽  
pp. 329-359 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen B. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Silicon Valley ◽  
High Technology ◽  
Early History ◽  
Industrial Complex ◽  
Half Century ◽  
Military Industrial Complex ◽  
History Of ◽  
The U.S

The early history of Silicon Valley is incomplete unless it is framed within the context of American foreign policy. The Federal Telegraph Company, the region's first major high-technology firm, received its first contract from the U.S. Navy in 1913. Its subsequent success relied not only on navy contracts but also on State Department support and access to Bureau of Standards technology. The company's contributions to America's military-industrial complex began a pattern that would fuel the region's development and growth for more than a half century.

Introduction

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas I. Faith
Keyword(s):  
World War I ◽  
Chemical Warfare ◽  
Public Image ◽  
Industrial Complex ◽  
Institutional History ◽  
World War ◽  
Military Industrial Complex ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

This book documents the institutional history of the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS), the U.S. Army organization responsible for chemical warfare, from its origins in 1917 through Amos A. Fries's departure as CWS chief in 1929. It examines the U.S. chemical warfare program as it developed before the nation began sending soldiers to fight in France during World War I; the American Expeditionary Force's experiences with poison gas on the Western Front; the CWS's struggle to continue its chemical weapons program in a hostile political environment after the war; and CWS efforts to improve its public image as well as its reputation in the military in the first half of the 1920s. The book concludes with an assessment of the CWS's successes and failures in the second half of the 1920s. Through the story of the CWS, the book shows how the autonomy of the military-industrial complex can be limited when policymakers are confronted with pervasive, hostile public opinion.

The 21st-Century Turn to Culture: American Exceptionalism

2014 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 794-796
Author(s):  
Rochelle Davis
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
21St Century ◽  
American Exceptionalism ◽  
Cultural Knowledge ◽  
Military Force ◽  
Industrial Complex ◽  
Military Industrial Complex ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Military ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Military's turn to culture in the 21st century occurred largely because of its inability to achieve its stated objectives in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through conventional military force. Building on a long history of military strategies concerned with the cultural differences of others, the U.S. military crafted a warfighting strategy in 2006 based on a counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine of using cultural knowledge to battle the enemy. Charting how and why culture was embraced as a 21st-century “weapons system” shows us how technopolitical systems inside the military-industrial complex are envisioned, built, and then dismantled. Close tracking of these changing 21st-century strategies of war reveals, deep within the counterterrorism discourse, a fundamental belief in American exceptionalism. The principle that emerged from this ideological environment is that the enemies to be fought are not only terrorists or the ideologues of al-Qaʿida but also the countries and cultures that produced them. The implementation of this principle, despite its obvious failures, reveals the ideological underpinning that has justified the incredible destruction and securitized implementation of warfighting.

scholarly journals Teaching the History of Human Rights and "Humanitarian" Interventions

2015 ◽  
Vol 103 ◽  
pp. 47-55
Author(s):  
Mary Nolan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Cold War ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Universal Declaration ◽  
Humanitarian Interventions ◽  
The Social ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The U.S

This article explores how I teach about human rights and so-called humanitarian interventions to MA and Ph.D. students.  The course has three main themes or foci.  First, what are human rights and why have the social and economic human rights laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights been so neglected or rejected, especially by the U.S.  Second, how has American foreign policy used and abused human rights.  Third, why have liberal or humanitarian interventions of a militarized sort become so prevalent since the end of the Cold War and why are they so damaging.  The goal is to get students to look critically at the meaning and uses of human rights, about which many display a naive enthusiasm.

On American Values, Unalienable Rights, and Human Rights: Some Reflections on the Pompeo Commission

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathias Risse
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Natural Law ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
American Values ◽  
Natural Law Theory ◽  
Per Se ◽  
The U.S

AbstractIn July 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo launched a Commission on Unalienable Rights, charged with a reexamination of the scope and nature of human rights–based claims. From his statements, it seems that Pompeo hopes the commission will substantiate—by appeal to the U.S. Declaration of Independence and to natural law theory—three key conservative ideas: (1) that there is too much human rights proliferation, and once we get things right, social and economic rights as well as gender emancipation and reproductive rights will no longer register as human rights; (2) that religious liberties should be strengthened under the human rights umbrella; and (3) that the unalienable rights that should guide American foreign policy neither need nor benefit from any international oversight. I aim to show that despite Pompeo's framing, the Declaration of Independence, per se, is of no help with any of this, whereas evoking natural law is only helpful in ways that reveal its own limitations as a foundation for both human rights and foreign policy in our interconnected age.

scholarly journals Liberal world order and economic coercion in modern foreign policy of the U.S.

2021 ◽  
pp. 52-62
Author(s):  
Oğuz Alperen Turhan
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
American Foreign Policy ◽  
World Order ◽  
Single System ◽  
Global System ◽  
Economic Coercion ◽  
The U.S

The article studies the evolution of liberal world order within the framework of conventional directions of the U.S.’ foreign policy. The purpose of this work is to reveal the peculiarities of development of the U.S.’ foreign policy in terms of liberal world order. For this purpose, the U.S.’ foreign policy is considered through the prism of Walter Russel Mead’s “four schools of American foreign policy”. The author analyzes the development and transformation of liberalism in the context of using economic coercion in the U.S.’ foreign policy. The article also considers the topical problems of development of the liberal world order faced by the realist and liberal paradigms. Representatives of both groups realize the failure of the liberal world order, but offer different strategies of defining the U.S.’ foreign policy course. Representatives of the liberal paradigm believe that the liberal world order entered a phase of self-destruction because of accelerated integration of unequal states in a single system. Realists, in their turn, claim that transformations in the structure of the global system determine the functionality of the liberal world order. Specifically, the revisionist position of Russia and China is a reaction to the imposed principles, and serves as a basis for the transition to the multipolar system. Thus, conflicts of interest between the parties cause the use of measures of coercion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document