Think War?”: Foreign Military Intervention Decision Making in Post-Cold War Germany
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
WHAT MAKES LEADERS “THINK WAR?”: FOREIGN MILITARY INTERVENTION DECISION MAKING IN POST-COLD WAR GERMANY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Jeffrey D. Martinson, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Donald A. Sylvan, Adviser Professor John Mueller Adviser Political Science Graduate Program Professor Alexander Stephan Copyright by Jeffrey D. Martinson 2005 ABSTRACT This dissertation’s focus on “what makes leaders think war” or the decision making behind foreign military interventions in the post-Cold War era addresses important questions in IR scholarship on several levels – from the general problem of war through the more specific issues of its manifestation in the post-Cold War era in major power foreign military interventions to the still more niche puzzle of German behavior in this area. As it stood, previous attempts to explain German post-Cold War foreign military intervention policy left many scholars unsatisfied, leading some to conclude the phenomenon is either “inexplicable” or has some “irrational” cause. This research surmounts this impasse by focusing on decision making rather than decisions per se, as well as by employing a problem representation framework, which emphasizes the process of option generation rather than option selection. Four broad approaches drawn from both the International Relations and German Studies literatures (realism, institutionalism, universalism and historicism) were tested in this manner, with the conclusion that German decision making vis-à-vis foreign military interventions is indeed systematic and theoretically structured, with different approaches each accounting for a portion of the behavior. Specifically, the two most relevant approaches are institutionalism and universalism. Institutionalist thinking explains all parties to some degree, while ii universalist thinking mainly explains leaders on the left. Conversely, realist thinking mostly explains perceptions of two right parties, especially the Christian Democrats. Historicist ontologies are exceedingly minor portions of the decision making equation. Disaggregating “culture” into the conceptually distinct components of institutionalism, universalism and historicism moreover provides better insight into decision making and clarifies distinctions about “which culture” different members espouse. Finally, leaders change in their ontologies over long periods of time, but tend to be consistent in their ontology scores within individual decision making occasions. In terms of the latter (changes over long periods) one can see an interesting pattern of increased support for war as complexity increases among universalists – contrary to the decision making literature’s established wisdom. In terms of the former (stability intra-decision occasion) one can see that decision makers are not cynical or pragmatic, but seem to adhere to principles in their rhetoric. iii DEDICATION To Alice iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The list of people due my thanks for their assistance on this project extends far beyond what I am able to convey in this short space. My family, in-laws, friends, classmates, teachers, staff members, coworkers and others have all played crucial roles in getting me to the point where I now find myself. I hope each one of them recognizes the tremendous personal debt of gratitude I feel toward him or her. Among these, I must of course count my dissertation committee members as most helpful mentors along the last stages of the path. Please accept the fact that no words can convey my profound appreciation for all your help. Thank you all. v VITA July 28, 1973 ………………………… Born – Portland, Oregon 1995 …………………………………. B.A. Political Studies and German Studies, Pitzer College 1999-present ………………………… Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University 2002 …………………………………. M.A. Political Science, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. D.A. Sylvan, A. Grove and J.D. Martinson, “Problem Representation and Conflict Dynamics in Northern Ireland and the Middle East: Domestic Political Processes with International Impact.” Foreign Policy Analysis 1(3) November 2005 FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract………………………………………………………………………..…… ii Dedication……………………………………………………………………..…… iv Acknowledgments………………………………..………………………….…….. v Vita…………………………………………………………………………….…... vi List of Tables…………………………………………………………………..…... x List of Figures………………………………………………………………….….. xiii Chapters: 1. Introduction……………………………………………………………….…… 1 German interventions as important case……………………………….…. 7 Previous attempts at explanation……………………………………….…. 15 Proposed new attempt at explanation………………………………….