ISSN 2576-1021 ISSN 2576-1153 Print: Online: Texas National Security Review CLARITY & QUAGMIRE Volume 2 Issue 2 MASTHEAD TABLE OF CONTENTS Staff: The Foundation Publisher: Managing Editor: 04 Reviewing Blues Ryan Evans Megan G. Oprea, PhD Assistant Editor: Francis J. Gavin Autumn Brewington Editor-in-Chief: Associate Editors: William Inboden, PhD Galen Jackson, PhD Van Jackson, PhD Stephen Tankel, PhD The Scholar 10 When Do Leaders Change Course? Theories of Success and the American Withdrawal Editorial Board: from Beirut, 1983–1984 Alexandra T. Evans and A. Bradley Potter Chair, Editorial Board: Editor-in-Chief: 40 How to Think About Nuclear Crises Francis J. Gavin, PhD William Inboden, PhD Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald Robert J. Art, PhD Beatrice Heuser, PhD Patrick Porter, PhD Richard Betts, PhD Michael C. Horowitz, PhD Thomas Rid, PhD John Bew, PhD Richard H. Immerman, PhD Joshua Rovner, PhD Nigel Biggar, PhD Robert Jervis, PhD Brent E. Sasley, PhD The Strategist Philip Bobbitt, JD, PhD Colin Kahl, PhD Elizabeth N. Saunders, PhD Hal Brands, PhD Jonathan Kirshner, PhD Kori Schake, PhD 68 After the Responsible Stakeholder, What? Debating America’s China Strategy Joshua W. Busby, PhD James Kraska, SJD Michael N. Schmitt, DLitt Hal Brands and Zack Cooper Robert Chesney, JD Stephen D. Krasner, PhD Jacob N. Shapiro, PhD Eliot Cohen, PhD Sarah Kreps, PhD Sandesh Sivakumaran, PhD 82 Crossroads: Counter-terrorism and the Internet Audrey Kurth Cronin, PhD Melvyn P. Leffler, PhD Sarah Snyder, PhD Brian Fishman Theo Farrell, PhD Fredrik Logevall, PhD Bartholomew Sparrow, PhD 102 The End of the End of History: Reimagining U.S. Foreign Policy for the 21st Century Peter D. Feaver, PhD Margaret MacMillan, CC, PhD Monica Duffy Toft, PhD Sen. Ben Sasse Rosemary Foot, PhD, FBA Thomas G. Mahnken, PhD Marc Trachtenberg, PhD Taylor Fravel, PhD Rose McDermott, PhD René Värk, JD Sir Lawrence Freedman, PhD Paul D. Miller, PhD Steven Weber, PhD James Goldgeier, PhD Vipin Narang, PhD Amy Zegart, PhD Michael J. Green, PhD Janne E. Nolan, PhD Kelly M. Greenhill, PhD John Owen, PhD The Roundtable Feature 116 The Persistence of Great Power Politics David M. Edelstein Policy and Strategy Advisory Board: Chair: Adm. William McRaven, Ret. Hon. Elliott Abrams, JD Hon. Kathleen Hicks, PhD Dan Runde Stephen E. Biegun Hon. James Jeffrey David Shedd Hon. Brad Carson Paul Lettow, JD, PhD Hon. Kristen Silverberg, JD Hon. Derek Chollet Hon. Michael Lumpkin Michael Singh, MBA Amb. Ryan Crocker Hon. William J. Lynn, JD Adm. James G. Stavridis, Ret., PhD Hon. Eric Edelman, PhD Kelly Magsamen Hon. Christine E. Wormuth Hon. John Hamre, PhD Gen. David Petraeus, Ret. Designed by We are Flint, printed by Linemark Reviewing Blues The chairman of our editorial board, Frank Gavin, introduces Vol. 2, Iss. 2 of TNSR and discusses the joys and pains of the review process, giving some advice for both reviewers and those submitting their work for review. am sorry to report that I do not I have countless more stories like this, but simply like this manuscript much.” As recalling them is generating a cold sweat! Francis J. Gavin academics, we have all received At the Texas National Security Review, we have such a note (and if you haven’t yet, and will continue to think long and hard about how you“I will at some point). And the negative reactions to encourage best practices in the review process. to our papers and books don’t ever go away, no We have incorporated a number of measures, matter how long you are in the profession or how including paying our reviewers on a sliding scale distinguished your title. This was the first line of depending upon how comprehensive the review is a referee report I received just last month for my and how quickly it is returned. This has made these latest book manuscript. reviews even more rigorous than the typical review. There is probably no harder part of scholarly life Believe me, I know. You may have noticed that I did than sending our work out for anonymous peer not write an introduction for the last issue. You may review. We pour our heart and soul into our work, have also noticed that an article of mine appeared in nurturing, digging, re-shaping our articles and our pages. This generated a whole lot of discussion books until we believe they are perfect. We carry and concern in our journal — how would it look for around the arguments we make and the evidence a new journal to publish an article by the chair of we’ve collected in our heads throughout the day, the editorial board? Did we have a process in place evaluating them at all hours, from when our heads to treat my article in as demanding, ethical, and hit the pillow at night to when we get into the shower thorough a way as anyone