What is foreign policy?
Foreign Policy: The actions and statements of the US federal government that are directed towards some foreign audience (often political organizations, and generally states) outside of our territorial and political boundaries. Actions are designed to shape the beliefs, interests and actions of their targets. Often meant to convey intent, or the content of a national interest.
What are the aspects of foreign policy?
Aspects: Actions and Statements
Action: Deployment of military force in war or a humanitarian mission. Signing a treaty or contract, or shifting resources between branches.
Statement: Statements of American intent or interest intended to shape the thoughts or actions of other states. Help to set expectations for other leaders around the world about how the US is going to act.
What are FP's targets?
Targets/ Audiences: FP targets governments, private citizens and international organizations that possess powerful and independent bureaucracies. Sometimes presidents will defer directly to citizens of other nations to put popular pressure on foreign governments instead of dealing with their governments themselves.
What is FP designed to influence?
Designed to Influence foreign audiences' :
Beliefs: organizing ideas that foreign actors possess of American interests and their expectations of future American actions. Beliefs have profound impact on social behavior. FP influences beliefs in order to coordinate social behavior.
Capabilities: the relative balance of military power between two political organizations, which shape the relative bargaining leverage (and ability to get what they want) that a state possesses in a political dispute. Enables countries to extract political concessions from other states. National interest in preserving this advantage, and nations will implement FP designed to limit the military and political capabilities of its adversaries.
Interests: What states want (territory, wealth, nuclear weapons, promotion of democracy). The relative congruence of a foreign state's interests shapes the scope of its political conflict with another state. Common interests build cooperation.
Actions: FP acting as a device to alter other states' behavior.
What are the main foreign policy actors within the executive branch?
President, State Department, Defense Department, Treasury Dept/Federal Reserve, Intelligence Agencies, Presidential Advisors
President
appoints the upper ring of federal bureaucracy in a number of agencies tasked with implementing foreign policy.
State Dept.
houses all of the diplomats who are responsible for the daily interactions between the US government and all the other governments which the US has officially recognized around the world. Headed by Secretary of State (John Kerry)
Grants passports
Negotiates arms and trade agreements with foreign governments
Brokers peace deals
Defense Department
Manages the US armed forces. Headed by secretary of defense (Chuck Hagel), who works closely with the joint chiefs of staff (top military officials of each branch of the military)
Has responsibility over the instruments of military force, which are central to the generation and maintenance of political order. American power depends largely on the capacity to make credible threats.
Treasury Department/ Federal Reserve
Manages the coordination of monetary policies between the US and other states.
unique because of its significant domestic responsibilities
-collection of taxes
-paying gov't bills
-engaging in borrowing
Intelligence agencies
Gather information that shapes the beliefs of our leaders about what other countries will act. Most likely to be involved in controversy.
CIA: Headed by John Brennan.
Directorate of National Intelligence: headed by James Clapper. Created in the aftermath of 9/11 to centralize the coordination of intelligence agencies.
Presidential Advisors
Have great influence over presidential decision making.
national security adviser: Head of the NSC, an organization within the white house that is tasked with coordinating all the FP agencies within the executive branch.Usually the first to brief the president on FP every morning. Unique position because it isn't subject to senate confirmation.
US ambassador to the UN: (Samantha Power is credited with playing a significant role in Obama's decision to intervene with military force in Libya).
What is the national interest?
National interest: a set of goals possessed by the US that guide policy, help to define collective identity, and set the relative scope of cooperation/ conflict with other states. Stem from a set of political beliefs and collective national identity.
What dimensions help to determine preferences over outcomes?
security interests: protection of the homeland and sovereignty of the American people and government to make its own decisions.
economic interests: enhance US prosperity in international system. Protect reliable access to raw materials. Protect US business interests internationally.
ideational interests: promote American values upon which US bases its collective identity (promote human rights worldwide)
elections and other political institutions settle internal dispute over what interests US FP will respect and reflect
What are the five frameworks for approaching practical ethics?
Utilitarianism, common good approach, virtue approach, rights approach, fairness approach
Utilitarian ethical framework
Encourages taking an action that maximizes benefits or reduces harm for the greatest number of people.
Common good approach
Emphasises taking action which benefits the collective good of a community. In politics, the definition of community can be global, national or local. Some overlap with utilitarianism, but it isn't the same because the common good requires providing public goods and benefiting the collective in the long term (which might not be beneficial for the majority in the short-term).
Virtue Approach
Promotes ethical habits. Closely tied to a community's self-image. Striving to approximate certain values that a nation holds as central to its identity.
Rights Approach
Emphasises that every person has dignity and rights which must be respected.From this approach, ethical actions respect human rights, and unethical actions do not, even if only one person's rights are being violated. Individualistic approach which often comes into conflict with collective approaches such as utilitarianism and common good.
Fairness Approach
Emphasises justice and equal treatment. Most concerned with discrimination and inequality
Give some examples of values that come into conflict. How does this complicate ethical decision-making?
Ethical frameworks are based on values and virtues, which can come into conflict.
Values are character traits that individuals or society deems admirable or praise worthy. The problem is that perfectly good values can come into conflict with one another. One cannot focus on the interests of individuals and of the community at the same time.
Examples of conflicts which require a trade off of values:
Justice and fair treatment leave little room for mercy or consideration of special circumstances.
Loyalty vs. Truth
Individual vs community
Short-term vs Long-Term
How are different ethical frameworks used to analyze the practical ethics related to the Ebola crisis?
Obama took utilitarian approach- weighed the potential benefits and harms. A lot of big benefits: relieve suffering and save lives, help prevent spread of disease, bolster international and domestic image. Harms to the intervention: risking american military personnel, could overstretch US economy and distract the US military, and if the operation failed, it would greatly disappoint.
Fairness approach came into it: who should get treatment? What if you can't help everyone?
Common good vs Rights: community good (protecting outbreak) vs individual good (civil rights/ freedom against imposed quarantine)
Virtue Framework: did we want to emphasise self-preservation vs altruism... should we encourage aid workers to travel to w africa?
What were the central elements of President George W. Bush's 2002 national security strategy?
Defense against new non-state terrorist threats. US will not hesitate to act preemptively to dissolve threats against US interests and security. Also emphasises democracy promotion and establishment of global economic freedom.
The main change since the cold war is the nature of threats against the US. New threats are non-state actors, meaning they are more likely to be willing to use nuclear force if they can get their hands on it, since they do not have to abide by international law and can act as individuals. New focus on preventing radical groups from gaining access to new technologies.
Bush administration authorizes pre-emptive force against these groups to blockade their access to military resources since they are more likely to engage in conflict with the US because they are not aligned with international institutions and will engage in acts of violence against civilians. This differs from containment and deterrence because it isn't reactionary and is a direct assault as opposed to a proxy conflict.
Consider the crisis in Yemen that resulted in the takeover of the central government of Yemen by Houthi rebels. Using the Meet the Press clip and lecture, explain how this crisis represents three different levels types of dilemmas for U.S. foreign policy:
3 levels of conflict in yemen.
Immediate dilemma: US has lost a regional counter-terrorism partner. US struggling with how to continue counterterrorism effort.
Broader regional dilemma: there are no other good options or viable partners for the US to turn to as a counterterrorism ally. The new government in Yemen is a theoretical partner because they aren't as extreme as AQ, but they are very anti-American. The threats in the area are also asymmetrical- we are trying to fight groups who aren't states but who still pose a real threat, and who don't negotiate in a way that states would.
Strategic dilemma: How viable is counterterrorism as a grand strategy? How do we face this new form of threat and avoid putting boots on the ground. Regional partners pose threat of collapse, which creates huge problems for the greater grand strategy.
What are implications of the results of the recent parliamentary election in Greece?
Results of the election: Far left political party won the election, and has constructed a coalition government with a far-right anti-immigration party. The elected party now has to deliver on its promises of economic reform and potential default on its loans, which threatens the stability of the European Union.
What was the electoral platform of the victorious Syriza party?
Syriza platform: Campaigned on a broad program of "anti-austerity", basically declaring that Greece will force EU leaders to renegotiate the terms of the agreement between Greece and the EU in which the EU will pay off Greece's debt. Government came to office on the basis of significant change, implicitly (or explicitly) threatening to default on its loans.
What is austerity and how do the politics surrounding Greece's austerity program threaten the stability of European Union?
If Greece defaults on their debt, the crisis is likely to spread to other weak currency countries within the union. International banks are likely to start selling the bonds issued by these governments, so that these nations cannot pay their bills. The outcome of this is critical to the experiment of international institutions designed to maintain peace. Collapse of the Euro could threaten long term political and economic stability in Europe for this reason.
