Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, DIEN BIEN PHU, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965

Treverton, Gregory F.; Khong, Yuen Foong

doi:10.2307/20045330

Cited by 12 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One observation is that these arguments are part of the policy-making process. Khong (1992) holds that arguments which incorporate historical analogies perform significant cognitive functions that are important for making policy decisions, but we can also see that the functions Khong associates with analogies shed light on the roles played by various types of arguments in the larger dialogue. These functions include (1) defining the situation and problem, (2) identifying the stakes involved, (3) identifying possible solutions and policies, (4) assessing proposed solutions in terms of probable success, (5) evaluating policy solutions by means of moral standards, and (6) identifying possible dangers associated with policy solutions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

THE DIALOGUE OVER WAR AND PEACE IN THE UNITED STATES: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis

Lorenzo

2017

World Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How should we analyze the dialogue over war and peace in the United States? If, as many studies hold, an important part of the debate is about justifying and rebutting justifications of martial policies, how do those attempts work in terms of argument types and strategies? Furthermore, what are those strategies, and how do they function to mobilize support for either side? Extant research on the details involved in such questions is surprisingly scant. To rectify this, the present work analyzes the dialogue and typologizes the arguments used by proponents and opponents by organizing them into categories. I deploy a discursive institutionalist methodology, combining new research on the arguments used by proponents of war with previous work on opposition to wars. The study provides a new understanding of the constituent arguments, norms, and typologies of recent political discussions concerning war and peace in the United States. In so doing, this article offers a new explanation of the dynamics of the debate as well as a thorough rendering of the positions participants take when supporting and opposing the use of armed force.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

THE DIALOGUE OVER WAR AND PEACE IN THE UNITED STATES: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis

Lorenzo

2017

World Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of analogies as a salve for uncertainty is not unheard of. Political psychologists have long argued that analogies are employed as a heuristic mechanism to simplify complex situations by drawing parallels with previous, though not necessarily similar, cases (Khong 1992). For instance, references to Hitler when certain world leaders are acting in a belligerent manner permit leaders to better communicate their message without having to invest significant cognitive resource to the task.…”

Section: The Behavioral Turn In Cyber Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The successful use of analogies depends on the degree to which similarities exist. Suffice to say, applying an analogy to a completely unrelated issue may result in a wholly inappropriate outcome (Khong 1992;Bar-Joseph and Kruglanski 2003) For example, references to cyber operations and the 9/11 attacks find little in common with each other. While the United States is vulnerable through cyberspace owing to the state of its infrastructure, there is no evidence to show that terrorists are capable of launching a similar attack.…”

Section: The Behavioral Turn In Cyber Conflictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cyber uncertainties

Gomez¹,

Whyte²

2022

Cyber Security Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Historical knowledge and experience generate those concepts that guide decision-makers in their interpretation of the reality of the international system and the deduction of interests. History would then be a reservoir of 'knowledge structures' 75 that help to order complex situations, and 'specify national interests amidst conditions of uncertainty'. 76 Across different decision-makers and governments, and with changing circumstances, this historical knowledge or imagination finds different discursive iterations, that is, be expressed in different analogies or metaphors for the purpose of historically informed reasoning.…”

Section: History At the Unit Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neorealism, neoclassical realism and the problem(s) of history

Meibauer¹

2021

International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following scholarship on IR’s ‘historical turn’ as well as on neorealism and neoclassical realism, this article finds fault particularly in neorealism’s implicit reliance on the historically contingent but incompletely conceptualised transmission of systemic factors into state behaviour. Instead, it suggests that neoclassical realism (NCR) is well-suited to leveraging ‘history’ in systematic and general explanation. This article interrogates two routes towards a historically sensitive NCR (intervening variables and structural modifiers), and how they enable different operationalisations of ‘history’ as a sequence of events, cognitive tool or collective narrative. The first route suggests history underpins concepts and variables currently used by neoclassical realists. Here, history is more easily operationalised and allows a clearer view at learning and emulation processes. It is also more clearly scoped, and therefore less ‘costly’ in terms of paradigmatic distinctiveness. The second route, in which history modifies structural incentives and constraints, is more theoretically challenging especially in terms of differentiating NCR from constructivist approaches, but lends itself to theorising systemic change. Both routes provide fruitful avenues for realist theorising, can serve to emancipate NCR from neorealism in IR and foster cross-paradigmatic dialog. Examining how ‘history’ can be leveraged in realism allows interrogating how other ‘mainstream’, positivist approaches can and should leverage historical contingency, context and evidence to explain international processes and outcomes.

show abstract

Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, DIEN BIEN PHU, and the Vietnam Decisions of 1965

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

THE DIALOGUE OVER WAR AND PEACE IN THE UNITED STATES: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis

THE DIALOGUE OVER WAR AND PEACE IN THE UNITED STATES: A Discursive Institutionalist Analysis

Cyber uncertainties

Neorealism, neoclassical realism and the problem(s) of history

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About