Relationship between the political system and causes of war (questions)

[Entropy]

John,

Thanks again for your comments.

I do believe the rational actor model does have utility but it's always important to recognize it limitations, and, in fact, the limitations of attempting to apply any model to particular circumstances. That said, I think much depends on the character of the nation and it's particular decision-making process. Ideally one would want models tailored to the peculiarities of each nation, but that brings up another set of problems.

Americanpride,

A potential problem you may run into is that decision-making processes vary widely. For simplicity's sake, you might want to consider reducing your scope further to look at a particular category or archetype of national decision-making process.

[AmericanPride]

John,
Americanpride,

A potential problem you may run into is that decision-making processes vary widely. For simplicity's sake, you might want to consider reducing your scope further to look at a particular category or archetype of national decision-making process.

Well, I'm aiming to illustrate in my conclusion that states that can collect, analyze, and apply strategic intelligence, however they manage it, more rapidly will be more successful. I'm going to tailor my thesis somewhat to reflect the slight change in emphasis.

[Ken White]

Which is most important...

[AmericanPride]

Which is most important...

I think that's certainly a problem that countries have to face. The multi-polarity of the international system, in addition to the proliferation of non-state actors, introduces a flood of variable interests and intentions. In addition, technology proliferation can make the capabilities and effects of these actors unpredictable. I think states will have to fall back on the "good plan now rather than perfect plan tomorrow" maxim as far as strategic intelligence is concerned.

[Ken White]

if you address it, be sure you give adequate emphasis to domestic political considerations which are always a driver at the national level.

I have no problem with a 75% solution -- a lot of the Political masters do not, in my observation, subscribe to that. We have, in the west, become far more risk averse as societies today in comparison to say, 1940 and that can have an impact on your thesis.

Good luck with the paper.

[Jedburgh]

Well, I'm aiming to illustrate in my conclusion that states that can collect, analyze, and apply strategic intelligence, however they manage it, more rapidly will be more successful. I'm going to tailor my thesis somewhat to reflect the slight change in emphasis.

Again, I refer you to Knowing One's Enemies, the book I recommended in my first post in this thread.

The studies clearly demonstrate that the personalities and individual biases of the national level leaders - the consumers of strategic intelligence - often have a greater influence upon strategic decision making than does the quality of intelligence or the rapidity of its acquisition.

In theory, I agree with your premise - that rapid acquisition, analysis and dissemination of accurate intelligence to national decision makers increases the likelihood of success. However, I have to state that the historical record puts the emphasis on the word "likelihood". Throughout history, national leaders have often dismissed, cherry-picked or simply refused to consider solid intelligence in favor of other information that played to their personal biases, or simply contrary recommendations from close confidantes whom they trusted more than their intelligence apparatus.

......Another one that previously slipped my mind is For the President's Eyes Only, which is focused on the President as a consumer of intelligence, and looks at the office in that perspective from George Washington to Bush I. However, the first book is really the one that speaks directly to your topic.

[AmericanPride]

Again, I refer you to Knowing One's Enemies, the book I recommended in my first post in this thread.

The studies clearly demonstrate that the personalities and individual biases of the national level leaders - the consumers of strategic intelligence - often have a greater influence upon strategic decision making than does the quality of intelligence or the rapidity of its acquisition.

In theory, I agree with your premise - that rapid acquisition, analysis and dissemination of accurate intelligence to national decision makers increases the likelihood of success. However, I have to state that the historical record puts the emphasis on the word "likelihood". Throughout history, national leaders have often dismissed, cherry-picked or simply refused to consider solid intelligence in favor of other information that played to their personal biases, or simply contrary recommendations from close confidantes whom they trusted more than their intelligence apparatus.

......Another one that previously slipped my mind is For the President's Eyes Only, which is focused on the President as a consumer of intelligence, and looks at the office in that perspective from George Washington to Bush I. However, the first book is really the one that speaks directly to your topic.

The problem is that I'm using realism has a theoretical framework for my thesis, and that model does not allow for analysis of the internal workings of the state, much less the personalities of particular leaders. I think that in order to keep my thesis tight and controlled, I'll have to stick with the state-level analysis and forgo opening up that can of worms. As far as I can see, I'll have to assume that leader personalities are embedded in the broad concept of the state. How do you think I should approach that dilemma?

[John T. Fishel]

AP--

As you know, Realism assumes that the state can/must be treated as if it were a single, individual actor who is rationally pursuing his interests. Granted, there are many flaws in that assumption as Entropy and Selil have pointed out, but it works well most of the time. (I use 80% as my ballpark estimate.) So, as long as you demonstrate that you are aware of the possible pitfalls with an explantory note or in the text itself, you should be fine. As a professor of political science at U of MD told my wife when she was a PhD candidate, "Done is better than perfect."

Drive on!

Cheers

JohnT

[Ron Humphrey]

The problem is that I'm using realism has a theoretical framework for my thesis, and that model does not allow for analysis of the internal workings of the state, much less the personalities of particular leaders. I think that in order to keep my thesis tight and controlled, I'll have to stick with the state-level analysis and forgo opening up that can of worms. As far as I can see, I'll have to assume that leader personalities are embedded in the broad concept of the state. How do you think I should approach that dilemma?

You may have to look towards developing a certain set of parameters within which you assign default values and determine the likely results of any cost/benefit analysis in the decision making process that the players you do decide to include would use. It wouldn't be perfect but with the background from the books they have pointed out and comparing to some decisions you can find which have been made it may give you at least a close approximation from which to work..

GL

[AmericanPride]

I completed the draft of my paper. I tailored the thesis somewhat to focus more on the theoretical aspects rather than the intricate details of practical application. I'd like to ask if anyone is available to review it (it's a little more than 15 pages), but I understand if schedules do not permit that.

Thank you all for your help.