Compare and contrast the Utilitarianism framework and the Common Good framework to practical ethics. How are they similar and different?
Similarities: similar emphasis on collective goals, both try to maximize good and minimize harm for a group
Difference lies in the definition of the group or community.
-Common good: focused on defining the community, the definition of which influences the perception of what is ethically acceptable or not. Also focuses on provision of public goods (which everyone in the community can benefit from).
-Utilitarianism: More concerned with maximizing good and reducing harm for the most people; doesn't define the community in question.
What is grand strategy?
Grand Strategy: The set of overarching ideas that guide the conduct of foreign policy, which have often been bundled together in a "brand", which incorporates a series of subsidiary ideas, theories or assumptions about the nature of the international political order, the principal security threats to the US, the definition of US national interests, the appropriate means to achieve those interests. Placed at the top of a pyramid of policies, which organizes and coordinates policy goals. More abstract than specific policies, and assumes a broad vision of how the world works.
How does grand strategy intersect with domestic partisanship?
Debates over grand strategy can be thought of as the international equivalent to domestic debates oriented around partisanship. Domestic partisanship debates are theoretical statements. They draw on theories about the nature of systems, but ideologies go beyond this- they rest partially on underlying theoretical claims but construction of an ideological position is also inherently a political act designed to persuade the American people to support some policy.
In sum, debates over grand strategy can be thought of as the international parallel to domestic debates over partisanship. competing grand strategy ideologies provide a "brand" or "narrative" about how to promote some set of national interests while simultaneously providing a ready set of policy recommendations to achieve those goals.
How do the differences between Republican politicians John McCain and Rand Paul illustrate the differences between grand strategy and domestic partisanship?
There is some correlation of partisanship with grand strategy, but it is imperfect. some members of the same political party will promote very different grand strategies.
-Rand Paul/ Isolationist Grand Strategy: less military action around the world around and cuts to the foreign aid budget, argues that military intervention accentuates security problems for the US by creating new enemies
-McCain: supports US use of military force to promote democracy worldwide, wants more boots on the ground to support ISIS.
What are the four main components of grand strategies that distinguish one grand strategy from another?
Geographic scope of interest- whether the interest is regional and narrow or broad and global?
Choice of means (policies): how the US will achieve its goals (whether the US will pursue unilateral or multilateral means)
Use of power: Emphasis on hard (military, relies on coercion) or soft (diplomatic, cultural, relies on persuasion and influence) power?
defining the main threat
What does Obama say about the main threats facing the United States and how the U.S. should approach these threats in his west point speech?
Main threat facing the US: Terrorism, Russian expansion in Europe, and long-term threat of China's rising influence in Asia, but Obama suggests limits on the scope of US military force abroad
What does Obama say about the use of military force in his west point speech?
Obama says we have to be more judicious on our use of military force. Says he will use force, but he won't rely on force.
How does Obama view the use of unilateral versus multilateral means in his west point speech?
Obama emphasises multilateral means thru training regional allies. This is a critical point in his strategy, and it is the strategy being employed against ISIS.
What does President Obama argue about the role and necessity of American leadership on the world stage in his west point speech?
He says isolationism doesn't work, and neither does liberal internationalism. He thinks that America has to remain on top militarily and economically, but that the US needs to be more restrained in our use of military force to maintain its position at the top, and not force democarcy on nations whose ideology is fundamentally incompatible with it.
What is isolationism?
Isolationism: Strives to reduce US role in the world and safeguard US security and national interest by keeping the outside world at a safe distance. Is the most constrained and the most narrow, and prefers the smallest role for the US on the world stage of all grand strategy. Primary national interest is the security of its citizens, and in this US citizens are relatively safe.
What is the logic that underlies Isolationsim?
Threats to US security are minimal and less important than domestic problems. US neighbors do not pose a real threat to the US, and attacking over the oceans would be militarily costly and difficult. Also, US possession of nuclear weapons deters attack.
focusing on foreign conflict can infect domestic politics
foreign (military) intervention may create hostile and lethal threats in areas where no threat previously existed
resources are scarce and should be used in a way that provides the greatest benefit. FP to isolationists is too risky and uncertain, and is thus not a good use of resources (economic aid or military intervention)
How are George Washington and his Farewell Address and Republican presidential successors to Woodrow Wilson in the 1920s historical examples of the isolationist grand strategy?