….. 31 Hypotheses……………………………………………………………..….. 39 2. Research Design…………………………..……………………………..…….. 40 Dependent variable…………………………………………………..……. 40 Independent variable………………………………………………..……... 41 Decision making occasions…………………………………………….…. 53 Pragmatism proposition………………………………………………..….. 59 Criteria for accepting/rejecting hypotheses……………...………….…….. 68 3. Gulf War 1………………………………………………………………..……. 71 The event…………………………………………………….……………. 72 The internal and external contexts……………………………..………….. 74 Tests of approaches……………………………………………….………. 80 Realist approach…………………………………………….…….. 82 Historicist approach…………………………………………..…… 87 Institutionalist approach……………………………………….….. 90 Universalist approach……………………………………….…….. 94 Monolithic cultural approach………………………………..…….. 97 Pragmatism proposition……………………...……………..……... 99 Preliminary conclusions……………………………………………..……. 105 vii Page 4. Kosovo………………………………………………………...……………...… 107 The event…………………………………………………………………... 108 The internal and external contexts………………………………………… 110 Tests of approaches……………………………………………………….. 120 Realist approach…………………………………………………... 123 Historicist approach………………………………………………. 129 Institutionalist approach…………………………………………... 137 Universalist approach……………………………………………... 142 Monolithic cultural approach……………………………………… 154 Pragmatism proposition…………………………………...………. 155 Preliminary conclusions…………………………………………………... 163 5. Afghanistan……………………………………………..……………………… 167 The event…………………………………………………………………... 167 The internal and external contexts………………………………………… 168 Tests of approaches……………………………………………………….. 172 Realist approach…………………………………………………... 175 Historicist approach……………………………………………….. 179 Institutionalist approach…………………………………………... 181 Universalist approach……………………………………………... 184 Monolithic cultural approach……………………………………… 188 Pragmatism proposition……………………………………………. 189 Preliminary conclusions…………………………………………………… 191 6. Gulf War 2………………………………………………...……………………. 193 The event…………………………………………………………………... 195 The internal and external contexts………………………………………… 196 Tests of approaches……………………………………………………….. 202 Realist approach…………………………………………………... 204 Historicist approach……………………………………………….. 211 Institutionalist approach…………………………………………... 214 Universalist approach……………………………………………... 219 Monolithic cultural approach……………………………………… 229 Pragmatism proposition……………………………………………. 230 Preliminary conclusions…………………………………………………… 234 7. Conclusions…………………………………………………………..………… 237 7.1 Realist approach……………………………………………………………. 239 7.2 Historicist approach………………………………………………………... 244 7.3 Institutionalist approach……………………………………………………. 250 viii Page 7.4 Universalist approach……………………………………………………... 252 7.5 Monolithic cultural approach……………………………………………… 259 7.6 Pragmatism proposition……………………………………………………. 260 7.7 Summary and suggestions for future research…………………………….. 262 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………… 264 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………….. 272 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1.1 Perspectives on the Puzzle…………………………………………………… 14 1.2 Ideal-Type Expectations of Leaders’ Expressed Preferences………………... 39 2.1 Universe of Decision Making Occasions…………………………………... 54 3.1 Gulf War 1 Timeline…………………………………………………………. 77 3.2 Direction and Strength of Ontology Change by Party and Period ………… 102 3.3 Summary of Preliminary Findings…………………………………………. 105 4.1 Kosovo Timeline…………………………………………………………… 116 4.2 Votes During Kosovo Decision Making Occasion………………………… 121 4.3 Direction and Strength of Ontology Change by Party and Period…………… 157 4.4 Summary of Preliminary Findings…………………………………………. 166 5.1 Afghanistan Timeline………………………………………………………. 171 5.2 Votes During Afghanistan Decision Making Occasion……………………. 174 5.3 Summary of Preliminary Findings…………………………………………… 192 6.1 Gulf War 2 Timeline…………………………………………………………. 199 6.2 Votes During Gulf War 2 Decision Making Occasion……………………... 202 6.3 Direction and Strength of Ontology Change by Party and Period…………... 232 6.4 Summary of Preliminary Findings…………………………………….…… 236 x Table Page 7.1 Top Two Ontologies By Party and Occasion………………………………… 241 7.2 Top Two Ontologies By Number of Seats and Occasion……………………. 242 7.3 Summary of Findings………………………………………………………. 265 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Ideal-Type Ontology Indicators & Hypothesized Connection to Preferences………………………………………………………………….. 48 3.1 Decision Maker Ontologies: Realism………………………………………. 82 3.2 Decision Maker Ontologies: Historicism…………………………………... 87 3.3 Decision Maker Ontologies: Institutionalism………………………………. 90 3.4 Decision Maker Ontologies: Universalism…………………………………. 94 3.5 Decision Maker Ontologies: Universalism, Institutionalism & Monolithic Culture……………………………………………………………………… 97 4.1 Decision Maker Ontologies: