Cult of the irrelevant: the waning influence of social science on national security
In: Princeton Studies in International History and Politics
102 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Princeton Studies in International History and Politics
World Affairs Online
Democracy and victory : why democracy is not a liability -- Democracy and victory : why regime type hardly matters -- Democracy and the Russo-Polish War -- Democracy and Israel's military effectiveness -- Democracy and Britain's victory in the Falklands War -- Conclusions : If not democracy then what?
World Affairs Online
In: The review of politics, Band 81, Heft 1, S. 142-145
ISSN: 1748-6858
In: Perspectives on politics, Band 16, Heft 4, S. 1228-1230
ISSN: 1541-0986
In: Perspectives on politics, Band 15, Heft 4, S. 1198-1200
ISSN: 1541-0986
In: The national interest, Heft 135, S. 87
ISSN: 0884-9382
A review essay covering a book by Andrew Krepinevich and Barry Watts, The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy (2015).
In: The review of politics, Band 73, Heft 4, S. 649-656
ISSN: 1748-6858
In: The review of politics, Band 73, Heft 4, S. 649-657
ISSN: 0034-6705
In: PS: political science & politics, Band 43, Heft 3, S. 425-429
Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of "Change We Can Believe In." One of the biggest changes many anticipated with his election was a dramatic break with the previous administration's counterterror policy. There were good reasons for thinking that this would be the case. George W. Bush was a Republican who took his cues from the most conservative elements of his party, including neoconservatives, the religious right, and other proponents of an assertive stance of U.S. global primacy and a forward-leaning posture in the war on terror. Conversely, Barack Obama is a liberal Democrat who opposed the Iraq War and seeks to "reset" America's relations with other countries around the world by recommitting the United States to a more moderate approach to waging the war against al-Qaeda, including measures such as adopting a more multilateral foreign policy, closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, ending the practices of extraordinary rendition and enhanced interrogation, and showing a greater respect for civil liberties domestically.
In: Perspectives on politics, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 864-865
ISSN: 1541-0986
In: International security, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 7-43
ISSN: 1531-4804
Why has the United States, with its long-standing Liberal tradition, come to embrace the illiberal policies it has in recent years? The conventional wisdom is that al-Qaida's attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent war on terrorism have made America less Liberal. The logic of this argument is straightforward: interstate war has historically undermined domestic liberties, and the war on terrorism is causing the United States to follow this well-worn path. This explanation confronts a puzzle, however: illiberal U.S. policies—including the pursuit of global hegemony, launching of a preventive war, imposition of restrictions on civil liberties in the name of national security, and support for torture under certain circumstances—manifested themselves even before the September 11 terrorist attacks and were embraced across the political spectrum. Indeed, it is precisely American Liberalism that makes the United States so illiberal today. Under certain circumstances, Liberalism itself impels Americans to spread their values around the world and leads them to see the war on terrorism as a particularly deadly type of conflict that can be won only by employing illiberal tactics.
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 864-865
ISSN: 1537-5927
In: Perspectives on politics: a political science public sphere, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 864-865
ISSN: 1537-5927
In: Foreign affairs, Band 86, Heft 3, S. 97-108
ISSN: 0015-7120
World Affairs Online