{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.05188141391106044, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0330672748004561, 'mean_word_length': 5.405109489051095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Organizing for Foreign Policy Crises: Presidents, Advisers, and the Management of Decision Making. By Haney Patrick J.. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997. 183p. $39.50.

Patrick J. Haney examines "the ways that U.S. presidents since World War II have organized and managed advisory groups during foreign policy crises and the ways that these groups, so structured, performed the tasks of providing information, advice, and analysis" (p. 1). Through this examination, Haney seeks to explore the links between structure and process, guided by the proposition that the "institutional model" established by the president "ought to have empirically discernible effects on the political process of decision making" (p. 47). To undertake this highly worthwhile effort, Haney uses a "case survey" method, which employs a set of questions to "interrogate" case studies of the Berlin airlift (1948), the Korea decision (1950), Dien Bien Phu (1954), Suez (1956), the Tonkin Gulf (1964), the Tet offensive (1968), civil war in Jordan (1970), the 1973 October War, and the Panama invasion (1989). The first group of questions is designed to reveal the organizational structure used by the president, relying on the "models" described by Richard Johnson (Managing the White House, 1974) and Alexander George (Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy, 1980). The second group of questions focuses on how well or poorly the advisory groups complete what Haney conceptualizes as the "generic tasks" of decision making (surveying objectives; canvassing alternatives; searching for information; processing new information; evaluating costs, risks, and implications of the preferred choice; and developing implementation, monitoring, and contingency plans).