Fluent Essays

Prompt: Reflective Response to Kindsvatter, Peter S. American Soldiers: Explain how leadership affects combat compliance5 full pages, MLA format.Cite the sources of your facts and arguments using in-text citations that include the author, year, and page. Please use specific citations. It makes it look like you are analyzing the actual texts, which makes it look like you care.MUST use the notes I provided(attached)! Outside sources also welcomed. Cite the notes (Magagna Notes Week X)Your Source: Kindsvatter, Peter S. American Soldiers. Kansas, 2003.https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LC_PyxpcGoM4z-E0I...Follow these basics carefully!Writing Basics:Most papers have a simple tripartite structure: (1) tell your readers what you’re going to tell them, (2) tell them, and (3) tell them what you told them. The bulk of the paper should be devoted to (2). (1), also known as the introduction, and (3), also known as the conclusion, should function as bookends.Make the introduction brief. Explain the issues that you are going to discuss and the position that you are going to defend. Avoid banal phrases and fillerMake sure the paper has direction. Your claims should all be relevant and consistent and should support your position. Consider obvious alternatives and objections to your position or argument. You needn’t pretend to be certain at every point, but, if you are uncertain, give reasons for being uncertain.It is generally best to assume that your reader is an intelligent person who has read fairly little philosophy but has read the material in question. Avoid unnecessary jargon and explain most technical terms and concepts.Write simple, direct sentences. Whenever possible, use the active voice. Avoid pretentious or banal phrases and personal references or apologies, such as “I feel” or “of course, it’s only a matter of opinion”. Also avoid vague phrases, such as “x involves/connects up with/relates to y”. Explain what is related to what and what the relationship is.Do not quote unnecessarily. Unless you are discussing a difficult or central passage, where quotation is appropriate, paraphrase is more appropriate and better demonstrates your grasp of the material.If you quote or paraphrase closely, use some standard form of reference to document your source. You should refer your readers to passages in the texts you are discussing even when you are not quoting directly.Use some standard citation format. One such format is to give full publication details in a footnote when you first refer to a given work. If you are going to make further reference to that work, you might indicate in that first footnote that further references to this work will be included parenthetically in the text. And then further references should observe this rule. Alternatively, you might append a Bibliography or Works Cited page at the end of your paper that gives full publication details for all the works to which you refer or on which you draw. If so, then all references in the body of the text could be parenthetical references employing author and title or author and year of publication.Document your intellectual debts to internet sources as you should any other primary or secondary source.When you are finished, proofread your paper for coherence of argument, grammar, punctuation, and spelling. It pays to correct errors of this kind. must_use__notes.docx Unformatted Attachment Preview Week 3 Notes: Major powers can be assumed to start a systemic war if it is in decline or opportunistically seeks to exploit a temporary advantage. The difficult problem is to predict the behavior of an ascending major power. In principle an ascending major power has no incentive to initiate war because it can wait until its power is sufficient to dominate its system. However,this makes the rising power an objective threat to its system,particularly if it has hegemonic potential ,and this perceived threat will trigger counterbalancing adversary coalitions .This generates an incentive for the ascending power to pre empt this threat by striking first. Germany fits the above description and calls into question Fromkin portrayal as a war state. The puzzle of Austria Hungary. One aspect of ww1 that makes it a least likely case is the behavior of Austria Hungary in 1914 As the weakest of the five great powers, its leaders had the most to lose from a major systemic war because defeat or even the defeat of Russia,its most significant adversary,could cause political collapse and the end of the state.Given minimal rationality and a correct perception of its enemies pay offs from war and peace ,one might assume that the balance of costs and benefits would favor peace( the status quo) or bargaining. However Austria chose war with Serbia even though doing so would likely lead to Russian intervention and systemic war. But this choice was rational if decision makers correctly believed that any other choice was equivalent to defeat and the death of the state War with Serbia could potentially end its primary threat and restore the balance of power by reversing its decline. Note that this explanation does not depend on German behavior and focuses on Austria Hungary’s rational perception that the benefits of war outweighed the costs. (R=benefits of war exceed net costs. This is a rational gamble and illustrates the danger to European peace of a balance of power that deepened on a declining major power facing major power adversaries. Week 5 Notes: Most of the literature on war focuses on major wars because they re shape entire systems and reconfigure the balance of power. However,most wars statistically are major minor power wars that involve a major power attack ona minor power that refuses the demands of the major power. Serbia’s decision to fight Austria is an example. What is theoretically interesting is that such wars should never occur. This is because the minor power should always accept a bargain short of war. The minor power should bargain because. it cannot defeat the major power but it can be defeated while the major power can gain while not paying the costs of war. But this logic will be overridden if the minor power sees the benefits of war as greater than the net costs. This will be true if any bargain acceptable to the major power threatens the survival of the minor power and it is a give that any state will fight if it can rather than accept a loss of sovereignty. Consider this situation. The major power makes demands that of the conflict. threaten the independence of a minor power.The latter faces a stark choice between peace and war and controls the outcome of the conflict. If the minor power chooses war the major power chooses war The major power bargains only if the minor power offers a bargain with sure benefits that exceed the sure benefitsof war. The major power is indifferent between the minimum benefits of war and an equivalent bargain. The minor power will choose war if any feasible bargain threatens the minor powers survival and there is acrdible belief that the minor pews population will pay the costs of war. Week 6 notes: Most of the literature on war focuses on major wars because they re shape entire systems and reconfigure the balance of power. However,most wars statistically are major minor power wars that involve a major power attack ona minor power that refuses the demands of the major power. Serbia’s decision to fight Austria is an example. What is theoretically interesting is that such wars should never occur. This is because the minor power should always accept a bargain short of war. The minor power should bargain because. it cannot defeat the major power but it can be defeated while the major power can gain while not paying the costs of war. But this logic will be overridden if the minor power sees the benefits of war as greater than the net costs. This will be true if any bargain acceptable to the major power threatens the survival of the minor power and it is a give that any state will fight if it can rather than accept a loss of sovereignty. Consider this situation. The major power makes demands that of the conflict. threaten the independence of a minor power.The latter faces a stark choice between peace and war and controls the outcome of the conflict. If the minor power chooses war the major power chooses war The major power bargains only if the minor power offers a bargain with sure benefits that exceed the sure benefitsof war. The major power is indifferent between the minimum benefits of war and an equivalent bargain. The minor power will choose war if any feasible bargain threatens the minor powers survival and there is acrdible belief that the minor pews population will pay the costs of war. Week 8 notes: Domestic commitment is equivalent to the opportunity cost domestic politiciansand populations are willing to pay to fight war in general and any specific war. The most significant point is that commitment has increased even though war has become more costly over time. Combat compliance is the range of incentives combats have toco ply with commands. This should be predictable on the basis of the measurable level of domestic commitment. ... Purchase answer to see full attachment