战略歧义:美国在阿富汗的大战略倡议

IF 2.2 4区 管理学 Q2 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Policy Studies Pub Date : 2022-03-30 DOI:10.1080/01442872.2022.2057461
James D. Boys
{"title":"战略歧义:美国在阿富汗的大战略倡议","authors":"James D. Boys","doi":"10.1080/01442872.2022.2057461","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT A cacophony of protest greeted President Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan following a 20-year deployment, implemented and overseen by four different administrations, both Republican and Democrat. For all the criticism of the final withdrawal’s implementation, however, strategic ambivalence was always present in U.S. operations in Afghanistan. The bi-partisan decisions that defined the Afghan mission can best be seen in the National Security Strategy documents produced by successive administrations as they sought to address the evolving situation on the ground and the perceived level of threat to the United States. The utilization of discourse analysis to examine these official policy documents allows for an understanding of the comparable attention that was paid to Afghanistan by successive administrations, as well as for an appreciation of the tone and language used regarding the nation. Doing so reveals that despite the duration of the mission and the associated costs, a deep-seated strategic ambiguity existed towards Afghanistan, as it languished as a sideshow for U.S. grand strategy.","PeriodicalId":47179,"journal":{"name":"Policy Studies","volume":"38 1","pages":"1216 - 1234"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Strategic ambiguity: the U.S. grand strategy initiative in Afghanistan\",\"authors\":\"James D. Boys\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01442872.2022.2057461\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT A cacophony of protest greeted President Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan following a 20-year deployment, implemented and overseen by four different administrations, both Republican and Democrat. For all the criticism of the final withdrawal’s implementation, however, strategic ambivalence was always present in U.S. operations in Afghanistan. The bi-partisan decisions that defined the Afghan mission can best be seen in the National Security Strategy documents produced by successive administrations as they sought to address the evolving situation on the ground and the perceived level of threat to the United States. The utilization of discourse analysis to examine these official policy documents allows for an understanding of the comparable attention that was paid to Afghanistan by successive administrations, as well as for an appreciation of the tone and language used regarding the nation. Doing so reveals that despite the duration of the mission and the associated costs, a deep-seated strategic ambiguity existed towards Afghanistan, as it languished as a sideshow for U.S. grand strategy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47179,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Policy Studies\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"1216 - 1234\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Policy Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2057461\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Policy Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2057461","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国总统拜登宣布从阿富汗撤军,这一决定引发了一片抗议声。此前,美国在阿富汗驻扎了20年,由共和党和民主党的四届政府实施和监督。然而,尽管对最终撤军的实施提出了种种批评,但美国在阿富汗的行动始终存在战略矛盾心理。界定阿富汗使命的两党决定,可以在历届政府制定的《国家安全战略》文件中得到最好的体现,因为他们试图应对不断变化的实地局势和对美国威胁的感知程度。利用话语分析来检查这些官方政策文件,可以了解历届政府对阿富汗的类似关注,以及对有关国家使用的语气和语言的赞赏。这样做表明,尽管任务持续时间长,相关成本高,但对阿富汗的战略存在着根深蒂固的模糊性,因为它只是美国大战略的一个小插曲。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Strategic ambiguity: the U.S. grand strategy initiative in Afghanistan
ABSTRACT A cacophony of protest greeted President Biden’s withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan following a 20-year deployment, implemented and overseen by four different administrations, both Republican and Democrat. For all the criticism of the final withdrawal’s implementation, however, strategic ambivalence was always present in U.S. operations in Afghanistan. The bi-partisan decisions that defined the Afghan mission can best be seen in the National Security Strategy documents produced by successive administrations as they sought to address the evolving situation on the ground and the perceived level of threat to the United States. The utilization of discourse analysis to examine these official policy documents allows for an understanding of the comparable attention that was paid to Afghanistan by successive administrations, as well as for an appreciation of the tone and language used regarding the nation. Doing so reveals that despite the duration of the mission and the associated costs, a deep-seated strategic ambiguity existed towards Afghanistan, as it languished as a sideshow for U.S. grand strategy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Policy Studies
Policy Studies PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION-
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
4.50%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: These changes at the structural level of the global system have impacted upon the work of public organizations either directly or indirectly and have broadened the field of action in policy studies. It has five main areas of intellectual interest: 1.To broaden the lens of policy analysis through the publication of research which locates policy-making within a theoretical, historical or comparative perspective. 2.To widen the field of enquiry in policy analysis through the publication of research that examines policy issues in a British, comparative, international or global context. 3.To promote constructive debate on theoretical, methodological and empirical issues in policy analysis.
期刊最新文献
Opposition windows in Delhi’s water utility privatization: going beyond the multiple streams framework The origins of social protection in healthcare: classifying healthcare systems at introduction in 165 countries Digital political campaigning: contemporary challenges and regulation Do intergovernmental interactions increase government spending? Institutional diversity and the immigrant wage gap? A comparison between the German and British experience with statutory minimum wages
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1