Brief Note Difficulties in Determining Factors that Influence Effective Groundwater Recharge in Ohio

Author Institution: COSI Academy, Center of Science and Industry ; US Geological SurveyAS part of a COSI Academy research project, data from a recent statewide analysis of effective groundwater recharge were reexamined by students to further discern relations between recharge and selected environmental characteristics of individual drainage basins: 1) location of the main stem of a river relative to coarse and fine surficial sediments and 2) influence of land use. Lack of sufficiently detailed data was the principal difficulty in most phases of the examination. Other than a potential relation between recharge and the percentages of agricultural and forested land, no relations were found in visual comparisons of mapped and tabulated data

Defense Monitor: Where is America Going? Five Years After Sept. 11

This special issue of the Defense Monitor is a collection of articles released on the fifth anniversary of September 11th. The collection includes: Where is America Going? Five Years After Sept. 11; In the Name of Fighting Terrorism: The United States is Still Arming the World; The War on Terrorism: Winning the Un-Winnable; Defense Budget Tutorial: So, You Think You Know the Costs of the Wars

Beltway battles: ideology and infighting in US foreign policy toward the Middle East 2001-2006

The record of American foreign policy in the Middle East between 2001 and 2006 is marked mostly by failures of the Bush Administration to achieve its stated objectives, including reducing terrorism, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and spreading liberal democracy. Still, there are also notable bright spots, including the case of Libya’s diplomatic rehabilitation. What is it, then, that accounts for this success in the face of so many other failures where the policy goals were markedly similar? I argue that a partial explanation of this discrepancy can be found in the nature of infighting between ideological realists and neoconservatives within the foreign policy bureaucracy. In doing so, process tracing is used to examine policy development toward four country cases: Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Libya, with Libya acting as the control. The object of these case studies is to demonstrate existence of a previously undescribed model of bureaucratic infighting, based on competing ideological differences regarding the fundamental direction and conduct of US foreign policy. I call this the Ideological Infighting, or I2, Model. Whereas previous works of US foreign policy analysis have focused only on the roles of individuals’ ideology or on bureaucratic interests, this study unites both. In doing so, it describes the policy effects that result from ideological disagreements within the executive agencies, rather than viewing a presidential administration as an ideologically coherent entity. It also refines understandings of the relationship between the President and his advisors. Finally, although this work deals specifically with the Middle East, the model is generalizable to all areas of US foreign policy

Beltway battles : ideology and infighting in US foreign policy toward the Middle East 2001-2006

The record of American foreign policy in the Middle East between 2001 and 2006 is marked mostly by failures of the Bush Administration to achieve its stated objectives, including reducing terrorism, stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction, and spreading liberal democracy. Still, there are also notable bright spots, including the case of Libya’s diplomatic rehabilitation. What is it, then, that accounts for this success in the face of so many other failures where the policy goals were markedly similar? I argue that a partial explanation of this discrepancy can be found in the nature of infighting between ideological realists and neoconservatives within the foreign policy bureaucracy. In doing so, process tracing is used to examine policy development toward four country cases: Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Libya, with Libya acting as the control. The object of these case studies is to demonstrate existence of a previously undescribed model of bureaucratic infighting, based on competing ideological differences regarding the fundamental direction and conduct of US foreign policy. I call this the Ideological Infighting, or I2, Model. Whereas previous works of US foreign policy analysis have focused only on the roles of individuals’ ideology or on bureaucratic interests, this study unites both. In doing so, it describes the policy effects that result from ideological disagreements within the executive agencies, rather than viewing a presidential administration as an ideologically coherent entity. It also refines understandings of the relationship between the President and his advisors. Finally, although this work deals specifically with the Middle East, the model is generalizable to all areas of US foreign policy.EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo