Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dempsey remembers one of the secretaries of defense for whom he worked telling him stories about his time as an undergraduate at a prestigious Ivy League university. One of his most vivid memories was of \"movie night\" each Sunday when dorm rooms would empty into common areas and students would watch the movie of the week together. One of his classmates would always sit in the last row of seats and at some opportune moment in the movie scream out, \"What does it mean?\" As he described it, the outburst was always met with some combination of laughter and jeers, but he always marveled at his classmate's ability to pick just the right moment to make his noisy intervention. There is an analogy there somewhere about the topic of civil-military relations. After two decades of war, dramatic changes in the information environment, creeping and sometimes lurching political polarization.

In the seminalJust and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer famously considered the ethics of modern warfare, examining the moral issues that arise before, during, and after conflict. However, Walzer and subsequent scholars have often limited their analyses of the ethics of combat to soldiers on the ground and failed to recognize the moral responsibilities of senior political and military leaders. InJust War Reconsidered: Strategy, Ethics, and Theory,James M. Dubik draws on years of research as well as his own experiences as a soldier and teacher to fill the gaps left by other theorists. He applies moral philosophy, political philosophy, and strategic studies to historical and contemporary case studies to reveal the inaccuracies and moral bankruptcy that inform some of the literature on military ethics. Conventional just war theory adopts a binary approach, wherein political leaders have moral accountability for the decision to go to war and soldiers have accountability for fighting the war ethically. Dubik argues, however, that political and military leadership should be held accountable for the planning and execution of war in addition to the decision to initiate conflict. Dubik bases his sober reassessment on the fundamental truth that war risks the lives of soldiers and innocents as well as the political and social health of communities. He offers new standards to evaluate the ethics of warfare in the hope of increasing the probability that the lives of soldiers will not be used in vain and the innocent not put at risk unnecessarily.

Joining the Convention would provide legal certainty to our navigational freedoms and legitimacy to our maritime operations that customary law simply cannot. It would affirm critical navigational freedoms and reinforce the sovereign immunity of our warships as they conduct these operations. These include the right of transit through international straits, the right to exercise high seas freedoms in foreign exclusive economic zones, and the right of innocent passage through foreign territorial seas.

First things first, can you talk a little about what drew you to an MA in literature and to your project on the Irish Literary Revival? Commander Derek Handley: Sir, did you ever feel that you had to justify getting a master's in English to your peers in the Army? MD: Because we're all part of the same profession. What advice might you have, if any, for faculty teaching in the humanities? – what themes or skills do you feel we should highlight in our courses to prepare future military and civic leaders? MD: Because on the one hand, it's our responsibility to raise the youth in our field classically, if you will. [...]fewer people's fires are probably lit by a classical education than by one that might seem to be a little more contemporary.