Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences - Alexander L. George [102]
His six diagnostic tasks are: a definition of the new situation, facilitated by comparing it with a past one; a judgment of what is at stake; an implicit prescription as to how the new situation should be dealt with—i.e., the “solution” to the problem or type of policy response needed; an assessment of the moral acceptability of the implied prescription; an assessment of the likelihood of its success; and an estimate or warning of the dangers and risks of the implicit policy should it be adopted.
Khong labels this set of diagnostic tasks the Analogical Explanation (AE) Framework. He converts these six diagnostic tasks into a set of general standardized questions to be asked of each of the historical analogies; these are a central feature of his research design.396 The answers to these questions satisfy the data requirements for comparing the role the analogies played in information processing. The study, therefore, constitutes an explicit example of the method of structured, focused comparison: it is only by asking the same general questions of each case that systematic comparison becomes possible.
Khong establishes the implications that each of the three historical analogies had for these diagnostic tasks via process-tracing by making a careful analysis of the available historical record and through interviews with U.S. policymakers. He then employs the congruence method to assess the implications of each analogy’s answer to the six diagnostic tasks for the various policy options that were being considered at the time.
The question for Khong, then, was which of the various policy options under consideration were consistent with the diagnostic implications of the analogy and which were not. Khong employs a version of the congruence method discussed earlier in this chapter for each of the historical analogies. We reproduce in Figure 9.2 his analysis for the Korean analogy.397
Figure 9.2. The Lessons of Korea and the Option Chosen.
Having established the answers to the diagnostic tasks each analogy suggested, Khong then looks for congruity between an analogy’s diagnosis and the policy options that were under consideration by policymakers. According to Khong’s analysis, the Korean analogy’s answers to the six diagnostic tasks were highly consistent with the policy decision actually taken from December 1964 to February 1965 period to employ a “slow squeeze” version of graduated air attacks. But it was also consistent with a policy option calling for heavy, continuous bombing that was not taken. This left unanswered for the moment why the “slow squeeze” version of air attacks was chosen. A further challenge for analysis was raised by Khong’s finding that the Munich analogy had identical implications for these two policy options. Similar results emerged when the congruence method was used to compare the implications of the Korean and Munich analogies for the various policy options under consideration in July 1965.
Thus, as Khong notes, both historical analogies supported the case for either of the two options. But Khong argues persuasively that the Korean analogy was more influential in the two decisions of February and July. He arrives at this conclusion by attributing decisive importance to the different answers the two analogies provided for the sixth diagnostic task. The Korean analogy carried a strong fear that resort to the stronger of the two options in both February and 1965 would trigger Chinese intervention in the Korean War. This particular vision of the Korean War was deeply etched in the historical memory of U.S. policymakers in 1965. Khong cites ample