![]() ![]() Ted Gurr, ‘Urban Disorder: Perspectives from the Comparative Study of Civil Strife’, The American Behavioral Scientist (March–April, 1968): 50. Michael Shafer, Deadly Paradigms: The Failure of US Counterinsurgency Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. Light, From Warfare to Welfare: Defense Intellectuals and Urban Problems in Cold War America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), pp. Micheal Carriere, ‘Fighting the War against Blight: Columbia University, Morningside Heights, Inc., and Counterinsurgent Urban Renewal’, Journal of Planning History 10, no. Samuel Zipp: Manhattan Projects: The Rise and Fall of Urban Renewal in Cold War New York (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). George Thayer, The Farther Shores of Politics: The American Political Fringe Today (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967), p. Pauker, Black Nationalism and Prospects for Violence in the Ghetto (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, June 1969), p. Morris Janowitz, Social Control of Escalated Riots (Chicago: University of Chicago Center for Policy Study, 1968), p. Grimshaw (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969), p. ![]() Tomlinson, ‘The Development of a Riot Ideology among Urban Negroes’, in Racial Violence in the United States, ed. 1 (June 1988): 105.ĭemetrious Caraley, ‘Is the Large City Becoming Ungovernable?’, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 29, no. Kenneth O’Reilly, ‘The FBI and the Politics of Riots, 1964–1968’, The Journal of American History 75, no. Burns, ‘Waging Cold War in a Model City: The Investigation of “Subversive” Influences in the 1967 Detroit Riot’, Michigan Historical Review 30, no. Hugh Davis Graham, ‘On Riots and Riot Commissions: Civil Disorders in the 1960s’, The Public Historian 2, no. Jeremy Kuzmarov, Modernizing Repression: Police Training and Nation Building in the American Century (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012), pp. McCoy, Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009), p. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.Īlfred W. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. And at its most baroque, counter-insurgency demands nothing less than political, social, and economic revolution, with the United States serving as the midwife that will bring the besieged polity into the modern world. Under this conception, counter-insurgency is a tool of US international security policy - it is something the US armed forces and civilian agencies do abroad, ideally in cooperation with international partners and ‘by, with, and through’ the embattled ‘host nation’ facing insurgent threats. Within US policy and academic circles, the American conduct of counter-insurgency typically is framed in ‘expeditionary’ terms. The ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT), with its intelligence gathering on US citizens and the relentless hunt for the ‘enemy within’, illustrates the erosion of any fixed distinction between external and indigenous threats and responses. In national security affairs, as in other policy spheres, boundaries between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ often become blurred and unstable.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |