Andere Kunden interessierten sich auch für
![The Lincoln-Douglas Debates - Second Debate]( "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates - Second Debate")
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates - Second Debate14,99 €![Man, God, & the Climate Change Debate]( "Man, God, & the Climate Change Debate")
Man, God, & the Climate Change Debate23,99 €![The Lincoln-Douglas Debates - First Debate]( "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates - First Debate")
The Lincoln-Douglas Debates - First Debate14,99 €![Opposing Perspectives on the Drone Debate]( "Opposing Perspectives on the Drone Debate")
Opposing Perspectives on the Drone Debate37,99 €![Justice]( "Justice")
Justice9,49 €![Political Theory in the contemporary debate]( "Political Theory in the contemporary debate")
Political Theory in the contemporary debate74,99 €![The debate on black civil rights in America]( "The debate on black civil rights in America")
The debate on black civil rights in America131,99 €
Deciding when and how to use force is one of the central elements of strategy. Throughout American history, debate has raged over whether force is appropriate only in defense of the homeland and vital national interests or whether it should also be used to promote more expansive objectives like regional security and stopping humanitarian disasters in regions with few tangible U.S. interests. The 1990s showed the extremes of this issue. In the George H. Bush administration, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell both advocated restrictive conditions for the use of force, with tangible interests at stake, clear support from the American people and Congress, and an explicit exit strategy. In the Clinton administration, officials such as National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright supported a more expansive use of force in places like the Balkans.
Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.
Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.