近幾年有許多關於美國在使用武力但尚未形成戰爭狀態的研究，但一個極重要的問題卻常在實證分析中被忽略，即是怎樣的外交政策目標會促使總統派遣軍力、武力？在眾多對於武力使用的研究當中，我發現了兩個基本的缺點：第一，當武力被使用時，我們幾乎只將焦點放在美國國內及國際環境的本質，而非研究美國外交政策目標在特定危機下被牽涉到的程度。第二，我們太常使用冷戰時期的資料來檢定我們的假設，而冷戰現已結束，對總統的決策而言，經濟、意識形態，及政治因素對於武力使用或許比安全的考量發揮了更大的影響。經由安全、經濟、意識形態與國內政治等四項武力使用的解釋因素所組成的基本理論命題，我發現，安全及意識形態與武力使用相關，而經濟及國際政治情勢則否。

Analyses of the use of military short of war by the United States have been legion in recent years, but one vital question has too often been neglected in our empirical research. What foreign policy goals cause presidents to dispatch the men, women and machines of the armed forces about the globe? I see two fundamental weaknesses in the extensive research on the use of force. First, rather than investigating to what extent U.S. foreign policy goals were engaged in particular crises, we have almost exclusively focused on the nature of the domestic and international environment at the time force was used. Second, too often we test our hypotheses using Cold War era data. Now that the Cold War is over, economic, ideological and political explanations for the use of force may exercise a greater impact on presidential decision making than security concerns. After outlining the basic theoretical propositions of four explanations of the use of force (security, economic, ideological and domestic political), I deduce specific predictions regarding the types of crisis conditions that would engage the foreign policy goals relevant to each. I find that security and ideological goals are related to the use of force, while economic and domestic political conditions are not.

軍事武力;美國外交政策;國際危機;國家安全;意識形態;政經情勢;冷戰時期

military force; United States foreign policy; international crisis; security; ideological; economic and domestic political conditions; cold war era