| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
078248
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The reputation debate in international relations has split into two camps: those suggesting actions affect perceptions of resolve and those who say they do not. This article engages the reputation debate in the context of militant Islamists. Using political psychology, we offer a theory of biased attributions that challenges Mercer's "desires" hypothesis that reputations for irresolution do not form when an act is desirable from the perceiver's eye. Motivated biases undercut any reputation for resolve in cases of firmness and challenge rationalist claims of reputation formation. Militant Islamist perceptions of U.S. and Soviet interventions in the Muslim world since the 1980s support this thesis and caution against futile wars for reputation
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
184610
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Should a Sino-American War start, how will the US deal with the inevitable military setbacks? Most importantly, what would happen if the US loses not simply a battle, but rather a series of engagements culminating in an unmistakable defeat that results in unfavourable peace terms? The US may not like thinking about losing, but considering China’s growing capabilities, it can no longer assume victory. Anand Toprani, Nicholas Murray and Michael Dennis argue that, if the US thinks about the consequences of war, and cooperating and working together as a country, it can avoid a conflict with China, and recover more quickly and equitably if it does fight and lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|