Although a familiar phenomenon during the European balance- of- power era, the term "crisis management ," as it is known today, did not come into popular use until the late 1950s and early 1960s. A series of crises including Lebanon in 1958, the Congo in 1960, Berlin in 1961, and most important, the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, raised the possibility of nuclear conflict between the two superpowers. After the missile crisis, Secretary of Defense McNamara is said to have remarked, "Today there is no longer any such thing as military strategy; there is only crisis management." Although clearly an overstatement, this remark emphasized the critical role of the managerial aspect of the missile crisis. As a result, military and foreign policy matters and decisions, which formerly would have been settled in the field , were now increasingly referred to Washington. 1
Although the Dominican intervention did not fit the pattern of a conflict between clearly defined opponents using bargaining to control the crisis, many of the same principles and processes of crisis management were involved. This has led to the use, in this study, of crisis management and its many elements as a framework for the analysis of management problems involved in conducting a military intervention. The term management, as used in this case study, refers to how governmental managers employed U.S. resources during the intervention to achieve their political and military goals. Managerial processes and actions previously considered include information collection and decision-making. Other actions and processes discussed below include goal definition, management techniques, organization, direction, control, communications, command relationships, military planning, and military doctrine and missions. Certain necessary elements of successful, governmental management such as the administration of a public information program are considered beyond the scope of this study and have been omitted.