Description
Going to war is dangerous, costly, and questionable in its effectiveness. Yet majorities of the US public consistently support military interventions--a phenomenon that has generally been attributed to the mobilizing power of threats to US security. In fact, to justify every US military intervention in the post-Cold War era, presidents have cited not just national security, but also protecting foreign civilians.Doves into Hawks shows that protecting US interests is not enough to make war popular. Military interventions must also appear to have a humanitarian dimension. By emphasizing this dimension, presidents give traditional "doves" a reason to become temporary "hawks," creating a broad domestic coalition of support for military action. In turn, this coalition holds leaders accountable for achieving both humanitarian and security outcomes. Combining analysis of original data on presidential justifications for military force with survey experiments and archival research of the Gulf War and US action in Bosnia, Sarah Maxey reshapes our understanding of how, with the right words, leaders persuade skeptics to approve of military action and the unexpected ways this tactic can be good for democracy.
Table of Contents
1. Humanitarian justifications in security crises2. How leaders talk about potential interventions3. Justification strategies for broad domestic coalitions4. Demand for justifications: Who responds to humanitarian appeals?5. Reasons for restraint: Broader coalitions create broader accountability6. Building broad coalitions: White House communications in Iraq and Bosnia7. What powerful humanitarian claims mean for democracy
-
- 電子書籍
- 5人以下の小さな会社の戦わずに勝つ差別…
-
- 洋書電子書籍
- Marlene : A Novel
