Why Leaders Fight book pdf download for free or read online, also Why Leaders Fight pdf was written by Michael C. Horowitz, Allam C. Stam And Cali M. Ellis.
The history of political events is made by the people. It doesn’t exist without us. From wars to elections to political protests, the decisions we make, our actions, and our behavior dictate events. Not all people have the same impact on our world and our lives. Some people’s choices change the paths the story takes. National Chief Executives, in particular, play an important role in shaping the fortunes of the countries they lead.
| Book | Why Leaders Fight |
| Author | Michael C. Horowitz, Allam C. Stam And Cali M. Ellis |
| Language | English |
| Size | 95 KB |
| Pages | 228 |
| Category | Politics |
Why Leaders Fight Book PDF download for free
Why Leaders Fight is about these world leaders and how their beliefs, worldviews, and tolerance for risk and military conflict are shaped by their life experiences before they took office: military, family, work, and more. The authors of Why Leaders Fight, through in-depth research on key leaders and the largest dataset ever collected on leader backgrounds, show that within the confines of national political institutions and the international system, the person who takes office plays a key role. to determine when and why countries go to war.
Why Leaders Fight Book Pdf Download
Presidents are pushed into and kept out of war all the time, but they also push and pull on themselves. A few days after Germany’s surrender in World War II, Winston Churchill proposed German troops for a new war between the UK and to recruit the United States against the Soviet Union. The idea went nowhere with its own government or its allies, except to become the Cold War. But all the crazy ideas he had had for years before that moment had been deemed acceptable and put into practice, and someone else might not have had the same ideas.
Can the powerful insider guys at the Council on Foreign Relations get away with it? Is the United States an Oligarchy? Are small differences between election candidates magnified and exaggerated? Do the two major political parties in the United States share essentially the same type of militarism? Does a near-permanent shadow government within the Pentagon, CIA, State Department, etc. sometimes bypass and override presidents? Yes, of course all of these things are true. But individuals are also important.
They would mean less in a democracy. Whether Congress passed war, as required by the United States Constitution, or whether the public voted for war, as required by the Ludlow Amendment, or whether the United States renounced war, as required by the Kellogg Briand Pact dictates, then militarism is in the mind One individual would not decide the fate of so many lives and so many deaths. But that’s not the reality now.
This point that individuals matter is emphasized in the new book Why Leaders Fight by Michael Horowitz, Allan Stam and Cali Ellis. They go against the academic tradition of explaining war decisions by any process more akin to science. This tradition has strayed far from anything as chaotic as a human, preferring instead to think about game theory or look for non-existent correlations between war and population density, resource scarcity, or something like that can be quantified.
Having reconsidered the individual, the authors of Why Leaders Fight immediately attempt to make it as similar to a mathematical equation as possible. Was this national ruler someone who was in the military and was he or she in combat? What was your first war experience? What level of education do you have? How old are they? What previous job did you have? Were you raised by good parents? Were you raised rich or poor? What was your birth order? Etc.
Will all this data ever allow calculation to reliably predict war or peace? Of course not. Will the explorations of enough past leaders in this regard open our eyes to some areas of concern or comfort? Maybe. But can such scholarly studies get to the point of being a better guide to what a political candidate might do than an examination of what that candidate did and said? I doubt it.
A careful reading of the candidates’ platforms, speeches, and casual comments, including what stands out and what is left out, and comparing them to what they’ve actually done in the past, gets you pretty far.
Add who funds them, what party they have sworn allegiance to, how they deal with government officials and the media, how they deal with foreign leaders, how they deal with mistakes, how they deal with crises, and you can… I think … – predict fairly accurately which candidate will have lesser or greater weight against a war demanded by powerful interests, and which candidate will be easily pushed into a war, or indeed hasten to create one at the earliest opportunity . Not that George W. Bush, Harry Truman and William McKinley didn’t announce what they were up to.
Eventually, the academics who wanted it left social scienceto turn science into truly divine sciences matters more than the individual politician. They left out the broader culture. An elderly politician eager to make a name for himself before time is up will not start wars in a culture that honors peace.
An official whose childhood and statistical background suggest he would take big risks, he would not need to take risks to join the routine militarism of the current US administration, but he would challenge the entire military industry and the entire communications industry by offering nonviolent solutions attempts for crises and disarmament are considered risky in American culture, which makes the expectation that risk-takers promote militarism questionable. That means the interpretation and weighting of the data has to change so drastically with the culture that one looks at the culture better.
President Obama would have heavily bombed Syria in 2013 had not the weight of American culture been against him. President John McCain would not have had the freedom to develop an assassination list and drone assassination program without the kind of fierce public opposition that Republicans do to do such things. There is no doubt that people matter, especially large numbers of people actively demanding something. There can also be no doubt that you are one of those people who matter.
Also Read – Hook Line And Sinker [PDF]
Must Check – Looking For Alaska [PDF]