- Mark Twain on War and Imperialism (sources and quotes), including "The Flag is Not Polluted" (1901)
Monday, May 4, 2009
Luke
Christina
Glenn P. Hastedt, American Foreign Policy- Alternative Futures
"We ask three questions of each alternative future:
1. What is the primary threat to U.S. national security?
2. What responsibility does the U.S. have to other states?
3. What responsibility does the U.S. have to the global community?"
1. ORDINARY STATE
The U.S. should conduct itself as an ordinary state, wherein the U.S. does not undertake tasks that most other states would not undertake.
Threat- the greatest threat to U.S. security is trying to undertake too much.
Responsibility to other states- should be proportionate to the responsibility they have towards us.
Responsibility to the global community- the only responsibility that the U.S. has to the global community is to be a good global citizen, and nothing else.
Precepts of this perspective:
- A denial of American uniqueness
- Multilateralism (and a decided break from unilateral action)
- International influence more highly dependent upon economics, diplomacy, and technology.
- Three tasks for the global community to undertake: bringing a balance between Russia and the West, bringing a balance between Arab oil producers and consuming states, and bringing a balance between rich and poor states.
2. REFORMED AMERICA
Historically, America has had to choose between two motivations: imperialist leanings and democratic ideals. This perspective holds that in the past, imperialism too often won out and the U.S. should let its foreign policy be informed by democracy above all else.
Threat- continued fixation on military problems and attachment to power politics thinking
Responsibility to other states- promote democracy globally, and aid democratic allies.
Responsibility to the global community- imposing democracy everywhere, especially using means such as economic sanctions (although these are often criticized as being even more deadly than military interventions) and humanitarian interventions.
3. GLOBAL MANAGER
This perspective holds that the power-politics that formerly dominated U.S. foreign policy are no longer relevant, and a new perspective based on issues of global economics and globalization is in order. In this perspective, the U.S. should seek to maintain its economic superiority in the world market.
Threat- the primary threats to the U.S. are economic in nature, and stem from economic competition from other nations.
Responsibility to other states- help other states deal with economic problems, but don't solve these problems for them.
Responsibility to the global community- this responsibility is great, because the U.S.'s own economic well-being is inseparable from the well-being of other states.
4. PRAGMATIC AMERICA
This perspective holds that the U.S. can no longer afford foreign policies that are on the either extreme end of the political spectrum. It is argued that "selectivity" and moderation should inform our foreign policy decisions.
Threat- continues to be military in nature.
Responsibility to other states- should be selected on the basis of threats that would lessen American security.
Responsibility to the global community- limited.
5. NEO-CONTAINMENT
This perspective holds that world politics continues to be governed by military power politics, and that certain other nations constitute threats that must be contained (some argue that this nation is still Russia, other argue that it is China or Japan).
Threat- U.S. military power should be built up in case of future conflicts with a potentially hostile superpower.
Responsibility to other states- limited to core allies.
Responsibility to the global community- minimal.
6. TRIUMPHANT AMERICA
This position holds that America emerged triumphant from the cold war as the global leader, and that the the U.S. constitutes the unipolar power in the world, with the alternative to American supremacy being chaos (due to the proliferation of WMDs- Iraq, North Korea, and Libya are perceived as prototypical threats).
Threat- proliferation of WMDs.
Responsibility to other states- limited and determined by American interests.
Responsibility to the global community- make and enforce rules to fend off chaos.
7. AMERICAN CRUSADER
Similar to the Triumphant America perspective, but differs in that the U.S. should "aspire to a condition of perfect safety from foreign threats" rather than becoming complacent in its military superiority.
Threat- there are real and immediate threats to American security which much be unconditionally defeated.
Responsibility to other states- the U.S. should help other states, because increasing their security increases American security.
Responsibility to the global community- great.
8. AMERICA THE BALANCER
This perspective holds that a multipolar distribution of power is inevitable,and that the U.S. should move away from unilateralism and be prepared to work with other nations or take on global problems that threaten the U.S. or require its involvement.
Threat- the proliferation of security commitments designed to protect America's economic interests are actually detrimental to American security.
Responsibility to other states- limited.
Responsibility to the global community- limited.
Precepts of this perspective:
- A multipolar distribution of power is inevitable, and attemps to assert American dominance will be futile. Thus, there is little reason for the U.S. to make a routine of always involving itself in the problems of others.
9. DISENGAGED AMERICA
This perspective holds that the U.S. should selectively and thoroughly withdraw from world affairs because the rest of the world has "become increasingly inhospitable to U.S. values and unresponsive to efforts at management or domination." Moreover, the U.S. is perceived to have relatively little impact or potential for effecting change in many world affairs, such as global hunger and the tihrd world. In particular, "military power should no longer be employed to further human rights or economic principles beyond American borders. Instead... American foreign policy should concentrate on protecting American lives and property."
Threat- overactive foreign policy.
Responsibility to other states- minimal.
Responsibility to the global community-minimal.
"We ask three questions of each alternative future:
1. What is the primary threat to U.S. national security?
2. What responsibility does the U.S. have to other states?
3. What responsibility does the U.S. have to the global community?"
1. ORDINARY STATE
The U.S. should conduct itself as an ordinary state, wherein the U.S. does not undertake tasks that most other states would not undertake.
Threat- the greatest threat to U.S. security is trying to undertake too much.
Responsibility to other states- should be proportionate to the responsibility they have towards us.
Responsibility to the global community- the only responsibility that the U.S. has to the global community is to be a good global citizen, and nothing else.
Precepts of this perspective:
- A denial of American uniqueness
- Multilateralism (and a decided break from unilateral action)
- International influence more highly dependent upon economics, diplomacy, and technology.
- Three tasks for the global community to undertake: bringing a balance between Russia and the West, bringing a balance between Arab oil producers and consuming states, and bringing a balance between rich and poor states.
2. REFORMED AMERICA
Historically, America has had to choose between two motivations: imperialist leanings and democratic ideals. This perspective holds that in the past, imperialism too often won out and the U.S. should let its foreign policy be informed by democracy above all else.
Threat- continued fixation on military problems and attachment to power politics thinking
Responsibility to other states- promote democracy globally, and aid democratic allies.
Responsibility to the global community- imposing democracy everywhere, especially using means such as economic sanctions (although these are often criticized as being even more deadly than military interventions) and humanitarian interventions.
3. GLOBAL MANAGER
This perspective holds that the power-politics that formerly dominated U.S. foreign policy are no longer relevant, and a new perspective based on issues of global economics and globalization is in order. In this perspective, the U.S. should seek to maintain its economic superiority in the world market.
Threat- the primary threats to the U.S. are economic in nature, and stem from economic competition from other nations.
Responsibility to other states- help other states deal with economic problems, but don't solve these problems for them.
Responsibility to the global community- this responsibility is great, because the U.S.'s own economic well-being is inseparable from the well-being of other states.
4. PRAGMATIC AMERICA
This perspective holds that the U.S. can no longer afford foreign policies that are on the either extreme end of the political spectrum. It is argued that "selectivity" and moderation should inform our foreign policy decisions.
Threat- continues to be military in nature.
Responsibility to other states- should be selected on the basis of threats that would lessen American security.
Responsibility to the global community- limited.
