http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ TT or not TT, VAP is the question. en Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:53:24 +0000 http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=10#post-87247 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 12:57:19 +0000 Anonymous 87247@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>For anybody who thinks Mearsheimer is going to win, I'd encourage you to take another look at the selection committee. It would take some pretty serious cognitive dissonance for this committee to choose that book. This award--like all awards--is chosen by a committee composed of scholars with their own agendas, interests, and pet peeves. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=10#post-87156 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 02:29:22 +0000 Anonymous 87156@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>It is not obvious until the data proves it so. Tragedy cannot win because it is completely wrong and has not generated positive scholarship in its favor. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=10#post-87146 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:42:19 +0000 Anonymous 87146@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>^^I think one would have to subtract major points from Biddle book for being completely fucking obvious to anyone with any knowledge of military affairs. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=10#post-87140 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 01:21:08 +0000 Anonymous 87140@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>After all said and done, Tragedy still seems the most plausible candidate for me. Let's focus on impact, people. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=10#post-87135 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:55:36 +0000 Anonymous 87135@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>all else being equal, I would suggest Biddle's book because of its methodology, research design, and policy impact. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=10#post-87134 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:54:30 +0000 Anonymous 87134@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>Tomz is good but by no means the book of the decade. He will produce better things in his lifetime. As for Fortna, quantitative articles dissecting and nullifying her work are floating around and these pretty much question the basis for the book. You can't really have a book labeled book of the decade that is empirically wrong. </p> <p>I wonder if anyone on the committee will be looking at this thread? Most of you would be surprised to find who reads this blog on a daily basis and if individuals or departments are mentioned, it generally gets emailed to the people in question fairly quickly. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=10#post-87130 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 00:43:00 +0000 Anonymous 87130@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>R&#38;S have no shot. "The Israeli Lobby" is the only choice. Talk about impact. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-87082 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:23:37 +0000 Anonymous 87082@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>I like Fortna's 'Peace Time'. Perhaps because that is what I study and is one of my favorites. I also liked Tomz's book a lot. I think I would be much happier with either of these winning than Mearsheimer or Ikenberry. At least the research design in the two former books is solid-- good social science. While "tragedy" may be famous (or infamous) it's just bad social science. I'd be happy with Ikenberry too but it's not exactly one of my faves. Just my .02. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-87079 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 20:14:16 +0000 Anonymous 87079@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>It is probably not the best book of the decade but the last academic book I have read that has really stuck with me is Clifford Bob's "The Marketing of Rebellion" </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-87034 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:34:48 +0000 Anonymous 87034@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>Slight derailment here, but to the anti-Reiter &#38; Stam folks (I'm sympathetic, btw), what do you suggest as good alternative coverage for this topic in a grad-level course? (Not dem peace, but the democracies IN war topic.) It's either R&#38;S or a smattering of rather disconnected articles, no? </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-86952 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 06:54:26 +0000 Anonymous 86952@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>^ But best book of the decade? Um, no. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-86923 Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:52:12 +0000 Anonymous 86923@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>I thought Tomz's book was the best I've read in a while. Theory was a little on the obvious side but the combined archival/quantitative analysis and the presentation of the evidence was great. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85787 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:54:04 +0000 Anonymous 85787@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>Back to best book:<br /> Dan Deudney, Bounding Power </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85775 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:43:07 +0000 Anonymous 85775@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>Yeah, I was just thinking about how the South Ossetia War plays into this. You'da thunk that they'd have that strategic foresight that poking an angry bear with a short stick isn't a very good idea. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85756 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:18:55 +0000 Anonymous 85756@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>^ To reply to my own, this isn't just conspiracy stuff I'm making up in a student lounge. I'm a prof at one of the U.S. war colleges and yes, I really do hear senior military commanders and senior policymakers spouting off about "democracies are much more likely to win wars than non-democracies", and taking it into account as they evaluate potential conflicts. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85751 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:13:26 +0000 Anonymous 85751@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>To pile on R&#38;S -- don't forget that it had real-world policy impact! Key figures in the Bush Administration bought into the whole "Democracies are Invincible!" argument. I wouldn't blame R&#38;S for this; it was more like ideas from them and like-minded authors being laundered through think-tanks with an agenda who found it useful (E.g., AEI, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies), who then passed it on to sympathetic players in the administration and in Congress. </p> <p>Taking the argument far beyond anything R&#38;S would have endorsed, I've heard that this was even part of our encouraging Georgia to pick a fight with Russia despite the obvious power disparity. It was thought that between having received training from the US, and having that magic democracy kick-ass fairy dust sprinkled on him, that Saakashvili could punch far above his weight viz the Russians. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85748 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 21:12:01 +0000 Anonymous 85748@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>Any other ISA best book contender? </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85734 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:52:17 +0000 Anonymous 85734@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>^^ I agree that "selection effect is not a theory," but I am still flabbergasted by the whole morale and warfighting arguments. Is THAT why the Prussian military order (read: officer corps) became the standard for militaries the world over--because it was so "democratic"? And since when do slogans trump actual analysis? The thing that really gets me about R&#38;S is the Ambrosesque nostalgia for the inherent virtue and superiority of American forces above all others in WWII as the primary exemplar.</p> <p>I don't know. I always thought that, if you were looking for explanations to military questions, the answers should first be sought in the military, before jumping to broad, amorphous explanations based on political culture. I'm sticking with Clausewitz on that--and on nationalism/patriotism as greater motivational factor than democracy. One last thought, however: why don't R&#38;S even once in their entire book mention that, in a war setting, a general fear of (or rational aversion to) getting killed might motivate one to "fight better"? </p> <p>It was asinine when I first read it, and now I'm getting my panties all in a bunch just talking about it! Not to mention all of the coding liberties. Anyway... like you said: "Lets put an end to talk that the Reiter and Stam book is a top contender." </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85723 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:47:40 +0000 Anonymous 85723@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>An equally cute quip! </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85705 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:39:35 +0000 Anonymous 85705@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>Lets put an end to talk that the Reiter and Stam book is a top contender. I don't know any quant IR scholars that particularly like it and the responses to it generally are not motivated by attacking the book but by attacking the Lake article. A selection effect is not a theory. </p> <p>But to the military person who questioned the individual initiative stuff, you clearly have not read. They did not mean the rank and file soldiers, but the mid level leaders (Lts, Capts, etc) who have much more freedom to change plans and respond than officers in authoritarian states like Egypt and Iraq. Your quip was cute but uninformed. Isn't the motto of the Army an Army of One? </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85687 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:33:14 +0000 Anonymous 85687@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>^^ Well played, Bluto. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85676 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:00:18 +0000 Anonymous 85676@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>^^ IS. </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85674 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:53:26 +0000 Anonymous 85674@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85673 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:53:16 +0000 Anonymous 85673@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>^ where? </p> http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/topic.php?id=18682&page=9#post-85672 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:52:05 +0000 Anonymous 85672@http://www.poliscijobrumors.com/ <p>Downes recently called pretty serious doubt on R&#38;S. but yes, it is/was an influential piece of work. </p>