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

IF 1.4 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Jacob Shively
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对拜登政府 2021 年关于是否从阿富汗撤军的决策过程进行了描述性研究。它为学者和实践者解决了一个实际问题。外部观察者如何根据当代公共信息评估一项重大外交决策?观察家们经常试图确定一项安全战略是 "好是坏",许多人都希望在政策决定做出时或做出后不久就能解决这些问题。遗憾的是,对外交政策决策过程的大多数评估都包含已知结果,这可能会扭曲分析。描述性研究提供了一种解决方案,研究人员可以在决策案例发生时对其进行描述。以下文章描述了拜登政府在阿富汗撤军决策背后的战略和政治考量。文章依据的是一年内公开的信息。进而,文章通过直接比较几种主要的评估理想类型:程序型、实质型和结果导向型,对这一决定进行了评估。文章最后得出了喜忧参半的结论,但认为有条理的描述加上对这些理想类型的比较,使学者们能够确定类别并观察到当代评论和因果理论通常看不到的模式。这些发现对当代的判断以及进一步发展实证学术研究都是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
47
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。
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信