5. NEO-CONTAINMENT
This perspective holds that world politics continues to be governed by military power politics, and that certain other nations constitute threats that must be contained (some argue that this nation is still Russia, other argue that it is China or Japan).
Threat- U.S. military power should be built up in case of future conflicts with a potentially hostile superpower.
Responsibility to other states- limited to core allies.
Responsibility to the global community- minimal.
6. TRIUMPHANT AMERICA
This position holds that America emerged triumphant from the cold war as the global leader, and that the the U.S. constitutes the unipolar power in the world, with the alternative to American supremacy being chaos (due to the proliferation of WMDs- Iraq, North Korea, and Libya are perceived as prototypical threats).
Threat- proliferation of WMDs.
Responsibility to other states- limited and determined by American interests.
Responsibility to the global community- make and enforce rules to fend off chaos.
7. AMERICAN CRUSADER
Similar to the Triumphant America perspective, but differs in that the U.S. should "aspire to a condition of perfect safety from foreign threats" rather than becoming complacent in its military superiority.
Threat- there are real and immediate threats to American security which much be unconditionally defeated.
Responsibility to other states- the U.S. should help other states, because increasing their security increases American security.
Responsibility to the global community- great.
8. AMERICA THE BALANCER
This perspective holds that a multipolar distribution of power is inevitable,and that the U.S. should move away from unilateralism and be prepared to work with other nations or take on global problems that threaten the U.S. or require its involvement.
Threat- the proliferation of security commitments designed to protect America's economic interests are actually detrimental to American security.
Responsibility to other states- limited.
Responsibility to the global community- limited.
Precepts of this perspective:
- A multipolar distribution of power is inevitable, and attemps to assert American dominance will be futile. Thus, there is little reason for the U.S. to make a routine of always involving itself in the problems of others.
9. DISENGAGED AMERICA
This perspective holds that the U.S. should selectively and thoroughly withdraw from world affairs because the rest of the world has "become increasingly inhospitable to U.S. values and unresponsive to efforts at management or domination." Moreover, the U.S. is perceived to have relatively little impact or potential for effecting change in many world affairs, such as global hunger and the tihrd world. In particular, "military power should no longer be employed to further human rights or economic principles beyond American borders. Instead... American foreign policy should concentrate on protecting American lives and property."
Threat- overactive foreign policy.
Responsibility to other states- minimal.
Responsibility to the global community-minimal.
Christina
Brezezinski and Snowcroft in the Far East, p 113-156
The general theme to this discussion was that the need for U.S./Asian relations to be characterized by openness, flexibility, and respect.
CHINA
Snowcroft and Brzezinski both believe there is reason to be optimistic about America's relationship with China in the future and China's role in the global affairs of the near future. Some reasons they cite for this optimism are as follows:
1. "Chinese leadership is not guided by some Manichaean ideology in which their future depends on the imposition of their value system on the world... they're guided much more by the thought that they have to be part of the world..."
2. The post-WWII political landscape is perceived as a "new world order governed by open systems" in which open discourse is encouraged and secrecy is no longer a motivation for China, who has come to realize that they need the rest of the world (for raw materials, for the global market, etc). "China wants to join the system, and it just happens to be a system that pretty open and congenial..."
3. Both sides of the U.S./China relationship realize that there is much to lose if they do not conduct themselves carefully and respectfully.
4. Chinese leadership is committed to the following:
-learning to be a part of the larger global system
-modernization and infusion of its existing political structure with democracy
-Brzezinski cites a yearly conference for top Chinese officials as a reason why he believes
these things. At this conference, leaders attend lectures with titles such as "Better Understanding of the World Economy and Globalization", "Overview of World History with an Emphasis on the Rise and Fall of Imperial Powers", etc.
5. Throughout Chinese history, the Chinese have rarely acted on internal instability by reacting with outward aggression.
However, Brzezinski also states that if there is a domestic upheaval in China, things could be potentially disastrous for everyone. Potential areas of upheaval are said to include the rural element, Tibetan nationals in China, overpopulation and its impact on the increasing unemployed population, etc.
THE GREATER EAST ASIA CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE
When Ignatius asks "Even as China solves its problems with its neighbors, it becomes more of a regional superpower. Should we worry about that?" Brzezinski replied that the U.S. should worry about a bloc of East Asian powers insofar that it signified a diminished American role in the Far East.
NORTH KOREA
North Korea's nuclear status is discussed:
- NK has the capacity to manufacture plutonium nukes (from reprocessed fuel) which are not as dangerous as enriched uranium nukes.
- In addition, plutonium nukes are difficult to manage and not always very effective.
- For those reasons, NK's nuclear test was largely a failure.
China is cited by Brzezinski as the critical player in enforcing any North Korean compliance in nuclear regulations (by making it clear to the North Koreans that they could not count on Chinese support if push came to shove). Brezinski also advocates patience in relations with North Korea, arguing that "unless we are prepared to go to war with North Korea, it's better to have this partial agreement whereby they have some weapons, bu tthey are so unreliable that it would be crazy to start a war with them."
INDIA
Brzezinski worries that the nuclear deal the U.S. signed with India wherein fourteen reactors are excluded from international control constitutes a "preferential and selective proliferation" which damages U.S. credibility.
Brzezinski also argues that India is a "remarkable success as a democracy, but it's also a deceptive success" because "India's social disparities are far more acute than China's... Once the masses begin to be motivated by their personal or group preferences, ethnic dislikes, religious phobias, and social resentments, India could be a very troubled place."
U.S. DEBT TO ASIA
Ignatius poses the concern that Chinese and Japanese loans to offset American debts may be used as leverage in the future, that this trillion dollar debt to Asia might make the U.S. vulnerable.
Snowcroft argues that this does not constitute a huge concern in terms of security because the Chinese can't use American debt as a weapon against the U.S. without destroying their own wealth. In addition, he argues that "international business is moving from a vertical model... to a horizontal model in which so-called Japanese cars are being built in South Carolina and there is no such thing as an American car or Japanese car."
The general theme to this discussion was that the need for U.S./Asian relations to be characterized by openness, flexibility, and respect.
CHINA
Snowcroft and Brzezinski both believe there is reason to be optimistic about America's relationship with China in the future and China's role in the global affairs of the near future. Some reasons they cite for this optimism are as follows:
1. "Chinese leadership is not guided by some Manichaean ideology in which their future depends on the imposition of their value system on the world... they're guided much more by the thought that they have to be part of the world..."
2. The post-WWII political landscape is perceived as a "new world order governed by open systems" in which open discourse is encouraged and secrecy is no longer a motivation for China, who has come to realize that they need the rest of the world (for raw materials, for the global market, etc). "China wants to join the system, and it just happens to be a system that pretty open and congenial..."
3. Both sides of the U.S./China relationship realize that there is much to lose if they do not conduct themselves carefully and respectfully.
4. Chinese leadership is committed to the following:
-learning to be a part of the larger global system
-modernization and infusion of its existing political structure with democracy
-Brzezinski cites a yearly conference for top Chinese officials as a reason why he believes
these things. At this conference, leaders attend lectures with titles such as "Better Understanding of the World Economy and Globalization", "Overview of World History with an Emphasis on the Rise and Fall of Imperial Powers", etc.
5. Throughout Chinese history, the Chinese have rarely acted on internal instability by reacting with outward aggression.