else’s? the next morning. As scholars, our arguments and To my (not always pleasant) surprise, we did. I can research both reflect who we are and how we see honestly say that my article went through the most the world. While we are intellectuals and pretend rigorous review process I have ever experienced we are completely objective, we (understandably) in over two decades of academic life. There were become deeply and personally attached to our four anonymous reviews, each well over two pages work. Our articles and books are like our children long, as well as intense internal review. All of the — we love them fiercely and, at times, irrationally, reviews were sharp and penetrating, with a raft often blind to the flaws that others see. This is what of (not always welcome) suggestions, but one in makes receiving negative reviews so unsettling, particular was especially harsh. I confess I may not especially for the young scholar. have handled the criticism in the most mature way. Stay in the business long enough, and you collect I pouted and suggested I might pull the piece and stories. Years ago, I submitted an article, “The Myth send it somewhere else, arguing that I had gotten of Flexible Response,” to a prestigious journal. One to a point in my career where I shouldn’t have to “anonymous” review was by someone who said he deal with this. Who was the “obvious” idiot TNSR was involved in the Kennedy administration policy had found to stand in judgment of my “obvious” process I was writing on and suggested that I had expertise? It was not my best moment, to say the no idea what I was talking about. The review was least. Ryan Evans — who in addition to being the handwritten and the journal forgot to remove the publisher is also one of my best friends — never initials — “CK” — at the end of the document. blinked. My piece, he stated calmly, would have to Since I had based much of my argument on the address all the criticisms if TNSR was to publish it. papers of Carl Kaysen and was quite familiar with And no, I would never find out who had reviewed his handwriting, the review was not especially my piece. After putting the article aside for a few anonymous. The journal passed on the piece. weeks, I swallowed my pride and went through Another review, which I later learned was written the critiques line by line and made the changes. by our most accomplished Cold War historian (note: Ryan and his outstanding team of editors worked no matter how hard we try not to, we all attempt to with me closely to improve the effort. The piece figure out the identity of our reviewers), asked, “Are was much better for it. And I still have no idea we sure the author does not suffer from dyslexia?” who the reviewers were, though I am grateful for 4 5 Introducing Vol. 2, Iss. 2 of TNSR: Clarity & Quagmire Reviewing Blues their extraordinary willingness to offer me honest to advance knowledge? Is the current system too Does your review offer helpful advice, demonstrate criticism and helpful recommendations (although easily gamed, or does it encourage scholars — empathy, and provide the author with guidance that reviewer number four would be an unlikely addition especially young thinkers at the height of their can help them move their project forward? And if to my holiday card list, as petty as that may be!). intellectual powers — to be risk-averse, to play the answers to these questions are “no,” might it be I tell this story for a few reasons. First, the small-ball, to write papers and books with the goal time to ask yourself some hard questions about who process of being evaluated and assessed never of getting through review, rather than expanding you are and why you are in this business? Truth be ends, no matter how long you stay in the academy. our understanding of the world? We all know the told, following the adage “don’t be a jerk” involves It is important for young people entering the reasons we have the current system, but I think it is no sacrifice of standards or smarts or rigor. Quite academy to know this. Criticism hurts deeply fair to ask whether it can be improved. Isaac Newton the contrary, in fact. and often feels unfair. To have your best work and Albert Einstein changed our understanding of Rest assured that the excellent scholarly dismissed by an unknown, anonymous voice can the world without it. Is double-blind peer review contributions in this volume went through such be devastating. The key is to remember that, no the worst way of evaluating scholarship, except all a process, and that we at TNSR are committed matter how unpleasant, the reviewer took the time the others? Or are there ways we can improve the to embracing the highest standards of scholarly to read your manuscript and take it seriously.