The First Amendment ideal of an independent press allows American journalists to present critical perspectives on government policies and actions; but are the media independent of government in practice? Here Jonathan Mermin demonstrates that when it comes to military intervention, journalists over the past two decades have let the government itself set the terms and boundaries of foreign policy debate in the news. Analyzing newspaper and television reporting of U.S. intervention in Grenada and Panama, the bombing of Libya, the Gulf War, and U.S. actions in Somalia and Haiti, he shows that if there is no debate over U.S. policy in Washington, there is no debate in the news. Journalists often criticize the execution of U.S. policy, but fail to offer critical analysis of the policy itself if actors inside the government have not challenged it. Mermin ultimately offers concrete evidence of outside-Washington perspectives that could have been reported in specific cases, and explains how the press could increase its independence of Washington in reporting foreign policy news. The author constructs a new framework for thinking about press-government relations, based on the observation that bipartisan support for U.S. intervention is often best interpreted as a political phenomenon, not as evidence of the wisdom of U.S. policy. Journalists should remember that domestic political factors often influence foreign policy debate. The media, Mermin argues, should not see a Washington consensus as justification for downplaying critical perspectives.

Are democracies less likely to go to war than other kinds of states? This question is of tremendous importance in both academic and policy-making circles and one that has been debated by political scientists for years. The Clinton administration, in particular, has argued that the United States should endeavor to promote democracy around the world. This timely reader includes some of the most influential articles in the debate that have appeared in the journal International Security during the past two years, adding two seminal pieces published elsewhere to make a more balanced and complete collection, suitable for classroom use.

Debating the Origins of the Cold War examines the coming of the Cold War through Americans' and Russians' contrasting perspectives and actions. In two engaging essays, the authors demonstrate that a huge gap existed between the democratic, capitalist, and global vision of the post-World War II peace that most Americans believed in and the dictatorial, xenophobic, and regional approach that characterized Soviet policies. The authors argue that repeated failures to find mutually acceptable solutions to concrete problems led to the rapid development of the Cold War, and they conclude that, given the respective concerns and perspectives of the time, both superpowers were largely justified in their courses of action. Supplemented by primary sources, including documents detailing Soviet espionage in the United States during the 1930s and 1940s and correspondence between Premier Josef Stalin and Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov during postwar meetings, this is the first book to give equal attention to the U.S. and Soviet policies and perspectives.

The United States is currently the linchpin of global trade, technology, and finance, and a military colossus, extending across the world with a network of bases and alliances. This book anticipates the possible issues raised by a transition between American dominance and the rise of alternative powers. While a ‘post-American’ world need not be any different than that of today, the risk associated with such a change provides ample reason for attentive study. Divided into four parts, 50 international relations scholars explore and discuss: Power Transitions: addressing issues including the rise of China; the passing of American primacy and the endurance of American leadership. War and Peace: addressing nuclear weapons; the risk of war; security privatization and global insecurity Global Governance: addressing competition, trade, the UN, sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, law and power. Energy and the Environment: addressing resource conflict, petrol, climate change and technology. This unique project offers a compilation of disparate arguments by scholars and policy practitioners, encompassing a plurality of disciplines and theoretical perspectives. By providing clarity and focus to this essential debate on the future of the world in the next several decades, Debating a Post-American World will be of interest to students and scholars of International Relations and global politics, American politics, US Foreign policy and International Security.

When foreign powers attack civilians, other countries face an impossible dilemma. Two courses of action emerge: either to retaliate against an abusive government on behalf of its victims, or to remain spectators. Either course offers its own perils: the former, lost lives and resources without certainty of restoring peace or preventing worse problems from proliferating; the latter, cold spectatorship that leaves a country at the mercy of corrupt rulers or to revolution. Philosophers Fernando Tesón and Bas van der Vossen offer contrasting views of humanitarian intervention, defining it as either war aimed at ending tyranny, or as violence. The authors employ the tools of impartial modern analytic philosophy, particularly just war theory, to substantiate their claims. According to Tesón, a humanitarian intervention has the same just cause as a justified revolution: ending tyranny. He analyzes the different kinds of just cause and whether or not an intervener may pursue other justified causes. For Tesón, the permissibility of humanitarian intervention is almost exclusively determined by the rules of proportionality. Bas van der Vossen, by contrast, holds that military intervention is morally impermissible in almost all cases. Justified interventions, Van der Vossen argues, must have high ex ante chance of success. Analyzing the history and prospects of intervention shows that they almost never do. Tesón and van der Vossen refer to concrete cases, and weigh the consequences of continued or future intervention in Syria, Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Iraq, Lybia and Egypt. By placing two philosophers in dialogue, Debating Humanitarian Intervention is not constrained by a single, unifying solution to the exclusion of all others. Rather, it considers many conceivable actions as judged by analytic philosophy, leaving the reader equipped to make her own, informed judgments.

"This book explores the foreign policy of the world's foremost military coalition towards the world's principal crisis; it analyses the discursive war of position that has taken place across the Anglosphere, which helped to sell war and peace in Syria. In its first half, the book considers the domestic situation in Syria, the role and history of the Anglosphere, and the importance of language for foreign policy's possibility. In the second half, the book analyses the foreign policy debates that have taken place within the Anglosphere coalition - the US, UK and Australia - since the onset of the Syrian Civil War in 2011. This analysis is structured chronologically in four phases, as the Syrian crisis evolved from a battle for democracy and human rights (2011-), through chemical weapons concerns (2012-), and counter-terrorism (2014-), to proxy war (2015-). The book argues that Anglosphere foreign policy ultimately perpetuated the Syrian Civil War through the production of an ends-means gap. Assad, backed by Russia, was left to grind out a slow, decimating victory, while the Anglosphere fixated on Islamic State"--