However, Brzezinski also states that if there is a domestic upheaval in China, things could be potentially disastrous for everyone. Potential areas of upheaval are said to include the rural element, Tibetan nationals in China, overpopulation and its impact on the increasing unemployed population, etc.
THE GREATER EAST ASIA CO-PROSPERITY SPHERE
When Ignatius asks "Even as China solves its problems with its neighbors, it becomes more of a regional superpower. Should we worry about that?" Brzezinski replied that the U.S. should worry about a bloc of East Asian powers insofar that it signified a diminished American role in the Far East.
NORTH KOREA
North Korea's nuclear status is discussed:
- NK has the capacity to manufacture plutonium nukes (from reprocessed fuel) which are not as dangerous as enriched uranium nukes.
- In addition, plutonium nukes are difficult to manage and not always very effective.
- For those reasons, NK's nuclear test was largely a failure.
China is cited by Brzezinski as the critical player in enforcing any North Korean compliance in nuclear regulations (by making it clear to the North Koreans that they could not count on Chinese support if push came to shove). Brezinski also advocates patience in relations with North Korea, arguing that "unless we are prepared to go to war with North Korea, it's better to have this partial agreement whereby they have some weapons, bu tthey are so unreliable that it would be crazy to start a war with them."
INDIA
Brzezinski worries that the nuclear deal the U.S. signed with India wherein fourteen reactors are excluded from international control constitutes a "preferential and selective proliferation" which damages U.S. credibility.
Brzezinski also argues that India is a "remarkable success as a democracy, but it's also a deceptive success" because "India's social disparities are far more acute than China's... Once the masses begin to be motivated by their personal or group preferences, ethnic dislikes, religious phobias, and social resentments, India could be a very troubled place."
U.S. DEBT TO ASIA
Ignatius poses the concern that Chinese and Japanese loans to offset American debts may be used as leverage in the future, that this trillion dollar debt to Asia might make the U.S. vulnerable.
Snowcroft argues that this does not constitute a huge concern in terms of security because the Chinese can't use American debt as a weapon against the U.S. without destroying their own wealth. In addition, he argues that "international business is moving from a vertical model... to a horizontal model in which so-called Japanese cars are being built in South Carolina and there is no such thing as an American car or Japanese car."
Christina
- Trita Parsi, "A Challenge to Israel's Strategic Primacy," Bitter Lemons, 2006
Parsi argues that Israel has been applying pressure to the US to neutralize Iran's nuclear program and that the following are the reasons why Israel would like to eradicate Iran's nuclear capabilities and the motivations behind Israel's insistence that Iran not be allowed to possess enriched uranium (although this fits within the parameters of the non-proliferation treaty):
1. Although Israeli officials realize that Iran is unlikely to attack Israel with nuclear weapons (because of Israel's capability to strike back devastatingly), Iranian nuclear capabilities damage Israel's military supremacy in the region.
2. If Iran possess nuclear weapons, this will impair Israel's ability to deter militant Palestinian and Lebanese organizations.
3. The power that Iran would gain with possession of such weapons would give Iran considerable leverage with the US, who has already collaborated with Iran in the post 9-11 period (Iranian support of US forays into Afghanistan). Parsi points out that leaked Israeli plans to strike against Iran's nuclear program coincide with hints of American preparedness to strike deals with Iran, not with advances in Iran's nuclear program.
4. Iran would gain strategic significance in the Middle East.
Christina
- Wayne White, Iran: best to avoid another Gulf crisis, Middle East Institute, 2007
Leaks in January of 2007 suggested that Israel was considering the use of nuclear weapons to try and damage Iran's nuclear infrastructure. White argues it would be "sheer folly" for the U.S. to take preemptive action against Iran's nuclear program for the following reasons:
- this could destabilize the Persian Gulf and Iraq
- this could cause a spike in oil prices
- the U.S. is already bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan
- the operation would necessarily be messy, involving strikes against widely dispersed nuclear targets, air defenses, anti-ship missiles, submarines, etc.
- this sort of campaign would likely take a week and utilize enormous financial and military resources
-Iran might retaliate in any way possible, including:
-attacking US fleets or commercial ships with anti-ship missiles
- launching missiles at countries that the Tehran would "view as complicit in such an attack."
- wreaking havoc in Iraq by utilizing connections with allies in Iraq's Shi'a militias or staging attacks
using Iranian military in Iraq.
In addition, White argues that although the Tehran's leadership is unpopular among many in Iran, the general Iranian population would likely rally to the defense of their country and strengthen the regime, rather than taking the opportunity to criticize the regime.
Luke
- "Israel reveals secrets of how it gained bomb" - Foreign Minister Shimon Peres' revelations on TV in 2001.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Christina
History of Israeli Nuclear Systems
Federation of American Scientists
Israeli nuclear capabilities center around the Dimona heavy water reactor at the Negev Nuclear Research Center. This facility was built in 1958 with French assistance and currently has the capacity to produce enough plutonium to make five-ten nuclear warheads a year.
"Many analysts believe that Israel maintains a nuclear arsenal that is stored but not armed, requiring some preparation for use. This allows for the oft-repeated mantra that 'Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region". It is argued that Israel produces and maintains nuclear weapons largely for a deterrent effect- "An A-bomb that is believed to be 'only a screwdriver away' is nearly as effective a deterrent as one openly brandished."
History of the Israeli nuclear activity:
1958- Dimona heavy water reactor and nuclear research facility built secretly with French assistance
1959-1963- Israel imports heavy water from France, Norway, and the United States to start the reactor.
1973- According to some reports, Israeli PM Golda Meir ordered the outfitting of Phantom II aircrafts with nuclear bombs to prepare for strike during the Yom Kippur War. However, these were never deployed, as the war very quickly turned in Israel's favor.
1979- alleged joint Israeli/ South African nuclear test in the Indian Ocean.
1986- photos and descriptions of the secret facility published in London Sunday times by Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, which lead to the speculation that Israel had a stockpile of 100-200 nuclear devices.
1990s Gulf War- Israel's "nuclear posture" shifts- references to potential nuclear attacks become common responses to Saddam Hussein's threats to use chemical weapons against Israel.
2002- "Some speculate that an American attack on Iraq could provoke Hussein to launch a WMD attack on Israel, although his capability to do so is questioned. Such an attack could provoke a nuclear response."
"Iran's progress towards nuclear capability alarms many Israelis... there are rumblings of a conventional preemptive strike."
Delivery Systems for Israeli Nuclear Devices:
Israel possesses several weapons and devices that could be used to deploy and deliver nuclear bombs. They are the following:
1. Land-based Strategic Weapons
a) Jericho-1 short-range ballistic missiles- developed in 1960s with French assistance.
b) Jericho-2 short range ballistic missiles- vastly improved from their predecessors, possibly
developed with South African funding.
2. Air-based Strategic Weapons
a) Phantom II- long-range all-weather air fighters which have now largely been supplanted
by more modern F-16s. Very possibly outfitted with nuclear bombs during the 1973 Yom
Kippur War.
b) F-16 Falcons- Israel is the largest export customer of these American-made aircraft. If
Israel was ever to use nuclear weapons in the future, this is the likely method of delivery.
Federation of American Scientists
Israeli nuclear capabilities center around the Dimona heavy water reactor at the Negev Nuclear Research Center. This facility was built in 1958 with French assistance and currently has the capacity to produce enough plutonium to make five-ten nuclear warheads a year.
