Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Ohio University, 2023, History (Arts and Sciences)

After the Vietnam War, the US Army pivoted from counter-insurgency in Southeast Asia towards the renewed possibility of war with the USSR in Central Germany. This shift in perspective coincided with dramatic shifts in Army policy, most importantly the transition from conscription to the All-Volunteer Force, as well as the introduction of new battlefield technologies which transformed the battlespace. This dissertation analyzes the complicated military relationship between the US Army and an important European ally. It argues that during this period of intense reform, the US Army and the West German Bundeswehr used both new and preexisting institutions to engage in a period of intense, sympathetic, and mutually inspired reforms which developed significant new concepts in land warfare. This is significant because this period of cooperation helped to reaffirm a special relationship between the US and West Germany, which transformed to become the most significant within NATO and Western Europe. The focus of this dissertation is on the mechanics of the transatlantic exchange and how this shaped both forces through the last decades of the Cold War.

Committee: Ingo Trauschweizer (Advisor); Mirna Zakic (Committee Member); Paul Milazzo (Committee Member); Nukhet Sandal (Committee Member) Subjects: American History; European History; History; Military History

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2021, History

The Salvadoran Civil War of 1979-1992 transformed the nation's government from a military dictatorship into a liberal democracy. The United States was involved from the beginning to the end of the war, yet the superpower's role in the political outcome has been under-investigated. Therefore, the purpose of this work is to examine how the presence of the United States in the conflict shaped its eventual outcome. It argues that the United States' main role was to serve as a bulwark for the formal institutions and processes of liberal democratic government against the furies unleashed by the civil war. Salvadoran politicians, activists, party members and voters worked within these institutions to reform the politics of the country. The U.S. policy that unfolded in El Salvador was itself a product of historical development. This dissertation therefore describes the historical antecedents of the policies of the three U.S. presidential administrations that engaged with the Salvadoran Civil War: those of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. These antecedents included the legacy of U.S. imperialism in the Caribbean Basin, the Cold War, and the rise of the human rights movement in U.S. politics. Furthermore, the Reagan and Bush administrations' El Salvador policy was the product of both administrations' interaction with a human rights constituency in the U.S. Congress.

Committee: Peter Hahn (Advisor); Stephanie Smith (Committee Member); Peter Mansoor (Committee Member); Joseph Parrott (Committee Member) Subjects: History

Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.), Bowling Green State University, 2006, Philosophy, Applied

In simplest terms, I intend to argue in this dissertation that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework. There are two forms that this argument can take. There is the weak form that concludes that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework but leaves open the question of the justifiability of any formulation of Just War Theory. There is also the strong form of the argument that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework and that the Just War Tradition is the correct moral theory to govern martial actions, and therefore concludes that at least some types of terrorism are permissible. In my dissertation, I am arguing for the weaker claim and leaving open the question of the correctness of any formulation of Just War Theory. If Just War Tradition is correct and I am successful in demonstrating that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework, then I will have shown that at least some types of terrorism are permissible. As I have said, though, my project is not to argue to defend any version of Just War Theory that Just War Tradition is correct but rather to merely to demonstrate that at least some types of terrorism are permissible within a Just War framework. When evaluating any use of force within the scope of a Just War framework, two questions need to be addressed: (1) was it appropriate to engage in the use of force (jus ad bellum considerations), and (2) was the force used appropriately (jus in bello considerations). It is within the scope of these two questions that most of the objections to terrorism arise. In my dissertation, I argue that a terrorist campaign or action can meet key standards of jus ad bellum and jus in bello implicit in Just War Theory. I show how these standards can be met in response to two central objections to terrorism, that terrorists lack the authority to make war, and that the random targeting of civi (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Donald Scherer (Advisor) Subjects: Philosophy