DOCSLIB.ORG

Making Strategy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Making Strategy Making Strategy Cognitive Lesson Objective: • Know the basic process of formulating a national strategy. Cognitive Samples of Behavior: • Define doctrine • State a primary reason a commander may be forced to depart from doctrine • State how a nation determines its national objectives • List in order the five steps in the strategy process • Identify external factors that influence the strategy process Affective Lesson Objective: • Respond to the impact the process of formulating a national strategy has on members of the US Armed Forces Affective Samples of Behavior: • Voluntarily discuss how the strategy process can be complicated by external factors • Voluntarily discuss the connection between battlefield strategy and the vital national interests we’ve sworn to protect 129 Making Strategy 129 MAKING STRATEGY: WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT? For a nation to remain sovereign it must be able to achieve its objectives. Military forces are often asked to play an important role in accomplishing this, but they are not the only tools available and are almost never the first choice. Countries also rely on economic and diplomatic power to ensure their security. According to Sun Tzu, “To conquer the enemy without resorting to war is the most desirable. The highest form of generalship is to conquer the enemy by strategy”; as future Air Force leaders, it’s important that you understand the strategy process and the part you play in it. The Relationship Between Policy, Strategy, And Doctrine Policy, strategy, and doctrine are frequently used interchangeably when, in fact, they have different uses. Because each may impact or inform the others, it is important to understand their differences. Policy is guidance that is directive or instructive, stating what is to be accomplished. It reflects a conscious choice to pursue certain avenues and not others. Thus, while doctrine is held to be relatively enduring, policy is more mutable. Policies may change due to changes in national leadership, political considerations, or for fiscal reasons. At the national level, policy may be expressed in such broad vehicles as the National Security Strategy or Presidential Executive Orders. Within military operations, policy may be expressed not only in terms of objectives, but also in rules of engagement (ROE)—what we may or may not strike or under what circumstances we may strike particular targets. Strategy defines how operations should be conducted to accomplish national policy objectives. Strategy is the continuous process of matching ends, ways, and means to accomplish desired goals within acceptable levels of risk. Strategy originates in policy and addresses broad objectives, along with the designs and plans for achieving them. Doctrine is defined as the fundamental principles by which the military forces or elements thereof guide their actions in support of national objectives. It is authoritative but requires judgment in application. Doctrine presents considerations on how to accomplish military goals and objectives. It is a storehouse of analyzed experience and wisdom. Military doctrine is authoritative, but unlike policy, it is not directive. Strategy in Perspective The fundamental requirements of an effective national security strategy—clear and realistic objectives, coordinated use of the various instruments of national power, appropriately equipped and trained military forces, well-orchestrated military campaigns, and effective battlefield tactics—have hardly changed throughout recorded history. Nor have the fundamental functions of military strategists—developing, deploying, and orchestrating the effective employment of military forces—changed. Although the fundamental requirements remain the same, this is not to say that the process of making strategy is 130 as simple, easy, or straightforward today as it once may have been. Strategists struggle to overcome the problems involved in marshaling and using military forces to achieve a desired national objective while coping with a myriad outside influences, many of which are beyond anyone’s control. Compared to earlier eras, modern military forces are generally larger, more lethal, more functionally specialized, and organizationally complex. They are more difficult and expensive to train, equip, and support, particularly for operations in four very different domains—land, sea, air, and space—each of which presents strategists with unique opportunities and restraints. Moreover, the potential difficulties presented by a fifth operating environment, cyberspace, are just now becoming appreciated. The requirement to operate on a worldwide basis also creates difficult problems for several major powers. These and a host of other factors have vastly complicated the process of making strategy. The Strategy Process—An Overview “Strategy” is a word often wrapped in a mysterious aura. It is a word that conjures up visions of history’s great captains achieving victory against overwhelming odds through the application of their superior intellect and insights. Visions aside, the reality of strategy in its most fundamental sense is nothing more than a plan of action that organizes efforts to achieve an objective. Although this basic meaning of strategy is simple and clear-cut, our understanding has been hindered by the prolific application of the word “strategic.” This adjectival derivative of the same Greek root word connotes “great importance” or the “highest level.” The resulting confusion continues to this day even among those who should know better; military professionals often mistakenly associate strategy only with the highest levels of planning to achieve the highest level or most important national objectives. During the era of warrior kings, such as Frederick the Great and Napoleon, one man often made the decisions required to produce strategy. Warrior kings could grasp and decide issues ranging from the broadest political direction of the state to the most detailed battlefield tactics. They controlled a large vertical slice of their national command structure since they were at once absolute chiefs of state and battlefield commanders. Although the warrior kings of the past have given way, the complexity of the modern politico-military context virtually eliminates the possibility of one person having the ability to grasp all facets of a situation. The result is that even in the most tightly organized state, strategy is now made by different people or groups at different levels of authority, with often very different perspectives on what can or should be done. The broad and complex modern context within which strategists operate means that a simple definition of strategy, such as the one noted above, sheds little light on the factors that make strategy the most fundamental and most difficult of all military arts. In the modern era, it is much more accurate and descriptive to consider strategy as a complex decision-making process that connects the ends sought (national objectives) with the ways and means of achieving those ends. The modern strategy process (in both theory and successful practice) consists of at least five fundamental, interconnected, and 130 Making Strategy 131 sequential decisions that define and shape strategy at each level of authority. They range from broad and occasionally abstract decisions about long-term national objectives to very narrow and concrete decisions concerning battlefield tactics. Between those two extremes are three other crucial decisions that we will refer to as grand strategy, military strategy, and operational strategy. To fully comprehend this decision-making process, one must view it on two levels. The first level focuses on the macrocosm of national strategy, that is, very broad and long-term issues which transcend current events. For example, usually a state’s most fundamental objective is to preserve its sovereignty. To do so and to achieve other fundamental long-term national objectives, the decisions in the strategy process must be effectively addressed. On the second or microcosm level, the process concerns time-sensitive contingencies. The same basic decisions must be effectively addressed to meet such contingencies but are generally addressed much more urgently. With that in mind we will examine each of the five fundamental steps in the strategy process: determining national security objectives, formulating grand national strategy, developing military strategy, composing operational strategy, and formulating battlefield strategy. Historical National Security Objectives Strategists’ first task is to define the national security objectives that form the foundation of the strategy process. If the objectives are ill-defined, inconsistent, or unsupported by some degree of national consensus, then the strategists’ function becomes exceedingly difficult. American objectives in World War II provide an excellent example of well-defined, consistent, and widely supported objectives. The United States and its allies sought the surrender of the Axis powers, explicitly total and unconditional surrender. Such an unambiguous objective formed a solid foundation on which to base strategy decisions. In the post–World War II years, the advent of nuclear weapons, the Cold War standoff, and the fear of a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union meant the United States found it risky to pursue objectives like unconditional surrender in any conflict involving the Soviets, even indirectly. During the Cold War the broad national security objectives of the United States were clear.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thoughts on Grand Strategy and the United States in the Twenty-First Century
    Journal of Military and Strategic VOLUME 13, ISSUE 1, FALL 2010 Studies Thoughts on Grand Strategy and the United States in the Twenty-first Century Williamson Murray One might begin an examination of the issues involved in grand strategy with an effort to describe what we mean by the term. Over the centuries, some governments and leaders have attempted to chart a course for their nations that has involved something more than simply reacting to the course of events. In most cases they have confronted sudden and major changes in the international environment, often resulting from the outbreak of great conflicts, but at times involving economic, strategic, or political alterations that threaten the stability or even existence of their polities. Yet, grand strategy is a matter of great states and great states alone. No small states, and few medium size states, possess the possibility of crafting a grand strategy. For the most part their circumstances condemn them to suffer what Athens negotiators suggested to their Melian counterparts in 416 BC about the nature of international relations: "The standard of justice depends on the equality of power to compel and that in fact the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept."1 1 Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. by Rex Warner (London, 1954), p. 402. There are two exceptions to the rule. Both the Swiss and the Finns were able to exercise a certain independence that allowed them to maintain a grand strategic frame work: the former by balancing great powers off against each other; the latter by creating the distinct impression in the minds of the Soviets that they were willing to fight to the last man and woman in defense of their independence.
