Atnaujinkite slapukų nuostatas

El. knyga: Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force

2.58/5 (21 ratings by Goodreads)
  • Formatas: 248 pages
  • Išleidimo metai: 30-Oct-2011
  • Leidėjas: Princeton University Press
  • Kalba: eng
  • ISBN-13: 9781400841455
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:
  • Formatas: 248 pages
  • Išleidimo metai: 30-Oct-2011
  • Leidėjas: Princeton University Press
  • Kalba: eng
  • ISBN-13: 9781400841455
Kitos knygos pagal šią temą:

DRM apribojimai

  • Kopijuoti:

    neleidžiama

  • Spausdinti:

    neleidžiama

  • El. knygos naudojimas:

    Skaitmeninių teisių valdymas (DRM)
    Leidykla pateikė šią knygą šifruota forma, o tai reiškia, kad norint ją atrakinti ir perskaityti reikia įdiegti nemokamą programinę įrangą. Norint skaityti šią el. knygą, turite susikurti Adobe ID . Daugiau informacijos  čia. El. knygą galima atsisiųsti į 6 įrenginius (vienas vartotojas su tuo pačiu Adobe ID).

    Reikalinga programinė įranga
    Norint skaityti šią el. knygą mobiliajame įrenginyje (telefone ar planšetiniame kompiuteryje), turite įdiegti šią nemokamą programėlę: PocketBook Reader (iOS / Android)

    Norint skaityti šią el. knygą asmeniniame arba „Mac“ kompiuteryje, Jums reikalinga  Adobe Digital Editions “ (tai nemokama programa, specialiai sukurta el. knygoms. Tai nėra tas pats, kas „Adobe Reader“, kurią tikriausiai jau turite savo kompiuteryje.)

    Negalite skaityti šios el. knygos naudodami „Amazon Kindle“.

America's debate over whether and how to invade Iraq clustered into civilian versus military camps. Top military officials appeared reluctant to use force, the most hawkish voices in government were civilians who had not served in uniform, and everyone was worried that the American public would not tolerate casualties in war. This book shows that this civilian-military argument--which has characterized earlier debates over Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo--is typical, not exceptional. Indeed, the underlying pattern has shaped U.S. foreign policy at least since 1816. The new afterword by Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi traces these themes through the first two years of the current Iraq war, showing how civil-military debates and concerns about sensitivity to casualties continue to shape American foreign policy in profound ways.

Recenzijos

"[ A] highly statistical but thankfully lucid study... [ The authors] find that non-veteran civilian elites are more likely to advocate the use of force than either military elites or civilian leaders with military experience... The pattern holds historically. The authors consider a total of 111 instances from 1816 to 1992."--Chronicle of Higher Education "Feaver and Gelpi offer important insights into the character of civil-military relations in the U.S. and into its effects on the nature of U.S. foreign policy... [ A]n important work whose findings have wide-ranging policy implications."--Spencer D. Bakich, Virginia Quarterly Review "Feaver and Gelpi's intriguing and well-executed study provides a welcome contribution to scholarship in this area. In it, the authors address a subset of provocative issues within the broader study of American civil-military relations."--Risa A. Brooks, Review of Politics

Daugiau informacijos

One of those rare works of political science that speaks directly and aptly to an issue of policy. Feaver and Gelpi show that the conventional wisdom about attitudes to military engagement and casualties is, and has been, wrong. More importantly, they explain why. One of the most important contributions to the literature on civil-military relations in years. -- Eliot Cohen, author of "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime" For half a century, demands of mobilization for World War and Cold War put large percentages of Americans through military service. The abrupt end of this pattern of shared experience makes the large difference in attitudes--with civilian elites favoring more intervention and military professionals more restraint--politically critical. Feaver and Gelpi examine the many crucial facets of contemporary civil-military relations with an unusually impressive combination of comprehensiveness, rigor, and clear argument. Their conclusions will alarm some and please others, but they are important for all to understand if national security policy is to be made wisely. -- Richard K. Betts, Director, Columbia University Institute of War and Peace Studies This is an important work that deserves a wide audience. Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi have combined qualitative and quantitative analyses to produce a major piece of scholarship on a subject of great importance. It is difficult to combine rigorous statistical methods with clear prose, but the authors manage it. The writing is clear and the material is accessible to those not trained in statistics. -- John Allen Williams, Loyola University Chicago, author of "Soldiers, Society, and National Security" This book demonstrates quite convincingly that the proportion of military veterans in leadership positions in the federal government has an important impact on the propensity of the United States to initiate militarized disputes. -- James Lee Ray, Vanderbilt University, author of "Democracy and International Conflict"
List of Figures and Tables
vii
Preface xi
Introduction
1(20)
The Civil-Military Opinion Gap over the Use of Force
21(43)
The Impact of Elite Veterans on American Decisions to Use Force
64(31)
Casualty Sensitivity and Civil-Military Relations
95(54)
Exploring the Determinants of Casualty Sensitivity
149(35)
Conclusion
184(31)
References 215(14)
Afterword 229(14)
Name Index 243(4)
Subject Index 247


Peter D. Feaver is Alexander F. Hehmeyer Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Duke University. He is the author of "Armed Servants" and "Guarding the Guardians" as well as coeditor of "Soldiers and Civilians". Christopher Gelpi is Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University. He is the author of "The Power of Legitimacy" (Princeton).