ABSTRACT
Civilian analysts of military affairs are often accused of not using logic, of using impressionistic or anecdotal information, and of being unsystematic in their methods. By and large, that is a justifiable criticism. Although the discipline of political science is becoming more and more theoretical, in general our conceptual frameworks are weak, our definitions are fuzzy, and very few of us employ a properly scientific approach; in other words, deriving a hypothesis, establishing a defensible methodology, seeking out evidence to confirm or contradict it with care, and reporting on the entire investigation. Could it be that such research is sought after neither by editors nor peers? Could it be that political scientists are sceptical of too much rationality and too much rigor?