"Many analysts believe that Israel maintains a nuclear arsenal that is stored but not armed, requiring some preparation for use. This allows for the oft-repeated mantra that 'Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the region". It is argued that Israel produces and maintains nuclear weapons largely for a deterrent effect- "An A-bomb that is believed to be 'only a screwdriver away' is nearly as effective a deterrent as one openly brandished."
History of the Israeli nuclear activity:
1958- Dimona heavy water reactor and nuclear research facility built secretly with French assistance
1959-1963- Israel imports heavy water from France, Norway, and the United States to start the reactor.
1973- According to some reports, Israeli PM Golda Meir ordered the outfitting of Phantom II aircrafts with nuclear bombs to prepare for strike during the Yom Kippur War. However, these were never deployed, as the war very quickly turned in Israel's favor.
1979- alleged joint Israeli/ South African nuclear test in the Indian Ocean.
1986- photos and descriptions of the secret facility published in London Sunday times by Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, which lead to the speculation that Israel had a stockpile of 100-200 nuclear devices.
1990s Gulf War- Israel's "nuclear posture" shifts- references to potential nuclear attacks become common responses to Saddam Hussein's threats to use chemical weapons against Israel.
2002- "Some speculate that an American attack on Iraq could provoke Hussein to launch a WMD attack on Israel, although his capability to do so is questioned. Such an attack could provoke a nuclear response."
"Iran's progress towards nuclear capability alarms many Israelis... there are rumblings of a conventional preemptive strike."
Delivery Systems for Israeli Nuclear Devices:
Israel possesses several weapons and devices that could be used to deploy and deliver nuclear bombs. They are the following:
1. Land-based Strategic Weapons
a) Jericho-1 short-range ballistic missiles- developed in 1960s with French assistance.
b) Jericho-2 short range ballistic missiles- vastly improved from their predecessors, possibly
developed with South African funding.
2. Air-based Strategic Weapons
a) Phantom II- long-range all-weather air fighters which have now largely been supplanted
by more modern F-16s. Very possibly outfitted with nuclear bombs during the 1973 Yom
Kippur War.
b) F-16 Falcons- Israel is the largest export customer of these American-made aircraft. If
Israel was ever to use nuclear weapons in the future, this is the likely method of delivery.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Christina
Brzezinski and Scowcroft, pp. 79-112
Parameters for peace, as articulated by Brzezinski:
1. No right of return for Palestinians to Israel
2. Mutual use of and right to Jerusalem
3. 1967 borders
4. Demilitarization of Palestine,
perhaps with American troops lining the Jordan River
Brzezinski On Hamas:
"If we are intelligent in manipulating Hamas,
they could end up like Fatah, growing more
moderate with time."
Brzezinski and Snowcroft on our special
relationship with Israel:
The "special relationship" with Israel is something
that is natural to have with a "small, courageous
democracy in a hostile land." However, we have
no special commitments to them, and "proving
our friendship to Israel by starving the people in
Gaza" is an immoral notion.
"I think we have an equal commitment to Palestinians,
many of whom are spending their third generation in
refugee camps... which are a breeding ground for
terrorism."
On Pakistan:
Pakistan is a dangerous and unstable nation
for the following reasons:
1. Nuclear capabilities
2. supremacy of the military above all political powers
3. fragmented political leadership consisting of:
dynastic parties, tribal parties, military coups, etc
4. "growing Islamic insurgency"
Both Snowcroft and Brzezinski advocate a
no-interference policy when it comes to Pakistan,
with the exception of a re-institution of the
International Military Education and Training program,
which would allow for the US training of Pakistani
military officers.
Parameters for peace, as articulated by Brzezinski:
1. No right of return for Palestinians to Israel
2. Mutual use of and right to Jerusalem
3. 1967 borders
4. Demilitarization of Palestine,
perhaps with American troops lining the Jordan River
Brzezinski On Hamas:
"If we are intelligent in manipulating Hamas,
they could end up like Fatah, growing more
moderate with time."
Brzezinski and Snowcroft on our special
relationship with Israel:
The "special relationship" with Israel is something
that is natural to have with a "small, courageous
democracy in a hostile land." However, we have
no special commitments to them, and "proving
our friendship to Israel by starving the people in
Gaza" is an immoral notion.
"I think we have an equal commitment to Palestinians,
many of whom are spending their third generation in
refugee camps... which are a breeding ground for
terrorism."
On Pakistan:
Pakistan is a dangerous and unstable nation
for the following reasons:
1. Nuclear capabilities
2. supremacy of the military above all political powers
3. fragmented political leadership consisting of:
dynastic parties, tribal parties, military coups, etc
4. "growing Islamic insurgency"
Both Snowcroft and Brzezinski advocate a
no-interference policy when it comes to Pakistan,
with the exception of a re-institution of the
International Military Education and Training program,
which would allow for the US training of Pakistani
military officers.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Luke
"Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology," Christopher M. Blanchard, Research Service, updated July 9, 2007
Christina
Little, pp. 319-342
"Green Scare"
Little argues that "green threat" (radical Islam)
is supplanting the earlier "red threat" of communism
thanks in large part to the influence and sway of
neoconservative academics and politicians.
Markers of this green scare:
- passage and aggressive use of the Patriot Act
- World War IV, by Podhoretz: influential book in which
defeating "Islamofascism" is touted as the worthy cause
for what should become WW4.
The Neoconservative agenda:
the Project for the New American Century, an influential
neoconservative think tank whose members used to include
Rumsfield and Wolfowitz among others, had articulated
the following objectives as early as a decade ago or earlier:
- Exporting democracy to the Middle East ("at gunpoint"
if necessary) as a security measure.
- Removal of Saddam Hussein as the ruler of Iraq.
The prevailing neoconservative sentiment was that this
would be fairly easy, as exemplified by numerous statements
predicting that a post-Saddam Middle East would collapse
much like a post- Berlin Wall Soviet empire. However,
the State Department and Colin Powell realized the folly
of this position from very early on.
This was part of the neoconservative agenda for the region
from very early on, and prominent neocons siezed 9/11 as
an opportunity to "finish" what Bush Sr. had opted not to
do years previous in the Gulf War.
the Bush Doctrine
Preventive war- a war of choice, when a perceived
threat is neither clear nor imminent.
Preemptive war- a war of necessity, when a clear
and imminent threat is on the horizon.
The Bush administration confounded these two terms,
fighting a preventive war while invoking a preemptive
one.
"Green Scare"
Little argues that "green threat" (radical Islam)
is supplanting the earlier "red threat" of communism
thanks in large part to the influence and sway of
neoconservative academics and politicians.
Markers of this green scare:
- passage and aggressive use of the Patriot Act
- World War IV, by Podhoretz: influential book in which
defeating "Islamofascism" is touted as the worthy cause
for what should become WW4.
The Neoconservative agenda:
the Project for the New American Century, an influential
neoconservative think tank whose members used to include
Rumsfield and Wolfowitz among others, had articulated
the following objectives as early as a decade ago or earlier:
- Exporting democracy to the Middle East ("at gunpoint"
if necessary) as a security measure.
- Removal of Saddam Hussein as the ruler of Iraq.
