Marines on the beach : the politics of U.S. military intervention decision making / Christopher Paul.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

Ch. 1. Introduction: The Politics of Military Intervention -- Ch. 2. Case Histories: U.S. Military Interventions in Central America and the Caribbean since 1945 -- Ch. 3. Theoretical Issues and Concepts: Governance and Context -- Ch. 4. U.S. National Interest and Foreign Policy Making -- Ch. 5. The Decision-Making Process: Who Participates, and How? -- Ch. 6. The Legacy of Previous Military Interventions for Decision Making in Subsequent Interventions -- Ch. 7. The Legitimacy of U.S. Military Interventions in Central America -- Ch. 8. Conclusions: Governance, Institutions, and Future U.S. Interventions.

Paul explores both how and why U.S. military intervention decisions are made. Pursuit of that inquiry requires the identification of decision participants thorough examination of the decision-making processes they employ and recognition of several factors that influence intervention decisions: the national interest, legitimacy, and the legacies of previous policies. This book provides chapter-length treatment of each of these issues. The research is based on detailed historical case studies for the four U.S. "Marines on the beach" military interventions in Latin America since World War II: The Dominican Republic (1965), Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), and Haiti (1994). Additional cases (notably Afghanistan and Iraq) enter the discussion when Paul considers findings with broader implications." "Of the existing theories of governance that compete to explain government policymaking, Paul finds that elite theory provides the best general model for intervention decision-making, but that the notions of both pluralist and class theorists contribute to a complete explanation, sometimes in an unexpected way. Findings also indicate considerable contribution from and constraint by institutional sources. However, far from finding that institutional factors are wholly deterministic, this research offers support for a "choice-within-constraints" model. Conclusions suggest that top decision-makers (especially the president) enjoy wide latitude in framing the national interest and in choosing whereto and where not to intervene.