Interagency Fratricide : Policy Failures in the Persian Gulf and Bosnia

By Vicki J. Rast

Book Id: WPLBN0002170116
Format Type: PDF eBook:
File Size: 2.99 MB
Reproduction Date: 10/11/2012

Title:	Interagency Fratricide : Policy Failures in the Persian Gulf and Bosnia
Author:	Vicki J. Rast
Volume:
Language:	English
Subject:	Non Fiction, History of America, United States Government
Collections:	Authors Community, Politics
Historic Publication Date:
Publisher:	Air University Press

Member Page:	Air University Press
Citation APA MLA Chicago J. Ras, B. V. (n.d.). Interagency Fratricide : Policy Failures in the Persian Gulf and Bosnia. Retrieved from http://gutenberg.cc/

Description
Interagency Fratricide: Policy Failures in the Persian Gulf and Bosnia provides a comprehensive analysis of the factors that affected both interagency processes and policy outcomes during the Persian Gulf War (1990–91) and the early stages of the Bosnia crisis (1993–95). Going one-on-one with members of Washington’s policy elite who were involved directly in these two cases, the author demonstrates that the US government’s approach to termination policy proved fragmented and personality driven. She systematically presents evidence to support the study’s conclusion, revealing that the nature of the gap between diplomats and war fighters will consistently produce policies that bring about cease-fire in the form of war termination, but fail to address the underlying causes and conditions that generated conflict (and, potentially, war). These issues must be resolved if the US government hopes to improve the social and political conditions of those embroiled in conflict while at the same time bolstering a security posture favorable to US interests in the aftermath of intervention. The three sections of this work thematically present the interagency process, the analysis and its findings, and implications for future termination policy development endeavors.

Table of Contents
PART I Framing the Problem 1 CONFLICT TERMINATION WITHIN A BUREAUCRATIC ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . . . . 3 Interagency Decision Making via Negotiation. . . . . . . . . . 5 The Efficacy of the Policy-Making Process . . 14 Outline of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 Implications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 2 RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY: INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP CHOICE . . . . . . . 27 Decision-Making Approaches: Units of Analysis as Delimiters . . . . . . . . . 28 Rational Choice Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 Groups as “Less than Rational” Actors . . . . .41 Rationale for Alternative Approaches . . . . . .48 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3 CONFLICT TERMINATION MODELS . . . . . . 61 Points or Processes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Rational Actor Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 4 THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SYSTEM. . . . . . . . . . 85 Allison’s Bureaucratic Politics Approach . . . . 85 US Government Decision Making . . . . . . . . 92 National Security Policy Making . . . . . . . . . 94 Building Toward New Understanding . . . . . .121 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 5 INTERAGENCY FRATRICIDE: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN THEORY AND PRACTICE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 A Basic Conceptual Framework . . . . . . . . .129 Frameworks and Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Indicators, the Hierarchical Model, and Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 Preliminary Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Complementary Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . .160 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 PART II Analysis and Findings 6 DYNAMIC THEMES: LEADERSHIP, NEGOTIATION, AND DOMESTIC POLITICS . .169 Leadership. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Organizational Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Communication Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 Personal Relations and Networking . . . . . .186 Decision Making as Negotiation . . . . . . . .188 Domestic Politics. . . . . . . . . . 192 Interpretation of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 7 CONTEXTUAL PARAMETERS: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS CHANNEL INTERAGENCY DYNAMICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 Strategic Vision and Planning Processes . . 209 Protection of Institutional Equities . . . . . . .225 Interpretation of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238 8 CROSSCUTTING EFFECTS: ROLES AND MISSIONS AND MEDIA INFLUENCE . . . . . . . 245 Clarity of Roles and Missions . . . . . . . . . .245 Media Influence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 Interim Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258 PART III Conflict Termination Policy Development 9 DEVELOPING THE ENDGAME—TERMINATION POLICY FOR THE PERSIAN GULF AND BOSNIA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Crisis Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 Summary: Crisis Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . 274 Desired End State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .276 Termination Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .283 Termination Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .287 Synergistic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .296 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 10 TERMINATION POLICY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN A VOLATILE ENVIRONMENT . . . . . . 313 The Interagency Process: Synthesizing Process and Substance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .314 Dynamic Themes and Interagency Dynamics: Leadership, Decision Making as Negotiation, and Domestic Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316 Crosscutting Effects: Roles and Missions and Media Influence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .318 Contextual Parameters: “Strategic Vision and Planning Processes” and Institutional Equities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320 Factors Creating Interagency Conflict . . . . 322 Decision Making by Negotiation . . . . . . . . 322 Policy Outcomes: Interagency Conflict Leads to War Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 Improving Conflict Termination Policy Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 Envisaging a More Useful Termination Framework. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 Implications of Relationships across Interagency Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .332 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336 Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 ACRONYMS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361 BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . 363 INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441