WorldCat Identities

Warrington, Bob

Overview
Works: 4 works in 4 publications in 1 language and 4 library holdings
Publication Timeline
.
Most widely held works by Bob Warrington
The American Approach to Limited War( )

1 edition published in 1994 in English and held by 0 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Limited war has been a prominent feature in United States military history. Past applications of limited military power in war have dramatically furthered U.S. national interests. But despite encouraging experiences with limited war from independence to the 20th century, its inherent equivocations coupled with increasing apprehension over its costs and results have made this type of combat progressively less appealing to the American psyche. Moreover, the primary pillar that supported its advisability after World War II -- the presence of an adversary in the international system capable of devastating the United States with nuclear weapons -- has been undermined by the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. This paper analyzes the particular historical circumstances of the American experience with limited war from early conflicts through the post-World War II period. It compares the U.S. perspective with principles of limited war described by military strategists, especially Carl von Clausewitz. The paper then examines how the evolution of American thinking about limited war has affected its usefulness as an instrument of U.S. national policy. It concludes by looking at the implications of the post-Cold War international environment for American political and military strategies to deal with limited uses of military power. Throughout the paper, examples of America's limited war experiences are cited to illustrate judgments that are offered. The paper is not, however, about those wars. It is intended to analyze U.S. attitudes toward limited war and how these beliefs affect the relationship between this form of warfare and the pursuit of American political objectives
The Helmets May Be Blue, But the Blood's Still Red: The Dilemma of US Participation in UN Peace Operations( )

1 edition published in 1994 in English and held by 0 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

The end of the Cold War compelled the United States to initiate a fundamental reassessment of the decision-making frameworks it had adopted to formulate and implement foreign and national security policies. This "starting from zero" approach was necessitated by discontinuities in Washington's objectives, strategies, and instruments for international relations created by the passing of the Cold War. An example of the changing patterns of international behavior in the "new world order" was the sudden prominence of United Nations (UN) peace operations. A seldom used tool of collective action under the UN aegis historically, only 13 operations were established between 1948 and 1978, and no new missions were initiated during the subsequent decade. Peace operations during this period occupied a minor place in America's world policy agenda, but all of that changed with the end of the Cold War. Freed from the paralysis of the U.S.-USSR stand-off and rocked by the eruption of violence that accompanied the collapse of enforced stability within the Soviet Union and the geographic areas it controlled, the UN gained new importance in global peace and security matters. One element was the proliferation of UN peace operations. Twenty have been established by the UN Security Council since 1988 -- a record number -- virtually all of which are still active. Peace operations are generally acknowledged to operate as an instrument that facilitates both the cessation of violence between contesting parties and the settlement of their disputes. The growing use of this technique to peacefully resolve conflict in contemporary international affairs, however, has raised significant problems for the United States in establishing policies that will govern its role in such actions. This study is intended to examine several key contentious elements in ongoing U.S. deliberations over participating in UN peace operations
International Conflict and U.S. National Security Policy into the 21st Century( )

1 edition published in 1994 in English and held by 0 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

Global politics are undergoing rapid and extensive changes, and the resulting flux has engendered a significant debate within the United States concerning which policies to adopt in the post-bipolar international system. Defining contemporary U.S. national security requirements within the changing context of armed conflict in global affairs has become a key element in this debate. This study is intended to examine how armed conflict in the post-Cold War world is likely to affect the structure and operation of the international system, and the formulation and implementation of U.S. national security policy within that system. It is already clear that patterns of armed conflict in world affairs will not simply be a continuation of hostilities that prevailed during the Cold War. The U.S.-USSR superpower confrontation has ended, but violence has become more prominent among lesser powers on the peripheries of the international system. By examining these developments from the perspectives of the international system and U.S. national security interests, the effects of transformations in armed conflict can be accurately assessed and their policy implications better understood. In the future, armed conflicts among the major powers will not occur. Local conflicts almost certainly will be present, but they will not possess the significance they once did for affecting the structure and operation of the international system. Virtually all of the local conflicts that do take place will involve fighting over the domestic political authority structure of the smaller states in which they occur. Conflicts caused by overt foreign military aggression will cease to be a primary instigator of fighting between nations. And the interest of major powers in local conflicts and the potential for their participation in the fighting will be significantly lower than in the past when the great power paradigm operated as a determining influence in patterns of international conflict
Sharing the Sword: The War Powers Resolution( )

1 edition published in 1994 in English and held by 0 WorldCat member libraries worldwide

The 20 years that have elapsed since the War Powers Resolution (WPR) became law have not diminished any of the controversy to which it was born. Disputes involving its legality, practicability, and applicability have punctuated legislative-executive relations when decisions have been made to commit American troops abroad in which they faced an actual or imminent risk of military conflict. The controversy originates in the inherently ambiguous situations the legislation attempts to clarify, and in the contradictory opinions offered on the WPR's meaning, legitimacy, and relevancy. While almost no one challenges the President's power to repel sudden attacks against the territory of the United States (US), or the right of the Congress to commit the US to war, the WPR attempts to address those more equivocal cases involving the use of armed forces in the absence of a direct military threat to the US or a declaration of war, In doing so, the measure has become inextricably involved with more fundamental issues about the roles and powers of the President and Congress in authorizing the dispatch of US troops to conflicts abroad. Although the President and Congress have periodically used control of the armed forces as a constitutional "invitation to struggle" for over 200 years, President Truman's 1950 decision to commit on his own authority American troops to a major conflict in Korea precipitated the most dramatic confrontation with Congress over this issue until that time. The debate over war powers was joined with greater intensity in the early 1970s with the US mired in a land war in Southeast Asia and encountering huge American casualties. As a result, Congress began to reevaluate its role to ensure timely participation in decisions affecting the deployment of US military forces throughout the world and the commitment of those forces to hostilities involving other states in the international system
 
Languages