    [Show full text]
  • American Grand Strategy for an Emerging World Order Scott Lawless
    STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - PERSPECTIVE American Grand Strategy for an Emerging World Order SCOTT LAWLESS Abstract Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has secured its core national interests primarily through the creation and maintenance of the liberal international order. Today, this order is being challenged in ways that will define the twenty- first century context. America’s most pressing foreign policy challenge is finding strategies to counter a poten- tially illiberal global order. Neo-authoritarian states are seeking to establish spheres of influence by violating territorial norms, undermining the liberal order via coercive economic measures, and weakening democratic regimes through unconventional political warfare. The current liberal order is ill- equipped to face these challenges because of two global trends: the erosion of its legitimacy and the shifting global balance of power. In a changing environment such as this, where the ends of American grand strategy re- main fixed while its relative means are eroding, the US must revise the ways in which it seeks to achieve its strategic objectives. The shifts in geopolitics today necessitate a revitalization of American grand strategy and the estab- lishment of a new security order—namely, a Concert of Democracies—to secure American interests, reestablish liberal legitimacy, and shape the emerging international order toward a stable future. ***** he liberal international order that emerged triumphant over fas- cism and communism during the twentieth century is a testament to the institutions, alliances, and norms US statesmen established Tto avoid the revival of great power conflict. Though these structures have granted the United States and its allies several decades of unparalleled security and prosperity, it is unclear as to what is invoked by the term lib- eral international order.
    [Show full text]
  • Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian Integration of Cyber Power Into Grand Strategy by James J
    Cyber War and Strategic Culture: The Russian Integration of Cyber Power into Grand Strategy by James J. Wirtz Chapter 3 in Kenneth Geers (Ed.), Cyber War in Perspective: Russian Aggression against Ukraine, NATO CCD COE Publications, Tallinn 2015 In Chapter 3, James J. Wirtz, Dean of the Naval Postgraduate School in California, describes the global context surrounding these events. Today, nation-states are integrating cyber tactics into their political and military strategies. Professor Wirtz posits that when it comes to the use of cyber, ‘national styles’ might be emerging as states attempt to use cyber capabilities to achieve strategic objectives. He suggests that it is wrong to treat cyber attacks as a silver bullet, and that it is better to consider how a sort of combined arms approach will prevail. On a positive note, the need for legal and bureaucratic integration of policies and programmes should produce national idiosyncrasies on the cyber battlefield that can help with the vexing challenge of attribution. Disclaimer This publication is a product of the NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Ex- cellence (the Centre). It does not necessarily reflect the policy or the opinion of the Centre or NATO. The Centre may not be held responsible for any loss or harm arising from the use of information contained in this publication and is not responsible for the content of the external sources, including external websites referenced in this publica- tion. Digital or hard copies of this publication may be produced for internal use within NATO and for personal or educational use when for non-profit and non-commercial purpose, provided that copies bear a full citation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pillars of American Grand Strategy in World War II by Tami Davis Biddle
    Leveraging Strength: The Pillars of American Grand Strategy in World War II by Tami Davis Biddle Tami Davis Biddle is the Hoyt S. Vandenberg Chair of Aerospace Studies at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA. She is the author of Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Thinking about Strategic Bombing, 1914–1945, and is at work on a new book titled, Taking Command: The United States at War, 1944–1945. This article is based on a lecture she delivered in March 2010 in The Hertog Program on Grand Strategy, jointly sponsored by Temple University’s Center for Force and Diplomacy, and FPRI. Abstract: This article argues that U.S. leaders navigated their way through World War II challenges in several important ways. These included: sustaining a functional civil-military relationship; mobilizing inside a democratic, capitalist paradigm; leveraging the moral high ground ceded to them by their enemies; cultivating their ongoing relationship with the British, and embra- cing a kind of adaptability and resiliency that facilitated their ability to learn from mistakes and take advantage of their enemies’ mistakes. ooking back on their World War II experience from the vantage point of the twenty-first century, Americans are struck, first of all, by the speed L with which everything was accomplished: armies were raised, fleets of planes and ships were built, setbacks were overcome, and great victories were won—all in a mere 45 months. Between December 1941 and August 1945, Americans faced extraordinary challenges and accepted responsibilities they had previously eschewed.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy, Grand Strategy, and the Enduring War on Terror 3
