Thomas Gregory’s new book critically rethinks the wartime politics of civilian protection, as experiencedduring the US-led war in Afghanistan. He shows US strategy aimed to treat protecting the civilian population as bothan end and a means alike: something that was desirable to do, but that would also aid in producing political supportfor a US project of armed statebuilding. I locate the roots of this reasoning in the intellectual history ofcounterinsurgency. I argue the ideas underpinning these practices were not new: they are refl ections or refractions ofprevious counterinsurgency theories of civilian politics and protection. Their presence here refl ects a historicaltendency to periodically forget and then later (mis)remember them in new contexts. This pattern has implications forhow we should read their recurrence in the present.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Joseph MacKay
International Politics
Australian National University
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Joseph MacKay (Mon,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69df2c50e4eeef8a2a6b1629 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-026-00757-6
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: