Coalitions, congressional-executive branch relations, and public opinion: A study of post-Cold War crisis management and the Persian Gulf crisis

The end of the Cold War has changed the international political system and this has changed the strategic landscape for the United States. Though a major threat has been removed, the new security environment has important implications for U.S, national security policy and military strategy. As the international system has changed from the bipolar international system of the Cold War, to a multi-polar system, so too have the types of international crises changed. Most post Cold War crises that the United States has faced, and will likely face in the future, are markedly different than those it dealt with between 1947 and 1989. In the post Cold War era, most crises will last weeks and months, focus on a specific region, and not threaten the survival of the United States. In addition, the end of the bipolar competition has also resulted in less alliance cohesion and no automatic response by U.S. allies to regional or indirect threats. As a result, there will be less consensus on how to respond, at home and abroad, to most post Cold War crises. This will make it more difficult for the President to develop and implement a successful crisis management strategy.; While there has been a great deal written on crises and crisis management, little attention has been paid to the differences between post Cold War and Cold War crises or how these differences influence how the crises are managed. To better understand post Cold War crises and post Cold War crisis management, the dissertation focuses on three factors—the impact of the international system on crises and crisis management, the powers of the President and Congress to develop and influence policy during crises, and how the structures of those branches of government affect the decision-making process. The isolation of these three factors provide a new perspective on crisis management.