The fact that hegemonic powers tend to pursue their interests unilaterally and define their interests in very broad terms has been clearly developed by Jervis in the foregoing essay. But nations also have a choice in how their power should be used as well as the ability to note the possible limits on that power. The United States after World War II had a kind of influence that would have made an almost exclusive reliance on hard power a possibility, but the United States chose to use that influence to build institutions that would regularize what it and others would do. The thesis to be developed in this chapter is that the present U.S. policy preference—to act unilaterally and rely to a great extent on force to establish a new and better world order—is apt to be counterproductive in the long run.
KeywordsYork Time Security Council American Political Science Review Bush Administration American Soldier
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 13.Anthony Sampson, Mandela: The Authorized Biography (New York: Alfred K. Knopf, 1999), 6.Google Scholar
- 19.Sir R.G.K. Thompson, No Exit from Vietnam (New York:D.McKay Co., 1969), 133–144.Google Scholar
- 20.For critiques of military policies and the U.S. antiterrorist effort see Wesley Clark, Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire (New York: Public Affairs, 2003). For structural weaknesses of Al Qaida see Douglas Jehl and Don Van Natta, Jr., “Analysts See Terrorism Paradox: A Weaker Al Qaida Despite Attacks,” New York Times, November 22, 2003. For Iraqi frustration with occupation in Kifl see Steven Myers, “Iraqi Town Relishes Freedom, but Resentment Runs Beneath,” New York Times, November 23, 2003. For reliance on Baathist party members to staff governmental offices see Susan Sachs, “Baathists, Once Reviled, Prove Difficult to Remove,” New York Times, November 22, 2003.Google Scholar
- 30.For democratic fragility see Alvin Rabushka and Kenneth Shepsle, Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability; Ronald Inglehart, Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997); Barnes, 95: 86–101.Google Scholar
- 31.For Soviets in Afghanistan see Thomas T Hammond, Red Flag Over Afghanistan: The Communist Coup, the Soviet Invasion, and the Consequences (Westview Press: Boulder, CO.) 1984, chapters 14 and 15. For current Afghanistan anarchy see: Nicholas D.Kristof, “A Scary Afghan Road,” New York Times, November 15, 2003.Google Scholar
- 33.Stephen Lomzer, “Regime Change: The Legacy,” The American Prospect, November 2003, 39–42.Google Scholar
- 34.See John Dizard, “How Ahmed Chalabi Conned the Neocons,” Salon.com, 4 May 2004; “Profile: Ahmed Chalabi,” BBC News, 3 October 2002, http://www.bbc.co.uk
- 35.Edward Wong, “Shiite Cleric Is Forming Party That May Play Role in Elections,” New York Times, June 14, 2004, http://www.nytimes.com
- 37.Joel Brinkley, “Secular Leaders Worry That, Torn by Turmoil, Iraqis Will Elect an Islamic Theocracy,” The New York Times, December 7, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com.
- 40.See Kirk Semple, “Afghans’ Political Prognosis is Still Hazy UN Panel Says,” New York Times, November 12, 2003Google Scholar
- Nicholas D. Kristoff, “A Scary Afghan Road,” New York Times, November 15, 2003Google Scholar
- Carlotta Gail, “For an Ancient Afghan Town, No End to War With Rival Generals Now Clashing,” New York Times, November 15, 2003.Google Scholar
- 41.George Packer, “Letter from Baghdad: War After War,” The New Yorker, November 24, 2003, 56–85Google Scholar
- Andrew Gumbel “Inquiry demanded over U.S. failure to stop library looting” Independent, April. 16, 2003.Google Scholar
- For argument that Saddam Hussein supporters may have had plans for an aftermath, see Douglas Jehl, “Plan for Guerrilla Action May Have Predated War,” New York Times, November 15, 2003, A7.Google Scholar