From World War I to Operation Desert Storm, American
policymakers have repeatedly invoked the "lessons of history" as
they contemplated taking their nation to war. Do these historical
analogies actually shape policy, or are they primarily tools of
political justification? Yuen Foong Khong argues that leaders use
analogies not merely to justify policies but also to perform
specific cognitive and information-processing tasks essential to
political decision-making. Khong identifies what these tasks are
and shows how they can be used to explain the U.S. decision to
intervene in Vietnam. Relying on interviews with senior officials
and on recently declassified documents, the author demonstrates
with a precision not attained by previous studies that the three
most important analogies of the Vietnam era--Korea, Munich, and
Dien Bien Phu--can account for America's Vietnam choices. A special
contribution is the author's use of cognitive social psychology to
support his argument about how humans analogize and to explain why
policymakers often use analogies poorly.
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!