The prevailing neoconservative sentiment was that this
would be fairly easy, as exemplified by numerous statements
predicting that a post-Saddam Middle East would collapse
much like a post- Berlin Wall Soviet empire. However,
the State Department and Colin Powell realized the folly
of this position from very early on.
This was part of the neoconservative agenda for the region
from very early on, and prominent neocons siezed 9/11 as
an opportunity to "finish" what Bush Sr. had opted not to
do years previous in the Gulf War.
the Bush Doctrine
Preventive war- a war of choice, when a perceived
threat is neither clear nor imminent.
Preemptive war- a war of necessity, when a clear
and imminent threat is on the horizon.
The Bush administration confounded these two terms,
fighting a preventive war while invoking a preemptive
one.
Christina
"Palestine Peace not Apartheid", Jimmy Carter
Obstacles to peace in the Middle East:
1. "Some Israelis believe they have the right to
confiscate and colonize Arab land
2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide
bombers as martyrs... and consider the killing
of Israelis as victories. In turn, Israel responds
with retribution and oppression, and militant
Palestinians refuse to recognize the legitimacy
of Israel and vow to destroy the nation."
3. Submissive White House and Congress that
defer to neoconservative elements who believe
that "what's good for Israel is good for the U.S.".
for example:
-Hamas took majority control over the parliament
and the cabinet in the 2006 Palestinian elections-
Israel and U.S. reacted by trying to "isolate and
destabilize" the government with tactics such as
denying politicians travel permits, isolating Gaza,
blocking humanitarian aid to Palestine, etc.
The Roadmap for Peace, as articulated by the
International Quartet (U.S., Russia, UN, and
European Union):
a. "The security of Israel must be guaranteed."
- The Arab world must recognize the
legitimacy of Israel
- terrorist and military action against Israel
must cease
b. Israel must agree to withdraw from territories
until 1967 borders have been re-established, as
specified by UN Resolution 242.
c. The sovereignty of all Middle Eastern nations
must be honored.
- "In order to perpetuate the occupation,
Israeli forces have deprived their unwilling
subjects of basic human rights."
Two State solution plan for peace:
1967 borders, dismantlement of settlements,
shared use of Jerusalem, demilitarization of
Gaza and West Bank.
Public Opinion and a Two State Solution
As Jimmy Carter states, "Political leaders are the
obstacles to peace." Public opinion surveys in the
region show that:
- 80% of Palestinians want a two state solution
70% endorse Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate
- A majority of Israelis favor a "land for peace"
solution in which Israel withdraws from Palestinian
territory in exchange for peace.
- In 2006, two influential leaders from Fatah and
Hamas joined together in an Israeli prison and
publicly endorsed a two-state proposal articulating
the following points:
a. a unity government should be formed
between Hamas and the PLO
b. release of all political prisoners
c. recognition of Israel, with 1967 borders
d. end of terrorism within Israel (but not
Palestinian territory)
President Abbas proposed a referendum based on
this proposal, which met with 77% approval by
the Palestinian public and was accepted by both
Hamas and Fatah. This is a monumental
achievement because it means that Hamas, Fatah,
and the public can all agree on the same solution,
but it means little if Israel isn't open to dialogue.
Obstacles to peace in the Middle East:
1. "Some Israelis believe they have the right to
confiscate and colonize Arab land
2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide
bombers as martyrs... and consider the killing
of Israelis as victories. In turn, Israel responds
with retribution and oppression, and militant
Palestinians refuse to recognize the legitimacy
of Israel and vow to destroy the nation."
3. Submissive White House and Congress that
defer to neoconservative elements who believe
that "what's good for Israel is good for the U.S.".
for example:
-Hamas took majority control over the parliament
and the cabinet in the 2006 Palestinian elections-
Israel and U.S. reacted by trying to "isolate and
destabilize" the government with tactics such as
denying politicians travel permits, isolating Gaza,
blocking humanitarian aid to Palestine, etc.
The Roadmap for Peace, as articulated by the
International Quartet (U.S., Russia, UN, and
European Union):
a. "The security of Israel must be guaranteed."
- The Arab world must recognize the
legitimacy of Israel
- terrorist and military action against Israel
must cease
b. Israel must agree to withdraw from territories
until 1967 borders have been re-established, as
specified by UN Resolution 242.
c. The sovereignty of all Middle Eastern nations
must be honored.
- "In order to perpetuate the occupation,
Israeli forces have deprived their unwilling
subjects of basic human rights."
Two State solution plan for peace:
1967 borders, dismantlement of settlements,
shared use of Jerusalem, demilitarization of
Gaza and West Bank.
Public Opinion and a Two State Solution
As Jimmy Carter states, "Political leaders are the
obstacles to peace." Public opinion surveys in the
region show that:
- 80% of Palestinians want a two state solution
70% endorse Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate
- A majority of Israelis favor a "land for peace"
solution in which Israel withdraws from Palestinian
territory in exchange for peace.
- In 2006, two influential leaders from Fatah and
Hamas joined together in an Israeli prison and
publicly endorsed a two-state proposal articulating
the following points:
a. a unity government should be formed
between Hamas and the PLO
b. release of all political prisoners
c. recognition of Israel, with 1967 borders
d. end of terrorism within Israel (but not
Palestinian territory)
President Abbas proposed a referendum based on
this proposal, which met with 77% approval by
the Palestinian public and was accepted by both
Hamas and Fatah. This is a monumental
achievement because it means that Hamas, Fatah,
and the public can all agree on the same solution,
but it means little if Israel isn't open to dialogue.
Christina
Project on Defense Alternatives,
Iraq War Withdrawal and Exit Plans
Iraq War Withdrawal and Exit Plans
Steps for a Responsible Withdrawal from Iraq":
To make its intentions clear prior to withdrawal:
1. Utilize UN mandates rather than bilateral
US- Iraqi security agreements which focus on
international participation in Iraqi reconstruction
efforts
2. Announce a timetable for withdrawal
3. Correspond with Iraq's neighbors to make it
understood that they should take part in reconstruction
efforts. These neighbors include Syria, Iran, Jordan,
Saudi Arabia, and Turkey.
With regard to security:
1. Identify and fortify likely hotbeds of action during
the transitional period.
2. Support the UN in organizing and funding a UN
peacekeeping force for when the US makes its
formal withdrawal
3. "Assist the UN and donor states in creating
disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration
programs."
With regard to economic and humanitarian issues:
1. "Cease pressure on Iraq to open up its oil sector"
2. Provide Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon financial aid
earmarked for Iraqi refugees, support a plan to fund
the resettlement of refugees in other countries
3. Donate to an Iraq Development Fund in which Iraqis
engage in rebuilding & public works efforts for pay.
4. Strengthen Iraqi NGOs, especially women's groups.
Christina
"Killing Habeus Corpus," Jeffrey Toobin,
New Yorker, Dec 4, 2006
According to the author, the principle of habeus corpus
(you should have the body) has been suspended for one
of the only times in America's history with Bush's
signing and Congress's passing of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, which bans
"enemy combatants" (such as those being held at
Guantanamo Bay) the right to file writs of habeas corpus.
- According to the author, Congress was taking
direction from the President, essentially "rolling
over and playing dead" in an unprecedented manner.
- Bush's initial plan for military trials of Guant. Bay
detainees did not accord with the Geneva Conventions
in many respects, including the use of evidence
acquired during torture sessions.
- Most detainees were/are to receive a CSRT trial,
in which witnesses cannot be called, no attorneys are
present, and all are presumed of being an enemy
combatant based on evidence that they aren't allowed
to see. The original CSRT formulations were to allow
for habeas corpus appeal trials, but Bush's new law
has done away with habeas appeals.
New Yorker, Dec 4, 2006
According to the author, the principle of habeus corpus
(you should have the body) has been suspended for one
of the only times in America's history with Bush's
signing and Congress's passing of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006, which bans
"enemy combatants" (such as those being held at
Guantanamo Bay) the right to file writs of habeas corpus.
- According to the author, Congress was taking
direction from the President, essentially "rolling
over and playing dead" in an unprecedented manner.
- Bush's initial plan for military trials of Guant. Bay
detainees did not accord with the Geneva Conventions
in many respects, including the use of evidence
acquired during torture sessions.
- Most detainees were/are to receive a CSRT trial,
in which witnesses cannot be called, no attorneys are
present, and all are presumed of being an enemy
combatant based on evidence that they aren't allowed
to see. The original CSRT formulations were to allow
for habeas corpus appeal trials, but Bush's new law
has done away with habeas appeals.
Christina
President Obama's Speech on
Iraq policy
Obama addresses Marines at Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina in February 2009.
Our Position in Iraq:
- situation has improved overall
- Al Qaeda has been dealt "a serious blow"
- Iraq's Security Force has improved
- January's provincial elections had strong participation
The Future of Iraq:
- long-term solutions in Iraq must be political, not military
(soft power vs hard power)
- Iraq can not remain America's sole priority in the region,
Iraq must attempt to become an autonomous power
Obama's Tripartite Strategy Concerning Iraq:
1. Disengagement of US combat troops by 2011
(16 month timeline)
while still aiding the Iraqis in other ways
(collaborating with the UN to support election efforts,
helping improve local governments, serving as
mediator, humanitarian issues).
2. Strengthening a sovereign Iraqi government
3. "Comprehensive American engagement across
the region"
- diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria
-refocusing military efforts on Pakistan and Afghanistan
- dealing with Iran's nuclear program
- mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
4. Also:
- Veterans issues: establishment of medical facilities
across the country, increasing military pay,
providing child-care, counseling, and other services,
establishment of a G.I. Bill again
Iraq policy
Obama addresses Marines at Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina in February 2009.
Our Position in Iraq:
- situation has improved overall
- Al Qaeda has been dealt "a serious blow"
- Iraq's Security Force has improved
- January's provincial elections had strong participation
The Future of Iraq:
- long-term solutions in Iraq must be political, not military
(soft power vs hard power)
- Iraq can not remain America's sole priority in the region,
Iraq must attempt to become an autonomous power
Obama's Tripartite Strategy Concerning Iraq:
1. Disengagement of US combat troops by 2011
(16 month timeline)
while still aiding the Iraqis in other ways
(collaborating with the UN to support election efforts,
helping improve local governments, serving as
mediator, humanitarian issues).
2. Strengthening a sovereign Iraqi government
3. "Comprehensive American engagement across
the region"
- diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria
-refocusing military efforts on Pakistan and Afghanistan
- dealing with Iran's nuclear program
- mediating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
4. Also:
- Veterans issues: establishment of medical facilities
across the country, increasing military pay,
providing child-care, counseling, and other services,
establishment of a G.I. Bill again
Christina
"The New Middle East," Richard Haass, Middle East Journal, Nov-Dec. 2006
There are five distinct eras in the history of US involvement
in the Middle East. "The Middle East's next era promises to
be one in which outside actors have a relatively modest impact
and local forcesenjoy the upper hand- and in which the local
actors.. are radicals committed to changing the status quo."
Era 1: Beginning of European conquest in the Middle East,
late 18th century. The end of the Ottoman empire and
Napoleon's easy conquest of Egypt characterize this era.
These events showed Europe that this region was ripe
for conquest.
Era 2: Colonial rule by the UK and France post WWI.
Era 3: Cold War era
Still characterized by outside forces controlling the region,
but US/Soviet Union competition keptthe two powers fairly
occupied, leaving the local states to their own devices
much of the time. Also: June 1967 War was the first time
oil was used as a political-economic weapon- this exposed
the US's vulnerability to supply shortages and oil price
hikes.1979 revolution in Iran also brought down one of the
US's pillars of stability in the region.
Era 4: US Dominance
Characterized by US dominance in the region, "aggressive
but frustrated Iraq, radical but divided and relatively weak
Iran, Israel as the region's most powerful state..., fluctuating
oil prices" and repressive Arab regimes.
Era 5: Current era
Factors that ended Era 4:
- Invasion of Iraq (as a consequence, Sunni-dominated Iraq
can no longer counterbalance the Shiite dominated Iran)
- "failure of traditional Arab regimes to counter the appeal
of radical Islamism"
- globalization has facilitated the growth of radical factions-
easier funding, advertising, and galvanization of movements
What lies ahead:
1. US will continue to dominate the region more than other
foreign powers, but its influence will wane and the US will
increasingly be challenged by other foreign powers. China,
Russia, and many European countries will likely distance
themselves from the US efforts to promote democracy in
the Middle East.
2. Iran and Israel will be the two most powerful states in
the region. Iran because it is wealthy and influential with
both Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel because it possesses the
only modern economy and nuclear capacity.
3. Peace between Israel and Palestine is unlikely.
4. Iraq will "remain messy for years to come, with a weak
central government, a divided society, regular sectarian
violence. At worst, it will become a failed state wracked by an
all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors."
5. Price of oil will stay high due to high demand from India
and China
6. Militarization, especially private armies, will continue
to grow in areas such as Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine.
7. Terrorism will not abate.
8. "Islam will increasingly fill the political and intellectual
vacuum in the Arab world... Arab nationalism and Arab
socialism are things of the past."
9. "Arab regimes are likely to remain authoritarian and
become more religiously intolerant and anti-American."
Examples: Egypt and Saudi Arabia
Mistakes the U.S. should avoid:
1. Overreliance on military force- it is not very useful against
terrorists and loosely organized militias.
2. Believing that democratization will bring about peace
in the region-it would be more useful to bolster regional
economies and provide basic human necessities, such as
education and health care.
Opportunities the U.S. should seize:
1. "the US should establish a regional forum for Iraq's
neighbors (Turkey and Saudi Arabia in particular" ...
to help manage events in Afghanistan."
2. Use diplomatic tactics such as economic/political
incentives to address Iran's nuclear program and support
of terrorism.
3. Use diplomacy to revive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
4. Curbing US oil consumption to reduce demand and, in turn,
reduce dependence on the Middle East's resources.
There are five distinct eras in the history of US involvement
in the Middle East. "The Middle East's next era promises to
be one in which outside actors have a relatively modest impact
and local forcesenjoy the upper hand- and in which the local
actors.. are radicals committed to changing the status quo."
Era 1: Beginning of European conquest in the Middle East,
late 18th century. The end of the Ottoman empire and
Napoleon's easy conquest of Egypt characterize this era.
These events showed Europe that this region was ripe
for conquest.
Era 2: Colonial rule by the UK and France post WWI.
