Choosing Your Battles : : American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force / / Christopher Gelpi, Peter D. Feaver.

• Superior document: Title is part of eBook package: De Gruyter Princeton University Press eBook-Package Backlist 2000-2013
• VerfasserIn: Feaver, Peter D.,; Gelpi, Christopher,
• Place / Publishing House: Princeton, NJ : : Princeton University Press, , [2011]; ©2003
• Year of Publication: 2011
• Edition: With a New afterword by the authors
• Language: English
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (248 p.) :; 11 line illus. 31 tables.
• Other title: Frontmatter --; Contents --; Figures and Tables --; Preface --; Chapter One. Introduction --; Chapter Two. The Civil-Military Opinion Gap Over the Use of Force --; Chapter Three. The Impact of Elite Veterans on American Decisions to Use Force --; Chapter Four. Casualty Sensitivity and Civil-Military Relations --; Chapter Five. Exploring the Determinants of Casualty Sensitivity --; Chapter Six. Conclusion --; References --; Afterword --; Name Index --; Subject Index
• Format: Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
• ISBN: 9781400841455; 9783110442502
• DOI: 10.1515/9781400841455
• Access: restricted access
• Hierarchical level: Monograph
• Statement of Responsibility: Christopher Gelpi, Peter D. Feaver.

America's debate over whether and how to invade Iraq clustered into civilian versus military camps. Top military officials appeared reluctant to use force, the most hawkish voices in government were civilians who had not served in uniform, and everyone was worried that the American public would not tolerate casualties in war. This book shows that this civilian-military argument--which has characterized earlier debates over Bosnia, Somalia, and Kosovo--is typical, not exceptional. Indeed, the underlying pattern has shaped U.S. foreign policy at least since 1816. The new afterword by Peter Feaver and Christopher Gelpi traces these themes through the first two years of the current Iraq war, showing how civil-military debates and concerns about sensitivity to casualties continue to shape American foreign policy in profound ways.