{"title":"拜登决定从阿富汗撤军期间的结构化描述、外交政策分析和政策质量","authors":"Jacob Shively","doi":"10.1057/s41311-024-00616-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This article develops a descriptive study of the Biden administration’s 2021 decision process regarding whether to withdraw US military forces from Afghanistan. It addresses a practical question for both scholars and practitioners. How can outside observers assess a major foreign policy decision based upon contemporary public information? Observers regularly seek to determine whether a security strategy was ‘good or bad,’ and many have a vested interest in addressing such questions as or shortly after the policy decision occurred. Unfortunately, most assessments of a foreign policy decision process incorporate known outcomes, which can distort the analysis. Descriptive research provides a solution by allowing researchers to depict a decision case as it occurred. The following article describes the Biden administration’s strategic and political deliberations behind the Afghanistan withdrawal decision. It relies upon information publicly available within a year of that process. In turn, it evaluates this decision by directly comparing several major assessment ideal types: procedural, substantive, and outcome-oriented. It ends with mixed findings but argues that structured description paired with comparison across those ideal types allows scholars to identify categories and observe patterns that are often invisible both to contemporary commentary and to causal theory. Such findings are useful for contemporary judgments as well as for developing further empirical scholarship.</p>","PeriodicalId":46593,"journal":{"name":"International Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Structured description, foreign policy analysis, and policy quality during the Biden decision to withdraw from Afghanistan\",\"authors\":\"Jacob Shively\",\"doi\":\"10.1057/s41311-024-00616-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This article develops a descriptive study of the Biden administration’s 2021 decision process regarding whether to withdraw US military forces from Afghanistan. It addresses a practical question for both scholars and practitioners. How can outside observers assess a major foreign policy decision based upon contemporary public information? Observers regularly seek to determine whether a security strategy was ‘good or bad,’ and many have a vested interest in addressing such questions as or shortly after the policy decision occurred. Unfortunately, most assessments of a foreign policy decision process incorporate known outcomes, which can distort the analysis. Descriptive research provides a solution by allowing researchers to depict a decision case as it occurred. The following article describes the Biden administration’s strategic and political deliberations behind the Afghanistan withdrawal decision. It relies upon information publicly available within a year of that process. In turn, it evaluates this decision by directly comparing several major assessment ideal types: procedural, substantive, and outcome-oriented. It ends with mixed findings but argues that structured description paired with comparison across those ideal types allows scholars to identify categories and observe patterns that are often invisible both to contemporary commentary and to causal theory. Such findings are useful for contemporary judgments as well as for developing further empirical scholarship.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Politics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00616-2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00616-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Structured description, foreign policy analysis, and policy quality during the Biden decision to withdraw from Afghanistan
This article develops a descriptive study of the Biden administration’s 2021 decision process regarding whether to withdraw US military forces from Afghanistan. It addresses a practical question for both scholars and practitioners. How can outside observers assess a major foreign policy decision based upon contemporary public information? Observers regularly seek to determine whether a security strategy was ‘good or bad,’ and many have a vested interest in addressing such questions as or shortly after the policy decision occurred. Unfortunately, most assessments of a foreign policy decision process incorporate known outcomes, which can distort the analysis. Descriptive research provides a solution by allowing researchers to depict a decision case as it occurred. The following article describes the Biden administration’s strategic and political deliberations behind the Afghanistan withdrawal decision. It relies upon information publicly available within a year of that process. In turn, it evaluates this decision by directly comparing several major assessment ideal types: procedural, substantive, and outcome-oriented. It ends with mixed findings but argues that structured description paired with comparison across those ideal types allows scholars to identify categories and observe patterns that are often invisible both to contemporary commentary and to causal theory. Such findings are useful for contemporary judgments as well as for developing further empirical scholarship.
期刊介绍:
International Politics?is a leading peer reviewed journal dedicated to transnational issues and global problems. It subscribes to no political or methodological identity and welcomes any appropriate contributions designed to communicate findings and enhance dialogue.International Politics?defines itself as critical in character truly international in scope and totally engaged with the central issues facing the world today. Taking as its point of departure the simple but essential notion that no one approach has all the answers it aims to provide a global forum for a rapidly expanding community of scholars from across the range of academic disciplines.International Politics?aims to encourage debate controversy and reflection. Topics addressed within the journal include:Rethinking the Clash of CivilizationsMyths of WestphaliaHolocaust and ChinaLeo Strauss and the Cold WarJustin Rosenberg and Globalisation TheoryPutin and the WestThe USA Post-BushCan China Rise Peacefully Just WarsCuba Castro and AfterGramsci and IRIs America in Decline。