Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
THSwickedjuggalo

UN PKO increase MR

Recommended Posts

1) UN PKOs Increase Military readiness:

 

Ikenberry, Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, 2002 [John G., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, ed. Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman]

 

 

2) Peacekeeping doesn't hurt readiness

 

Callahan, Professor at DePaw University, 2004

 

[ Patrick Callahan, “Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America’s World

 

Role” Pearson Longman 2004, 18]

 

Try those, they might help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow i just saw the thread title and the only thing I could think of was UNPKO's increases mental retardation. I need sleep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) UN PKOs Increase Military readiness:

 

Ikenberry, Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, 2002 [John G., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, ed. Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman]

 

 

2) Peacekeeping doesn't hurt readiness

 

Callahan, Professor at DePaw University, 2004

 

[ Patrick Callahan, “Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America’s World

 

Role” Pearson Longman 2004, 18]

 

Try those, they might help.

 

Google it? or what? If you have the cards, if u did not mind, could u just paste them on here or something? I am grateful you you doing that at least...just please give me a general direction to look...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Working with the UN conserves resources and preserves US long term interests.

Ikenberry, Professor of Public and International Affairs at Princeton, 2002 [John G., Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy, ed. Stewart Patrick and Shepard Forman]

 

The attraction of institutional agreements for the leading state is two fold. First, if the leading state can get others to tie themselves to a multilateral institution that directly or indirectly serves its long-term interesls it

will not need to spend its resources to constantly coerce other states. Although the most powerful state would be likely to win many or most of the

endless distributive battles in a noninstitutionalized relationship with sub ordinate states, locking these lesser states into institutional agreements reduces costs of enforcemen. Second, if the institutional agreement has some degree of "stickiness" —that is, if it has some independent capacity to create or reinforce order—the institution may continue to provide favorable outcomes for the leading state even after the latter’s capacities have declined in relative terms. Institutions can both conserve and prolong the power advantages of the leading country.

 

 

Peacekeeping doesn't hurt readiness

Callahan, Professor at DePaw University, 2004

[ Patrick Callahan, “Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America’s World Role” Pearson Longman 2004, 18]

 

<Despite concerns about overcommittment or “imperial overstretch” eroding its power base, the United States could substantially increase its investments in foreign affairs. The burden of foreign policy is much less now than it was just a few decades ago. For instance, in 1995 the military was only half the size it had been in 1967. Defense expenditures in constant dollars (that is, having removed the distorting effect of inflation) are substantially below what they were during the Vietnam War and the 1980s and somewhat below their level in the years before Vietnam. More importantly, defense now accounts for less than 20 percent of the federal government’s total budget, compared to over 50 percent in 1960. Its share of the national economy (less than 4 percent of GNP) is much less now than in every year until the 1970s. The same pattern holds for other instruments of policy. The country spends on diplomatic representation, on foreign assistance, and on other crucial tools

than it had in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, it could expand its efforts without dragging down economic performance.>

Moreover, American economic power is not declining. During the three decades from the 1950s to the 1980s, it experienced a relative decline compared to the economies of Japan and Western Europe, but that should not cause alarm. In the post war years the U.S. share of the world economy was artificially inflated by the wartime devastation of the other major nations. As Japan and Western Europe regained eco nomic vitality, the U.S. share automatically declined. Now that the Europeans and Japanese have completed their postwar recovery, the relative decline of the United States is gradually ending, leaving it the world’s dominant economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...