    A HOOVER INSTITUTION ESSAY ON A US STRATEGIC VISION IN A CHANGING WORLD Strategy, Grand Strategy, and the Enduring War on Terror HAL BRANDS Strategy, in national security as in other fields, consists of using the available means to accomplish some important end. Grand strategy requires, among other things, incorporating a nation’s various strategies into a coherent—and solvent—whole. There can be, then, an inherent tension between the demands of successful strategy and those of sustainable grand strategy, for the requirements of maintaining solvency across the range of national programs may limit the amount of resources made available to accomplish some particular objective or meet some pressing threat. This is precisely the challenge the United States faces today in dealing with the problem of jihadist terrorism: the demands of strategy and the demands of grand strategy are Islamism and the International Order International the and Islamism becoming progressively harder to reconcile. The United States has now been fighting a global war on terror (GWOT) for nearly two decades, but the threat posed by extremist groups—particularly those capable of creating geographic safe havens and mounting significant external attacks— remains. The confrontation with al-Qaeda’s “core” after 9/11 led to a struggle against the al-Qaeda “affiliates” in Iraq and elsewhere. That struggle continues, even as the campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (often referred to as ISIS) has taken pride of place in American counterterrorism strategy since 2014. No sooner has the United States suppressed or even defeated one terrorist organization, it often seems, than a new and dangerous successor or group of successors takes its place.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of War and Their Application to Strategy and Tactics G
    Naval War College Review Volume 3 Article 3 Number 8 October 1950 Principles of War and Their Application to Strategy and Tactics G. K. Carmichael U.S. Navy Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Carmichael, G. K. (1950) "Principles of War and Their Application to Strategy and Tactics," Naval War College Review: Vol. 3 : No. 8 , Article 3. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol3/iss8/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Carmichael: Principles of War and Their Application to Strategy and Tactics RESTRICTED PRINCIPLES OF WAR AND THEIR APPLICATION TO STRATEGY AND TACTICS A lecture delivered by Captain G. K. Carmichael, USN at the Naval War College. August 17, 1950 The task of the Naval War College mission is to further an understanding of the fundamentals of warfare, with. emphasis on their application to future naval warfare. Accordingly, it is my purpose this morning to examine some of the fundamental truths of war and to indicate how these so-called principles of war are ap­ plicable to strategy and tactics. Although exact definitions of the fields of war-strategy, tac­ tics, and logistics-are difficult to arrive at, and may create futile discussion as to semantic distinctions, some definitions are desirable as a basis for study and discussion.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Levels of War USAF College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education (CADRE) Air and Space Power Mentoring Guide, Vol
    Three Levels of War USAF College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education (CADRE) Air and Space Power Mentoring Guide, Vol. 1 Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 1997 (excerpt) Modern military theory divides war into strategic, operational, and tactical levels.1 Although this division has its basis in the Napoleonic Wars and the American Civil War, modern theory regarding these three levels was formulated by the Prussians following the Franco- Prussian War. It has been most thoroughly developed by the Soviets.2 In American military circles, the division of war into three levels has been gaining prominence since its 1982 introduction in Army Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations.3 The three levels allow causes and effects of all forms of war and conflict to be better understood—despite their growing complexity.4 To understand modern theories of war and conflict and to prosecute them successfully, the military professional must thoroughly understand the three levels, especially the operational level, and how they are interrelated. The boundaries of the levels of war and conflict tend to blur and do not necessarily correspond to levels of command. Nevertheless, in the American system, the strategic level is usually the concern of the National Command Authorities (NCA) and the highest military commanders, the operational level is usually the concern of theater commands, and the tactical level is usually the focus of subtheater commands. Each level is concerned with planning (making strategy), which involves analyzing the situation, estimating friendly and enemy capabilities and limitations, and devising possible courses of action. Corresponding to the strategic, operational, and tactical levels of war and conflict are national (grand) strategy with its national military strategy subcomponent, operational strategy, and battlefield strategy (tactics).
