| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
153425
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The bureaucratic politics model of foreign policy decision making is predicated in large part by Miles' Law, which states that “where you stand depends upon where you sit.” That is, an actor's policy preferences can be predicted from his or her governmental position or role within the bureaucracy. Consequently, secretaries of state in the U.S. foreign policy decision-making process are then presumed to favor policy options emphasizing diplomacy and civilian efforts. However, Hillary Clinton has proved to be a consistent hawk during her tenure as secretary of state. Specifically, she was one of the strongest advocates of the use of military force in both Afghanistan and Libya. This paper examines Clinton's policy preferences in the context of the Afghanistan troop surge and the U.S. role in the international military operation in Libya to probe whether the secretary's failure to conform to Miles' Law is an anomaly or presents important questions regarding the possible disjunction between institutional and individual interests and their respective influences on actors' policy preferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
140563
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
AirSea Battle (ASB) has generated significant publicity, controversy, and debate among scholars, analysts, commentators, and observers of US defense strategy. However, a research gap exists concerning formal analysis of the impact of the operational concept on the relationship between the US Air Force (USAF) and the US Navy (USN). The impact of the ASB operational concept on the USAF–USN relationship is examined across the issue areas of strategy, budgets, weapons procurement, and training. These four issue areas represent important areas of historical conflict and competition between the Air Force and Navy. The conclusion is that ASB is ushering in a new era of Air Force–Navy partnership that advances the inter-service dynamic from “jointness” toward integration. The emergent USAF–USN partnership therefore represents a significant development in US defense politics and defense strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
134659
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This study examines the failures of the William J. Clinton and Barack Obama administrations to secure ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). It applies an integrated analytical framework for assessing treaty ratification that builds upon previous research in order to understand why the Clinton administration failed to achieve CTBT ratification in 1999 and why the Obama administration has so far failed to advance the treaty in the Senate. The study concludes that CTBT ratification, despite Obama administration pledges of support, remains highly unlikely. Finally, the study analyzes the common domestic political factors present in both cases and suggests areas for further research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
108182
|
|
|