Clarke examines the role of North American and European armed forces in support of civil authorities in domestic contingencies. He seeks to answer the question of what roles are - and are not - appropriate for contemporary armed forces in carrying out task and functions within national borders. The book takes as its starting point, two key elements in the North American and European security debate: the decline of both the external threats to most North American and European states and that of budgetary resources available for defense. These twin declines are coupled with a desire on the part of civil leaders to engage the military in more domestic tasks and the desire of senior military leaders to preserve force structure, resulting in a dynamic in which civil leaders will ask their militaries to do more, and military leaders will be more inclined to say yes. As such, this book focuses on the enormous increase in the provision of non-military services and support asked of North American and European military establishments. Looking at the historical context for how North America's and Europe's armed forces have been employed in the past, this book establishes guidelines for their employment in the future.

Homeland security is a topic that has generated a great deal of attention in the past 5 years, on both sides of the Atlantic. With the increased focus on the homeland, or domestic, security of states in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, Madrid, and London, as well as the response to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, senior officials have been challenged to provide adequate levels of domestic security consistent with the resources that advanced Western states have available for these purposes. States have been hard-pressed to develop and equip security forces that will be able to perform the tasks required to maintain a high level of homeland security and support civil authorities in responding to catastrophes. In many instances, leaders have looked to the armed forces to carry out these key missions.

This paper explores the military's role in the processes of amnesty, reconciliation and reintegration (AR2). Its premise is that while the US and UK have devoted considerable intellectual energy and treasure to dealing with the current counterinsurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, little thought appears to have gone in to what happens once stability and a legitimate government have been restored. In fact, it is clear that in the long term, counter insurgency (COIN) operations are usually just the first step toward conflict resolution which is concluded with the culmination of the amnesty, reconciliation and reintegration processes. This study examines the relationship between COIN operations and AR2 processes and assesses the military's role in both. The primary vehicle it uses to do this is a case study of conflict resolution in Northern Ireland since 1969. While the circumstances and events in Northern Ireland are distinct, if not unique from those in other contemporary instances of conflict resolution (not least as they took place in the context of a western liberal democracy), they point to some generic principles. In the first instance, conflict resolution in Northern Ireland was ultimately aided by an approach that balanced political, economic and military developments in the context of a society. While the UK government's initial overreliance on a security solution served mainly to further divide and impoverish Northern Irish society, resolution of the 'troubles' ultimately came about by political developments encouraged by economic incentives. Within this framework, the role of the military (as a subordinate element of the security forces) was, through a COIN operation, to lay the foundations for the AR2 that followed. In particular, the military needed to become cognizant of the possible negative impacts of some aspects of COIN operations on the AR2 processes. In addition to the evolving use of military power, the UK government also came to realize the eff