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy in the New Era of Tactical Nuclear Weapons
    STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - PERSPECTIVE Strategy in the New Era of Tactical Nuclear Weapons COL JOSEPH D. BECKER, USA Abstract Post–Cold War strategic discourse, primarily among Russian strate- gists, has challenged the precept that nuclear weapons are not useful tools of warfare or statecraft. To reduce the likelihood that such ideas will ever be tested in practice, the US must openly address hard-case scenarios and develop a coherent strategy sufficient to give adversaries pause. This article posits that the key to successfully deterring the use of tactical nuclear weapons lies not in winning an arms race but in the clear articulation of a purpose and intent that directs all aspects of US policy toward the preven- tion of nuclear war and leaves no exploitable openings for opportunistic challengers. Further, an ideal strategy would be crafted to reduce—not increase—the salience of nuclear weapons in geopolitics. The article con- siders three possible approaches to a strategy for tactical nuclear weapons, but the most desirable and effective will be a “strategy of non-use” based upon credible and well- prepared alternatives to a nuclear response. ***** he end of the Cold War ushered in a new era suggesting the pos- sibility that nuclear weapons could become a relic of the past. Prominent leaders, including US president Barack Obama, cam- paigned vociferously for measures to abolish the world’s nuclear stock- T1 piles. However, instead of moving toward a world of “nuclear zero,” the US and Russia have proceeded with nuclear modernization and capability development, and even China is quietly expanding its nuclear arsenal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta: the Persian Challenge
    with the tools to conduct such an inquiry. who perished in the wheat-bearing land of With only a limited bibliography and a Gela; paucity of notes, however, such an in- of his noble prowess the grove of Marathon quiry would prove daunting. can speak, Despite these minor issues, Horne’s work is instructive, especially because and the long-haired Persian knows it well. of the author’s consistent reminder of the fate awaiting those who ignore the It serves as one more reminder of past. In fact, such a theme could have why the past appears to be of little use to easily taken pride of place in this work. Americans who look forward to a brave Horne’s explanation of how the Battle of new world. Tsushima, the 1940 Blitzkrieg, and the Professor Paul Rahe has directly chal- Battle of Verdun persisted as analogies lenged those assumptions that history for the Japanese at Midway, for Hitler is bunk. His Grand Strategy of Classical during Barbarossa, and for the French in Sparta is a brilliant study of Spartan strat- Indochina, respectively, shows the power egy during the Persian Wars (500 to 479 analogies wield within the mind of the BCE) that deserves to be read by those decisionmaker. In fact, Horne’s examples few still interested in the conduct of grand provide additional evidence of the power strategy and the choices, good and bad, of historical analogy, much as Yuen Foong made by leaders under the pressures of Khong described in Analogies at War. war. He has laid out the obvious as well For Horne, the arrogant not only tend to as the underlying factors that eventually ignore history, but they also are heavily The Grand Strategy of Classical led to victory on the part of the Spartans inclined to extend beyond their abilities.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Grand Strategy America Must Think Small Daniel W
    The End of Grand Strategy America Must Think Small Daniel W. Drezner, Ronald R. Krebs, and Randall Schweller hatever else U.S. President Donald Trump has done in the field of international relations, he can claim one signal Waccomplishment: making grand strategy interesting again. For decades, American foreign policy elites in both parties embraced liberal internationalism, the idea that Washington should sustain and expand a global order that promoted open markets, open polities, and multilateral institutions. But Trump has repeatedly attacked the key pillars of liberal internationalism, from questioning the value of nato to blowing up trade agreements to insulting allies. When, in July 2017, his national security team met with him in a windowless Pentagon meeting room known as “the Tank” to educate him about the virtues of the liberal international order, Trump blasted them as “a bunch of dopes and babies,” according to The Washington Post. Trump’s disruptions have forced foreign policy analysts to question first principles for the first time in decades. With bedrock assumptions about liberal internationalism dislodged, the debate over U.S. grand strategy has experienced a renaissance. New voices have entered the fray, ranging from far-left progressives to populist nationalists on the right. DANIEL W. DREZNER is Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. RONALD R. KREBS is Beverly and Richard Fink Professor in the Liberal Arts and Profes- sor of Political Science at the University of Minnesota. RANDALL SCHWELLER is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Program for the Study of Realist Foreign Policy at Ohio State University.
    [Show full text]
  • Why America's Grand Strategy Has Not Changed
    Why America’s Grand Strategy Has Not Changed Why America’s Grand Patrick Porter Strategy Has Not Changed Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Establishment Why has U.S. grand strategy persisted since the end of the Cold War? If grand strategy is the long- term orchestration of power and commitments to secure oneself in a world where war is possible, the United States’ way of pursuing security has been re- markably stable.1 Long before the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States formed a grand strategy of “primacy,” often coined as “leadership.”2 This strategy was interrupted only occasionally. By the 1960s, it had set the parame- ters for Washington’s foreign policy debate.3 The strategy has four interlock- ing parts: to be militarily preponderant; to reassure and contain allies; to integrate other states into U.S.-designed institutions and markets; and to inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons.4 These fundamental security commit- ments have proven hard to change, even amid shocks. Patrick Porter is Professor of International Security and Strategy at the University of Birmingham. The author is grateful to the anonymous reviewers and to Stephane Baele, Tarak Barkawi, Gregorio Bettiza, David Blagden, Sergio Catignani, Peter Feaver, Francis Gavin, Jonathan Golub, Ryan Grauer, Ted Hopf, Burak Kadercan, Michael Lind, Beverley Loke, Jason Reiºer, Robert Saunders, Catarina Thomson, and Hugh White. 1. See Barry R. Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the World Wars (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 13. 2. For accounts of U.S.
    [Show full text]