|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
158010
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article reassesses the foreign policy legacy of George W. Bush in light of the emerging historical record of his administration. We conclude that, whereas Bush’s foreign policy was in widespread disrepute when he left office in 2009, that reputation is likely to improve – perhaps significantly – in the coming years. We identify six particular arguments that lend credence to an emerging ‘Bush revisionism.’ To be clear, we do not necessarily argue that the balance sheet on Bush’s foreign policy was positive, but the arguments presented here are likely to generate a more sympathetic and favorable historical assessment of Bush’s presidency over time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
161759
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Contemporary judgments of George W. Bush’s foreign policy were often quite harsh and polemical. In this article, we argue that a moderate form of Bush revisionism is likely to emerge in the coming years, as scholars take a more dispassionate look at his achievements in global affairs and the difficult circumstances under which his administration labored. We offer the six most persuasive arguments in favor of Bush revisionism; we then discuss the most reasonable critiques of these arguments. The overall thrust of this essay is not that Bush will someday be seen as one of America’s most successful statesmen, but simply that his reputation should improve as partisan passions fade and new evidence is considered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
157492
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Do military endorsements influence Americans’ political and foreign policy views? We find that senior military officers have the ability to nudge public attitudes under certain conditions. Through a series of large, survey-based experiments, with nearly 12,000 completed interviews from national samples, we find that participants respond to survey questions in predictable ways depending on whether they have been prompted with information about the views of senior military leaders on the very same questions. When told that senior military leaders oppose particular interventions abroad, public opposition to that intervention increases; endorsements of support boost public support but by a smaller magnitude. Subsequent causal mediation analysis suggests that military opinion influences public opinion primarily through its impact on a mission’s perceived legitimacy and, to a lesser degree, it’s perceived likelihood of success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
181594
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The United States needs a serious debate about how, where, and whether to use force in an era when its resources are stretched. It requires a highly disciplined approach to employing its military power in an age of great-power rivalry. Yet the myth of American militarism is bad analysis that leads to lousy prescription.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
148360
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
US officials will have to get used to operating in a world in which they can take less for granted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
153356
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Barring some catastrophic policy blunder by the United States, the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, will eventually be defeated. The US-led international coalition that has assembled to fight the most formidable terrorist organisation of modern times overmatches ISIS on every relevant dimension – manpower, lethality, financial resources, global reach. As such, the defeat of ISIS, at least in its current form, is only a matter of time. But the group’s defeat will not resolve all of the questions that have been raised by its emergence. Looking forward, US policymakers will have to decide what to do next in America’s ongoing ‘global war on terror’.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
188787
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This assessment of the “policy-academy” gap is part of a special forum stimulated by Michael Desch’s book, Cult of the Irrelevant. Those who write about the academy–policy gap worry that the gap is too narrow, resulting in ethical compromise, or too wide, resulting in marginalization of key academic voices. I argue both concerns are overdrawn. In particular, I argue that there is a healthy exchange between academic specialists and the policy community, at least as healthy as any during a mythical golden era. Moreover, quantitative methods are not a bogeyman exacerbating the gap; high-quality quantitative scholarship can make important contributions. Finally, claims that academic realists face unfair disadvantages in contributing to policy are not well-supported by the evidence. In truth, there is a fairly healthy marketplace of ideas in the policy community, at least as healthy as what prevails in the academy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|