Search

You searched for: Content Type Journal Article Remove constraint Content Type: Journal Article Publishing Institution Centre for Military and Strategic Studies Remove constraint Publishing Institution: Centre for Military and Strategic Studies Political Geography United States Remove constraint Political Geography: United States Topic Government Remove constraint Topic: Government
Number of results to display per page

Search Results

  • Author: Steven Anthony Pomeroy
  • Publication Date: 01-2011
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
  • Institution: Centre for Military and Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: This essay adopted from “Ancient Alexandria, Alexander, and History: The Relevance of Humanistic Thought in the Contemporary Strategic Environment,” a talk the author gave on December 28, 2009, Broadmoor Hotel, Colorado Springs, Colorado. The comments herein are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Unites States Air Force Academy, the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government. The author wishes to thank the following professors: Colonel (Dr.) Thomas A. Drohan, Dr. James R. Titus, and Dr. John Farquhar of the Military and Strategic Studies Department at the United States Air Force Academy. The comments herein are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the United States Air Force Academy, the Air Force, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. government. Bernard Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1959), 406. Contending that nuclear weapons had fundamentally changed the character, if not the nature, of warfare, Brodie emphasized the importance of rigor and a scientific approach to strategic problem solving in the nuclear era.
  • Topic: Climate Change, Education, Government, Nuclear Weapons
  • Political Geography: United States, Colorado
  • Author: Chris Madsen
  • Publication Date: 05-2011
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
  • Institution: Centre for Military and Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: If the terrorist attacks of 9/11 on New York City and Washington D.C. were a rude wake-up call for potential security threats to continental North America, the reaction on part of Canada has been measured and typically cautious. The acts were of course immediately condemned and temporary refuge given to thousands of travellers stranded by closure of airspace over the United States until declared safe. The federal government and most Canadians extended sympathy and offers of assistance to their closest neighbour and main trading partner. Close cultural and economic ties between the two countries ensured as much. Unease, however, set in about the tough talk and next progression characterized by President George Bush's now famous “You're either with us or against us” speech. Canada's then Liberal prime minister decided not to send the Canadian military wholeheartedly into the invasion of Iraq, though deployment of Canadian troops in Afghanistan duly became a major commitment. Reassuring the United States of Canada's reliability and loyalty as a partner was imperative. To this end, the federal government tightened up financial restrictions on potential fund-raising by identified terrorist groups, introduced new legislation and bureaucratic structures focused on security issues, and better coordinated intelligence gathering and information sharing activities across government agencies and with principal allies. Canadians convinced themselves that any possibility of a 9/11 scale terrorist attack on Canada was unlikely, and even if one was planned or happened, the effect would be minimized by the pro-active measures of authorities. Selected use of security certificates and arrest of home grown Islamic terrorists, the so-called Toronto 18, apparently showed that the police and intelligence agents were up to the task. The threat of terrorism, if not eliminated, could at least be managed and thwarted when required to provide a reasonable level of safety to the Canadian state and society. Ten years on, the course of events has shown the chosen policy decisions to have been mostly sound. Though the highest leadership of Al Qaeda remain at large and defiant as ever in their stated resolve to attack the West, Canada has not yet experienced a major terrorist incident since 9/11.
  • Topic: Economics, Government
  • Political Geography: Afghanistan, United States, Iraq, New York, Washington, Canada, North America
  • Author: Donald Barry
  • Publication Date: 05-2010
  • Content Type: Journal Article
  • Journal: Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
  • Institution: Centre for Military and Strategic Studies
  • Abstract: On 24 February 2005, Prime Minister Paul Martin ended months of speculation by rejecting President George W. Bush's invitation to participate in his administration's ballistic missile defence (BMD) program. Martin had come to power in December 2003, intent on joining as a means of improving defence cooperation with the United States in the wake of Canada's decision not to endorse the US-led war in Iraq that had strained relations between Bush's administration and Jean Chrétien's government.2 But his plan was thwarted by several factors: public disapproval of the war, which by the time Martin took office had hardened into opposition to Bush's foreign policy; the June 2004 general election that reduced Martin's government from majority to minority status; opposition within Martin's Liberal party and among Liberal, New Democratic Party (NDP) and Bloc Québécois (BQ) members of parliament (MPs); and the ambiguous stance of the Conservatives, who had previously supported Canada's involvement. Also contributing to the decision were the Bush administration's non-committal approach to the negotiation, its failure to respond to Canadian concerns about US protectionism, and the president's ill-advised public intervention in the missile defence debate during his visit to Canada in late 2004.
  • Topic: Government
  • Political Geography: United States, Canada