This book deals with the ideational, cultural, political and strategic aspects of the multifaceted Cold War. Drawing on the work of numerous established scholars and experts, this volume of collected essays combines knowledge of the subject with key intellectual trends that have been developed over recent years. It is an informative and updated account of the subject to familiarize readers with the current state of the discipline.

The topic of proxy war is currently subject to intense debate with reference to US, British and Israeli accusations that Iran is sponsoring subversive and insurgent movements from Lebanon to Afghanistan; contemporary academic and media controversies over the effect of international assistance to the Afghan mujahidin in the subsequent destabilisation of the country; and the contentious circumstances surrounding the Russo-Georgian war of 2008, and the 'independence' of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. While there is no shortage of academic literature dealing with specific cases of proxy warfare, there is no work providing an overarching analysis of the factors which lead to this type of conflict, or the potential consequences for the states concerned, the non-state proxies and their external patrons. Using examples from post-1945 history, and focusing on three case studies (the Afghan war of 1978-1989, Lebanon 1975-1990, Angola 1975-1991), Geraint Hughes offers terminology intended to clarify scholarly understanding of proxy warfare, a framework for understanding why states seek to use proxies (insurgent groups, militias, terrorist movements, mercenaries, and even organised criminal groups) in order to fulfil strategic objectives, and an analysis of the potential impact of such an indirect means of waging war on not only the states that are subjected to this phenomenon, but also the proxies, their sponsors and the wider international community. This book has a historical focus, but will be of utility to contemporary security scholars, and those involved in political/military policy.

A reassessment of the relationship between the UK and the USSR at a troubled time. The then Labour government's efforts to promote East-West detente and to improve Anglo-Soviet relations from 1964 to 1970 have been largely overlooked; yet they were of huge significance. This book offers a major reappraisal. It challenges the caricature of Harold Wilson's rigid subservience to America, demonstrating that as a Prime Minister he intended to develop closer contacts with the Soviet leadership, and to foster co-operation on arms control, conflict resolution in Vietnam and East-West trade. It illustrates how the Labour government reconciled its policy towards the USSR and Warsaw Pact states with its alignment with the USA and NATO membership. And it concludes that Wilson's failure to improve relations between the UK and USSR was due to both the impact of crises in Vietnam, the Middle East and Czechoslovakia, and to the unwillingness of the Soviet government to alter its fundamentally adversarial attitude to the West. GERAINT HUGHES teaches at the Joint Services Command and Staff College at Shrivenham.

This book deals with the ideational, cultural, political and strategic aspects of the multifaceted Cold War. Drawing on the work of numerous established scholars and experts, this volume of collected essays combines knowledge of the subject with key intellectual trends that have been developed over recent years. It is an informative and updated account of the subject to familiarize readers with the current state of the discipline.

The author examines historical and contemporary examples of military involvement in counterterrorism, outlining the specific roles which the armed forces of liberal democracies have performed in combating terrorism, both in a domestic and international context. He describes the political, strategic, conceptual, diplomatic, and ethical problems that can arise when a state's armed forces become engaged in counterterrorism, and argues that military power can only be employed as part of a coordinated counterterrorist strategy aimed at the containment and frustration-rather than the physical elimination-of the terrorist group(s) concerned.

The topic of proxy war is currently subject to intense debate with reference to US, British and Israeli accusations that Iran is sponsoring subversive and insurgent movements from Lebanon to Afghanistan; contemporary academic and media controversies over the effect of international assistance to the Afghan mujahidin in the subsequent destabilisation of the country; and the contentious circumstances surrounding the Russo-Georgian war of 2008, and the 'independence' of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. While there is no shortage of academic literature dealing with specific cases of proxy warfare, there is no work providing an overarching analysis of the factors which lead to this type of conflict, or the potential consequences for the states concerned, the non-state proxies and their external patrons. ... Using examples from post-1945 history, and focusing on three case studies (the Afghan war of 1978-1989, Lebanon 1975-1990, Angola 1975-1991), Geraint Hughes offers terminology intended to clarify scholarly understanding of proxy warfare, a framework for understanding why states seek to use proxies (insurgent groups, militias, terrorist movements, mercenaries, and even organised criminal groups) in order to fulfil strategic objectives, and an analysis of the potential impact of such an indirect means of waging war on not only the states that are subjected to this phenomenon, but also the proxies, their sponsors and the wider international community. My Enemy's Enemy has a historical focus, but will be of utility to contemporary security scholars, and those involved in political/military policy.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 (9/11) attacks, the U.S. Government was criticized for adopting a militaristic response to the threat posed by al-Qaeda and affiliated groups. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that in Northern Ireland demonstrate, any liberal democracy that uses its armed forces to combat terrorism will incur controversy both domestically and internationally. The use of military power in counterterrorism is contentious, because historical and contemporary examples suggest that it can have the following negative strategic, political, and ethical effects: The state can generate indigenous resentment that terrorist groups can exploit, and can, by resorting to military force, kill or maim a substantial number of civilians. It can also encourage human rights abuses that are antithetical to the norms of a liberal democracy-- such as the maltreatment and torture of detainees --and can (as demonstrated by Uruguay in 1973 and Russia currently) lead to the subversion of the constitutional order and its replacement by authoritarian rule. While addressing these criticisms, this Letort Paper also argues that there are contingencies in which democratic states are obliged to employ military means in order to protect their citizens from the threat of terrorism, whether in a purely domestic context or when facing a transnational terrorist network such as al-Qaeda. While outlining the specific roles that armed forces can perform (including hostage rescue, military aid to the civil authority, interdiction, and intelligence-gathering), this paper also describes the strategic, political, diplomatic, and ethical challenges that arise from using military means to fight terrorism either on one's home soil or in the international arena. This paper's principal conclusion is that democratic governments can use their armed forces if the existing police/judicial framework cannot address the threat posed by terrorists, but that military means have to be integrated as part of an overarching strategy to contain terrorism and to limit the capacity of its practitioners to conduct attacks against citizens. The author also outlines a series of questions that civilian decisionmakers should ideally resolve prior to turning counterterrorism missions over to their military counterparts. Strategic Studies Institute. LeTort Paper.