English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Classic writings on political decision making with respect to war traditionally emphasize grand strategies. But such European generated theories are often inapplicable in less developed areas of the world, and in which nation building remains suspect and incomplete. This article emphasizes the difficulty in policy approaches that rest on older doctrines of total war and well defined victory or defeat. The new 21st century model often admits only of political indecisions and military constraints. All sectors of advanced societies such as the United States are thus involved in issues such as traditional customs, militant religions, and socioeconomic alignments that limit military actions. While issue of war and peace remain intact, and in many instances protracted over time, the need for revised practices on the ground have become a central need and concern of economically advanced nations. This makes for a search of effective and appropriate ways for the conduct of humane military actions coupled with democratic civilian ambitions. Where such ends are not feasible, then caution should prevail.

Political Indecision and Military Muddle in an Age of Grand Strategy