Era 3: Cold War era
Still characterized by outside forces controlling the region,
but US/Soviet Union competition keptthe two powers fairly
occupied, leaving the local states to their own devices
much of the time. Also: June 1967 War was the first time
oil was used as a political-economic weapon- this exposed
the US's vulnerability to supply shortages and oil price
hikes.1979 revolution in Iran also brought down one of the
US's pillars of stability in the region.
Era 4: US Dominance
Characterized by US dominance in the region, "aggressive
but frustrated Iraq, radical but divided and relatively weak
Iran, Israel as the region's most powerful state..., fluctuating
oil prices" and repressive Arab regimes.
Era 5: Current era
Factors that ended Era 4:
- Invasion of Iraq (as a consequence, Sunni-dominated Iraq
can no longer counterbalance the Shiite dominated Iran)
- "failure of traditional Arab regimes to counter the appeal
of radical Islamism"
- globalization has facilitated the growth of radical factions-
easier funding, advertising, and galvanization of movements
What lies ahead:
1. US will continue to dominate the region more than other
foreign powers, but its influence will wane and the US will
increasingly be challenged by other foreign powers. China,
Russia, and many European countries will likely distance
themselves from the US efforts to promote democracy in
the Middle East.
2. Iran and Israel will be the two most powerful states in
the region. Iran because it is wealthy and influential with
both Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel because it possesses the
only modern economy and nuclear capacity.
3. Peace between Israel and Palestine is unlikely.
4. Iraq will "remain messy for years to come, with a weak
central government, a divided society, regular sectarian
violence. At worst, it will become a failed state wracked by an
all-out civil war that will draw in its neighbors."
5. Price of oil will stay high due to high demand from India
and China
6. Militarization, especially private armies, will continue
to grow in areas such as Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine.
7. Terrorism will not abate.
8. "Islam will increasingly fill the political and intellectual
vacuum in the Arab world... Arab nationalism and Arab
socialism are things of the past."
9. "Arab regimes are likely to remain authoritarian and
become more religiously intolerant and anti-American."
Examples: Egypt and Saudi Arabia
Mistakes the U.S. should avoid:
1. Overreliance on military force- it is not very useful against
terrorists and loosely organized militias.
2. Believing that democratization will bring about peace
in the region-it would be more useful to bolster regional
economies and provide basic human necessities, such as
education and health care.
Opportunities the U.S. should seize:
1. "the US should establish a regional forum for Iraq's
neighbors (Turkey and Saudi Arabia in particular" ...
to help manage events in Afghanistan."
2. Use diplomatic tactics such as economic/political
incentives to address Iran's nuclear program and support
of terrorism.
3. Use diplomacy to revive the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
4. Curbing US oil consumption to reduce demand and, in turn,
reduce dependence on the Middle East's resources.
Christina
"Whose War?" Patrick J. Buchanan,
The American Conservative, March 24, 2003.
Buchanan contends that US involvement in
Iraq is due to the influence of Neoconservatives
in the US government, whose policies are
informed in turn by the agenda of both Israelis
in the US government and Ariel Sharon and the
Likud Party in Israel. According to him, the
neocons aka "the War Party" believe that what's
good for Israel is good for America.
1. The neocons' plan to invade Iraq was in place
long before 9/11, which was seen as an opportunity
to make inroads into Iraq.
2. Bush's incorporation of the "Wolfowitz memo" into
foreign policy meant that the US was to seek
establishment of permanent military bases on six
continents in order to pursue something more serious
than containment, the policy that the US always
utilized before.
3. Immediately following 9/11, Bush was presented
with a plan of action by several prominent neocons,
which centered around attacking several targets that
had little to do with 9/11. These targets were Hamas,
Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and "the Palestinian enclave."
None of the abovementioned had attacked the US,
but they were all enemies of Israel.
4. Subsequent target lists by prominent neocons
included: Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon,
Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas,
Palestine, and "militant Islam."
The American Conservative, March 24, 2003.
Buchanan contends that US involvement in
Iraq is due to the influence of Neoconservatives
in the US government, whose policies are
informed in turn by the agenda of both Israelis
in the US government and Ariel Sharon and the
Likud Party in Israel. According to him, the
neocons aka "the War Party" believe that what's
good for Israel is good for America.
1. The neocons' plan to invade Iraq was in place
long before 9/11, which was seen as an opportunity
to make inroads into Iraq.
2. Bush's incorporation of the "Wolfowitz memo" into
foreign policy meant that the US was to seek
establishment of permanent military bases on six
continents in order to pursue something more serious
than containment, the policy that the US always
utilized before.
3. Immediately following 9/11, Bush was presented
with a plan of action by several prominent neocons,
which centered around attacking several targets that
had little to do with 9/11. These targets were Hamas,
Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and "the Palestinian enclave."
None of the abovementioned had attacked the US,
but they were all enemies of Israel.
4. Subsequent target lists by prominent neocons
included: Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon,
Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas,
Palestine, and "militant Islam."
Christina
"American Foreign Policy" Glenn Hastedt (6th ed. 2004) pp. 244-258
Models of Policy Making:
1. Rational Actor Model
-most frequently employed
-Characterized as an action-reaction process. "Foreign policy is viewed as a calculated response to the actions of another actor." This is thought to lead to a unitary and rational policy-making process.
Basic elements of a rational decision process:
a. "goals are clearly stated and ranked in order of preference
b. all options are considered
c. consequences of each option are assessed
d. a value-maximizing choice is made"
Two types of analyses used to examine rational actor decision making:
a. Inductive- the analyst tries to examine the situation from the perspective of the government in order to understand the government's logical processes
b. Deductive- relies on logical/mathematical formulations to predict how governments should behave under given conditions, often used by military strategists and deterrence theorists.
Examples:
-Israeli-related policy-making
-Argentinian-related policy-making
Criticisms of the Rational Actor Model:
- understates the complexity of foreign affairs
- doesn't account for the importance of chance, accident, coincidence
- the type of information processing demanded by the rational actor model may exceed human cognitive capabilities to consider and weigh all contingencies
2. Bureaucratic Politics
Definition:
- "the process by which people inside government bargain with one another on complex public policy questions"- policy making is conceptualized as a conflict resolution process between many actors, agencies, and institutions.
Characteristics:
- downplays the importance of the individual- "no individual is in a position to decide matters alone. Power is shared." This breeds disagreement between the many institutions that decide policy because everyone has a different perspective.
- the importance of deadlines to this model is discussed- deadlines force policies to be made, and to further complicate matters, everyone has different deadlines (eg the adjournment of Congress, the beginning of a fiscal year, election seasons).
Criticisms:
-Overstates the importance of the "political bargaining process" while understating the importance of deliberate choice.
-When this model is employed, new policies are unlikely to differ substantially from prior policies because during the bargaining process, both sides will be unlikely to make major concessions or deviate from their existing commitments. This is called the "minimal decision" paradigm.
-Bargaining is an expensive and time-consuming process.
-When this model is employed, it is difficult to assign responsibility for decisions that are made.
-This model is also criticized for being "too complex"- virtually anything can be seen as impacting policy.
3. Small Group Decision Making
-Many policies are made by small groups that cannot accurately be described as single actors or large bureaucracies.
-This model is the most susceptible to the groupthink phenomenon.
