WHO ADVISES? POWER, POLITICS & PERSUASION IN FOREIGN POLICY DECISION-MAKING ...

295 Pages·2005·1.16 MB·English

WHO ADVISES? POWER, POLITICS & PERSUASION IN FOREIGN POLICY
DECISION-MAKING

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Brent A. Strathman, B.A., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University
2005

Dissertation Committee:
Approved by
Associate Professor Donald Sylvan, Adviser

Professor Richard K. Herrmann
___________________________
Professor Kathleen McGraw Adviser
Graduate Program in
Political Science

ABSTRACT

In a complex foreign policy system, involving myriad bureaucracies, advisors,
and political entrepreneurs, who advises? What advice is heeded, and which advisor is
followed? While most scholars tacitly acknowledge the importance of advisors in
international relations, few attempt to answer the question of how advisors impact the
decision making process, and the limits to successful advising. Importantly, the question
of (cid:145)who advises?(cid:146) is often crucial in explaining war and peace, since advisors often
impact leader opinions and dictate the course of foreign policy.
My dissertation blends insights from psychology and foreign policy to create a
comprehensive framework describing foreign policy advising. In my framework,
advisors compete against each other in a (cid:145)marketplace of ideas.(cid:146) Successful advisors are
those who draw from four bases of power (access, expertise, experience, and rhetoric) to
posit salient appeals. However, these appeals are constrained by leader dispositions (such
as militant assertiveness and political knowledge) and the strategic situation (the foreign
policy problem a decision maker faces). I construct a set of hypotheses that combines
bases of power, leader predispositions, strategic situation, and advisory technique to
predict when advisors matter.
I use experiments and comparative case studies to empirically explore these
hypotheses. Experiments engage the psychological dimension of advising by exploring
the impact of advice across personality types. Insights from the experiment are combined
with the theoretical model, and applied to four cases of Presidential decision-making: the
ii
capture of the USS Pueblo, the capture of the USS Mayaguez, the decision to send troops
to Lebanon, and the decision to not send troops to Rwanda. I trace the decision-making
process using primary and secondary sources, and discover the influence wielded by
Presidential advisors. Results suggest important paradoxes; for example, Presidents often
ignore the advice of their expert military advisors.
My dissertation is the first systematic study of advisory influence in Presidential
decision-making, drawing from numerous fields of inquiry to construct a novel
framework to examine foreign policy. Initial findings suggest new, counterintuitive
hypotheses for future study.
iii
Dedicated to
Biddy & Peanut
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Studying political science was an accident for me. As a wide-eyed undergraduate
at the University of Kansas, I studied physics and astronomy; the study of politics was a
hobby of mine, an amusement. If a roommate had not convinced me to take a
comparative politics course to fulfill a GEC requirement (though the probable reason was
to meet female undergraduates (cid:150) a rare commodity in the science curriculum), I would
not have discovered the intellectual pursuit of politics. What a long, strange trip it has
been.
Like many others, this dissertation was not a lonely enterprise, but a product of
generous help and advice. Without the introduction to the discipline I received at Kansas,
the initial enthusiasm would have been subsumed by secondary pursuits. Scholars (cid:150) such
as Paul D(cid:146)Anieri, Ryan Beasley, Juliet Kaarbo, and Leonardo Villalon (cid:150) piqued my
interest, providing background and encouragement. At Ohio State, a number of graduate
student colleagues provided thoughts, comments, suggestions, and often a partner at the
bar. I thank Ray Block, Eileen Braman, Paul Fritz, Natalie Kistner, Greg Miller, and
Kevin Sweeney for their insight, wit, and fellowship.
Further, the input and suggestions of the dissertation committee immeasurably
improved the text. Kathleen McGraw provided sorely needed advice on data analysis and
interpretations of the experimental data. Indeed, without her help, the experimental
chapter would continue to be a warren of analyses without a consistent focus. More
v
generally, Richard Herrmann(cid:146)s insight and commentary throughout the project centered
the theoretical and empirical analysis of the project. Again, without Rick(cid:146)s suggestions
and input, the following text would be incomplete and rife with errors.
I want to give a special thanks to my chair, Don Sylvan. I first met Don during
graduate school recruitment. After the initial pleasantries were exchanged, our
conversation quickly devolved to more important matters (cid:150) college basketball and the
Cubs. I knew from that moment Ohio State was the place for me. Don has been a
constant inspiration and font of insight and advice throughout my graduate career.
Without his patience and understanding, this project would not be in its finished form
today.
Finally, I want to thank my family for their support and encouragement. A
running joke in the Strathman family is to call me (cid:145)Doctor.(cid:146) Of course, the unstated
subtext of the ribbing focused on the mismatch between the status of the title, and the
unfinished nature of the dissertation. The joke is (finally) on them.

vi
VITA

February 25, 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Born (cid:150) Seneca, Kansas

1998 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B.A. Political Science & Astronomy
University of Kansas

2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M.A. Political Science
University of Kansas

2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M.A. Political Science
The Ohio State University

2000 - present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Graduate Teaching & Research Assistant
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University

PUBLICATIONS

1. Don Sylvan and Brent Strathman, (cid:147)Political Psychology and the Study of Foreign
Policy Decision Making(cid:148) in The State of Research in Political Psychology at the Dawn of
a New Century, Linda O. Valenty,ed. Opladen, Germany : Leske and Budrich, 2004.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Political Science
Minor Fields: International Relations, Political Psychology

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Abstract .(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)..ii
Dedication .(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133).iv
Acknowledgments (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133).vi
Vita (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)...vii
List of Tables (cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133)(cid:133).xi

Chapters:

1. Who Advises? Dynamics of the Inner Circle ..................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 The Advisory System .................................................................................... 4
1.3 The Political Advisor .................................................................................... 9
1.4 Plan of the Dissertation .................................................................................14

2. A Theoretical Framework of Advising ................................................................20

2.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................20
2.2 Politics & Structure of the Foreign Policy Hierarchy ...................................24
2.3 Power ............................................................................................................32
2.4 Persuasion .....................................................................................................41
2.4.1 Bureaucratic Politics ......................................................................43
2.4.2 Cognitive Representation Approach ..............................................46
2.4.3 Bargaining, or Strategic Signaling .................................................51
2.4.4 Access ............................................................................................52
2.5 A Framework of Advisory Influence ............................................................53
2.6 Methodology .................................................................................................60
2.7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................64

3. The Psychology of Persuasion & Limits to Advice .............................................72

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................72
3.2 Leader Dispositions and Decision Making ...................................................74
3.2.1 Completeness of the Mental Image ................................................78
3.2.2 Content of the Mental Picture & Content of the prescription ........79
3.2.3 Advisory Strategies ........................................................................81
3.2.4 Control variable: the motivation to process information ...............84
3.3 Experimental Protocol and Hypotheses ........................................................86
viii
3.3.1 Method ...........................................................................................86
3.3.2 Procedures ......................................................................................86
3.3.3 Measurement of the Dependent Variable ......................................87
3.3.4 Hypotheses .....................................................................................88
3.3.4.1 Invoking expertise ...........................................................88
3.3.4.2 Simplification & embellishment .....................................90
3.3.4.3 Flip-flopping ...................................................................90
3.3.4.4 Addition & subtraction ...................................................91
3.3.4.5 Consensus building .........................................................91
3.3.4.6 Delimiting impact of dispositions ...................................92
3.4 Experimental Results ....................................................................................93
3.4.1 General Results ..............................................................................93
3.4.2 Predicting Initial Choice ................................................................94
3.4.3 Explaining Change .........................................................................95
3.4.4 Interactions .....................................................................................98
3.5 Chapter Summary .........................................................................................99
3.5.1 Revisiting hypotheses ...................................................................100
3.5.2 Do Advisory Strategies Create Change? .......................................103
3.5.3 What is the Impact of Personality Dispositions? ..........................103
3.5.4 Why did few of the expectations hold? .........................................104
3.6 Conclusion ...................................................................................................105

4. Case Study: Advisors & Crisis Decision Making (cid:150) USS Pueblo and USS
Mayaguez ............................................................................................................114

4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................114
4.2 The Capture of the USS Pueblo ...................................................................116
4.2.1 Background ...................................................................................116
4.2.2 Advisors and their Preferences .....................................................118
4.2.3 President Johnson: Preferences and Dispositions ........................120
4.2.4 The Decision Making Process ......................................................122
4.2.5 Analysis: Successful Advising .....................................................139
4.2.6 Analysis: Failed Advising ............................................................141
4.3 The Capture of the USS Mayaguez ..............................................................142
4.3.1 Background ...................................................................................142
4.3.2 Advisors and their Preferences .....................................................143
4.3.3 President Ford: Preferences and Dispositions ..............................145
4.3.4 The Decision Making Process ......................................................146
4.3.5 Analysis: Successful Advising .....................................................155
4.3.6 Analysis: Failed Advising ............................................................158
4.4 Conclusions and Lessons .............................................................................160

ix