| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
095369
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
108303
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Jeffrey H. Michaels examines several of the analytical and practical problems of U.S. presidential foreign policy doctrines by looking specifically at the Eisenhower and Carter doctrines. He concludes that presidential doctrines are usually overrated as new statements of principle, and that the elevation of a presidential statement into doctrine can have unintended consequences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
038688
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, B T Batsford Ltd., 1973.
|
| Description |
xiii, 248p.: ill, maps.Hbk
|
| Contents |
Includes bibliography, chronology, index.
|
| Standard Number |
0713412127
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 011588 | 923.173/SIX 011588 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
107338
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
137817
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
What accounts for the variation in the influence of scientists in the policy-making process? Why is it that scientists sometimes appear to exercise significant autonomy in shaping policy agendas, while at other times very little? Scientists are most influential, this paper contends, when they can leverage their recognized expertise by strategically co-opting institutionalized channels of advice. This is most likely to occur in issue areas of high complexity and ambiguity when key policy makers are dependent upon scientists for their counsel. Policy entrepreneurs within competing scientific communities, prevented from accessing key decision makers, wait until windows of opportunity open to undermine the credibility of the incumbent experts, gain access to political leaders, and refocus the policy agenda. This theory is developed and tested through a case-study analysis of the nuclear test-ban debate during the Eisenhower administration from 1954 to 1958. The findings of this paper underscore the need to treat foreign policy decision making as a series of strategic interactions between multiple actors with a broader capacity to influence the policy-making process than traditionally conceived. By doing so, scholars can better understand variations in government decision making across time and issue area, providing important insights into the role of experts in a wide range of public policy domains.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
131471
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
War is the great auditor of military institutions and since the attacks of 9/11, the United States military has been under audit for well over a decade - the longest period of continuous warfare in its entire history - and one in which strategic success seems at best, ambiguous and at worst, elusive. Not surprisingly, the strategic skill and battlefield effectiveness of the American military has been a subject of great inquiry over the last five years. Thomas E. Ricks's mammoth study, The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today is but the largest instalment in a plethora of works examining America's military performance in the modern era by such writers as David Cloud and Greg Jaffe, Stephen R. Taaffe, Lewis Sorley, Jean Edward Smith, and Fred Kaplan.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
089423
|
|
|