Advantages:
-Fewer viewpoints means less conflict
-A small environment fosters free and open discussion
-"Swift and decisive action"
-"possible innovation and experimentation"
-"maintaining secrecy"
Three Types of Small Groups:
a. Informal small group- "meets regularly but lacks a formal institutional base" (e.g. Tuesday lunch groups of Johnson administration).
b. ad hoc group- "created to deal with a specific problem and ceases to function once its task is completed." (e.g. ExCom group under Kennedy administration during Cuban missile crisis).
c. Formal small group- permanent, has an institutional base, created to perform a series of functions. (e.g. subcommittees of National Security Council).
Examples of Small Group Decision-making:
-W.Bush's "war cabinet" post September 11
-Pearl Harbor, Bay of Pigs, Korea, Vietnam
-Iranian hostage rescue mission
-Iran-Contra initiative
Criticisms of small group decision-making/ groupthink
- highly susceptible to groupthink
symptoms of groupthink:
a. "overestimation of the group's power and morality"
b. "closed-mindedness"
c. "pressures toward conformity"
d. members of the group cope with stress by enacting "concurrence-seeking behaviors"
-proposed decisions likely won't work.
-policy makers may choose whatever option accords with their pre-existing opinions
-policy makers may do nothing if confronted with too many options
4. Elite Theory
-Emphasizes the importance of individuals in the government in making foreign policy.
-Decisions that are made are said to disproportionately reflect the personal interests of those making the decisions, and are said to serve only a small sector of society.
-"Special interests (of the elite) are transformed into national interests through the pattern of office holding and the structure of influence that exists in the U.S."
-"Those who hold office are seen as being a stable and relatively cohesive group that share common goals, interests, and values... Those outside the elite group are held to be relatively powerless, reacting to the policy initiatives of the elite rather than prompting them."
Disagreements over the nature of elite theory:
- Some believe that the elites have unlimited power, others believe that public opinion has the ability to "short circuit" the elite agenda periodically.
- Some conceptualize the elites as being very conspiratorial, others do not.
Examples of elite theory analyses:
-Reagan and Carter administrations
5. Pluralism
Tenets:
a. "Power in society is fragmented and diffused
b. Many groups in society have power to participate in policy-making
c. No one group is powerful enough to dictate policy
d. An equilibrium among groups is the natural state of affairs.
e. Policy is the product of bargaining between group
and reflects the interests of the dominant groups
f. The government acts as an umpire supervising the competition and sometimes compels
a settlement. "
-Pluralists acknowledge that power is differentially and disparately distributed, but the attributes of power (such as wealth, status, etc) don't mean you actually possess power.
-A deficiency in one area of power may be offset by a surplus in another area (e.g. leadership abilities offsetting a lack of wealth)
Integrating Models:
Obviously, a single model doesn't accurately capture the whole of U.S. policy-making. Instead, models can be integrated in the following ways:
a. shift from model to model as the focus of the analysis changes (e.g. analyzing something from historical vs economic vs personal perspectives)
b. select whichever model(s) are most appropriate for the situation in question. Generally, bureaucratic and pluralist models are seen as being more useful for broader and more drawn-out situations, while rational actor, elite theory, and small group models may have more utility for more specific issues.
c. shift from model to model as the policy problem develops over time.
d. letting one's personal values inform model choice.
Christina
"The United States and Iraq: American Bull in a Middle East China Shop", Clement Henry
This article discusses the consequences of the occupation in Iraq for the Middle East and North Africa. Main hypothesis: "Had the US appeared more even-handed to Arab and Muslim public opinion in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict before going to war against Iraq, the efforts to 'liberate' Iraq from Saddam's tyranny might have met less universal hostility." Henry argues that the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US has only created a breeding ground for terrorists, which may result in Iraq becoming another Lebanon.
1. Articulating Arab and Muslim sentiment:
- Saddam Hussein was generally regarded to be an evil tyrant, but public indignation over the US's perceived imperialist motives supersedes any relief or happiness that he is gone.
- Public opinion polls in the MENA area illustrate this: 93% regretted that the Iraqi military hadn't put up a better fight, 80-85% think Iraqis are worse off without Saddam there.
- Residents in the MENA area are especially sensitive to any indications of imperialism because "virtually the entire region had experienced some sort of unwanted Western presences by the mid-twentieth century..."
2. US Partisanship Compromises its Position in the Middle East
- Even before Sept 11, the Bush administration was perceived as Israel's accomplice, not a nonpartisan mediator.
- Things Israel should have done for peace but didn't: withdrawing soldiers from densely populated areas in Palestine, stop building the wall around parts of West Bank and Jerusalem, removing settlements, etc.
- Even 47 % of Israelis believe US favors Israel over Palestinians too much, according to a recent poll. Only 38% believed US was fair.
3. Consequences of the Invasion in Iraq
- "The occupation has attracted a variety of trans-national Islamist adversaries that may now use Iraq (and regions in Afghanistan and Pakistan) as refuges and bases from which to plan further attacks. The American identification of Saddam with Al Qaida became a self-fulfilling prophecy after the invasion removed Saddam's border guards and secular police state protection against the Islamists. The invasion and occupation, too, have had the effect of polarizing regimes and Islamist oppositions in the regime, to the detriment of moderating trends on both sides."
- The big concern is the Iraq could become another Lebanon, due to the political vacuum that followed the invasion by the US.
This article discusses the consequences of the occupation in Iraq for the Middle East and North Africa. Main hypothesis: "Had the US appeared more even-handed to Arab and Muslim public opinion in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict before going to war against Iraq, the efforts to 'liberate' Iraq from Saddam's tyranny might have met less universal hostility." Henry argues that the invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US has only created a breeding ground for terrorists, which may result in Iraq becoming another Lebanon.
1. Articulating Arab and Muslim sentiment:
- Saddam Hussein was generally regarded to be an evil tyrant, but public indignation over the US's perceived imperialist motives supersedes any relief or happiness that he is gone.
- Public opinion polls in the MENA area illustrate this: 93% regretted that the Iraqi military hadn't put up a better fight, 80-85% think Iraqis are worse off without Saddam there.
- Residents in the MENA area are especially sensitive to any indications of imperialism because "virtually the entire region had experienced some sort of unwanted Western presences by the mid-twentieth century..."
2. US Partisanship Compromises its Position in the Middle East
- Even before Sept 11, the Bush administration was perceived as Israel's accomplice, not a nonpartisan mediator.
- Things Israel should have done for peace but didn't: withdrawing soldiers from densely populated areas in Palestine, stop building the wall around parts of West Bank and Jerusalem, removing settlements, etc.
- Even 47 % of Israelis believe US favors Israel over Palestinians too much, according to a recent poll. Only 38% believed US was fair.
3. Consequences of the Invasion in Iraq
- "The occupation has attracted a variety of trans-national Islamist adversaries that may now use Iraq (and regions in Afghanistan and Pakistan) as refuges and bases from which to plan further attacks. The American identification of Saddam with Al Qaida became a self-fulfilling prophecy after the invasion removed Saddam's border guards and secular police state protection against the Islamists. The invasion and occupation, too, have had the effect of polarizing regimes and Islamist oppositions in the regime, to the detriment of moderating trends on both sides."
- The big concern is the Iraq could become another Lebanon, due to the political vacuum that followed the invasion by the US.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)