Targeting Civilians in War
Those who would rely on norms as a source of restraint in war even in the face of the developing frustration of wartime leaders desperate for a way out would do well to read Downes' Targeting Civilians in War. There is nothing new about abhorrence of the idea of victimizing civilians, yet as the strategic incentives pile up, restraints have generally turned out to be depressingly fragile. Like most contemporary American political scientists, Downes is obliged to explore whether certain categories of states, notably democracies, do better at maintaining restraint, but in the end, explanations based on strategic logic hold up better than those focused on regime type. If anything, when things get tough, democracies are less restrained than other states.
Related
William Shawcross shows how U.N. peacekeeping has failed but does not draw the obvious conclusion: the world's hot spots need U.S. intervention, and plenty of it.
The debates over Kosovo blurred the old divisions between liberals and conservatives, but they did not rise above an even older split in American politics and foreign policy: the enduring divide between a hawkish South and a dovish North. Regional differences based on culture and values have made Greater New England the heartland of opposition to foreign wars and the U.S. military establishment since the 1700s; they have also made the South a bastion of interventionism. All too often, the regional divides over U.S. foreign policy have just been a reprise of the Civil War -- and they are a recipe for paralysis.
Noel Malcolm's history of Serbia's flashpoint province is marred by his sympathies for its ethnic Albanian separatists, anti-Serbian bias, and illusions about the Balkans.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.