Books > Social sciences > Warfare & defence
|
Buy Now
Coalitions of Convenience - United States Military Interventions after the Cold War (Hardcover, New)
Loot Price: R1,935
Discovery Miles 19 350
|
|
Coalitions of Convenience - United States Military Interventions after the Cold War (Hardcover, New)
Expected to ship within 12 - 17 working days
|
When the Clinton Administration sent the United States military
into Haiti in 1994, it first sought United Nations authorization
and assembled a large coalition of allies. With a defense budget 20
times the entire GDP of Haiti, why did the US seek multilateral
support when its military could quickly and easily have overpowered
the 7,600-soldier Haitian army? The US has enjoyed unrivaled
military power after the Cold War and yet in eight out of ten
post-Cold War military interventions, it has chosen to use force
multilaterally rather than going alone. Why does the US seek allies
when, as the case of Haiti so starkly illustrates, it does not
appear to need their help? Why in other instances such as the 2003
Iraq War does it largely sidestep international institutions and
allies and intervene unilaterally? In Coalitions of Convenience,
Sarah E. Kreps answers these questions through a study of US
interventions after the post-Cold War. She shows that even powerful
states have incentives to intervene multilaterally. Coalitions and
international organization blessing confer legitimacy and provide
ways to share what are often costly burdens of war. But those
benefits come at some cost, since multilateralism is less expedient
than unilateralism. With long time horizons-in which threats are
distant-states will welcome the material assistance and legitimacy
benefits of multilateralism. Short time horizons, however, will
make immediate payoffs of unilateralism more attractive, even if it
means foregoing the longer-term benefits of multilateralism.
Coalitions of Convenience ultimately shows that power may create
more opportunities for states such as the US to act alone, but that
the incentives are stacked against doing so. The implications of
the argument go beyond questions of how the US uses force. They
speak to questions about how the world works when power is
concentrated in the hands of one state, how international
institutions function, and what the rise of China and resurgence of
Russia may mean for international cooperation and conflict.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
|
You might also like..
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.