dc.contributor.author | Stokes, D | |
dc.contributor.author | waterman, K | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-24T09:52:00Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2017-06-12 | |
dc.description.abstract | Grand strategic theorists share an historical emphasis on interstate conflict. However,
of some two hundred and seventy-three US military deployments since 1900, only seven were
interstate conflicts. The rest were intrastate, domestic level engagements. We argue that these
intrastate conflicts limit the utility of regional balances of power in mitigating forms of conflict
that the US may consider inimical to its national security interests. When considering potential
changes to US force posture and grand strategy, American coercive statecraft should be theorised
along a broader strategic continuum encompassing the full range of conflict. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.citation | Published online: 12 Jun 2017 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2017.1330682 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/27220 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Taylor & Francis (Routledge) | en_GB |
dc.rights.embargoreason | Publisher's policy. | en_GB |
dc.title | Beyond balancing? Intrastate conflict and US grand strategy | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.identifier.issn | 0140-2390 | |
dc.description | Article | en_GB |
dc.description | This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Taylor & Francis (Routledge) via the DOI in this record. | |
dc.identifier.journal | Journal of Strategic Studies | en_GB |