Washington argued that involvement with French-British war was turning American government too partisan as people align with whatever side. He believed that if the US just didn't get involved, it would keep up a unified government and prevent the complication of domestic affairs and save the security of the new nation.
Washington argued that involvement with French-British war was turning American government too partisan as people align with whatever side. He believed that if the US just didn't get involved, it would keep up a unified government and prevent the complication of domestic affairs and save the security of the new nation.
How did the nature of the Soviet threat influence support for isolationism during the Cold War?
Cold War: Much less isolationism during the cold war because of the nature of the Soviet nuclear threat. After the collapse of the USSR, some republicans called for more isolationism and focus on domestic problems.
What does your Heilbrun reading argue regarding the recent re-emergence of "neo-isolationism" in the U.S.?
Our reluctance to use military force in Syria does not indicate a re-emergence of isolationism. The reluctance to put boots on the ground is normal, healthy democratic pushback between different sides of the republican party.
What is Selective Engagement or Offshore Balancing?
Selective Engagement/Offshore Balancing: Similar to isolationism in that it is mindful of the limits of American power. Can sometimes be confused with isolationism, but selective engagement embrace American position as global superpower with more broad, global interests and sees threats to American power as global. Also, is more comfortable with diplomacy and the need for credible commitments between friendly countries.
What is the logic that underlies offshore balancing grand strategy?
Logic: Focuses primarily on preserving balance of power among great world powers.Great power wars directly impinge on American interests. Also means that selective engagers are unwilling to engage in relations with smaller nations unless they pose a direct threat to the stability of great power structure.
What is balancing behavior in foreign policy?
Balancing behavior refers to FP efforts to prevent the concentration of military, economic or political power in any state or group of states to prevent it from matching or exceeding US power. Effort to prevent the growth of another major power in the international system. Balancing global power will prevent a great power wars which directly impede on US national interests, causing significant domestic changes.
How are Dwight D. Eisenhower and George H. W. Bush historical examples of the strategic engagement grand strategy?
Eisenhower: Wanted to alter US military commitment to Europe in the 1950s. Tried to pressure Europe to assume more responsibility for their own defense relative to the USSR so that the cold war would be more domestically sustainable in the US. Worried that the cost of troops in Europe during the cold war would increase the backlash against interventionism and create a new wave of isolationists. He thought that if isolationism grew at home, the cold war would be unsustainable and the US would have to back down, which increases the chance of direct Soviet attack.
Bush: President bush cautious regarding the collapse of soviet influence in eastern Europe. Doesn't try to expand US influence in eastern Europe. By the time the soviet union collapses, Bush tries to reassure Gorbachev that if Germany reunites, Germany wouldn't be a security threat to Russia in the future. Bush uses traditional diplomacy to manage German reunification so that Russia wouldn't feel threatened. Bush uses diplomatic techniques to maintain peaceful relations between great powers. Knows that he shouldn't push too much US agenda or take advantage of the german reunification, because he knew that the collapse of the soviet union was inevitable. Wanted to make sure that the US maintained a cautious approach to keep the dissolution peaceful. When compared with Clinton's foreign policy, Bush also seems like an offshore balancer, because when Russia when was weak, Clinton expanded NATO to include eastern european nations formerly part of the Warsaw pact which greatly deteriorated US-Russian relations.
What is Liberal Internationalism?
Liberal Internationalism: Focuses on establishing a liberal international order, using military power and international institutions multilaterally. Liberal in this sense means the classical sense, free and fair elections, individual rights, civil liberties, free market, private property, and free economy (both democrats and republicans are liberal in this sense). The new world order pursued is dominated by the values of American society.
What is the logic that underlies liberal ineternationalist grand strategy?
Logic: Assumes that american threats are global and expansive, and that security against these threats should be pursued multilaterally thru organizations and alliances. Security is also best achieved through a world of western values- free markets, democratic regimes, protecting human rights. American led international order should be established through military and economic intervention.
What is the chief critique of liberal internationalist grand strategy?
Critique: Critics consider the contextual nature of security (world full of American values is considered safe) too activist and expansive.Can be perceived as imperialist.
What are the main characteristics of a liberal international order?
Collective security system through international institutions. National self-determination. Democracy, free trade, and open seas. Willingness to use military force to achieve foreign policy goals and establish a western-oriented world order.
How is Woodrow Wilson a historical example of the liberal internationalist grand strategy?
Wilson is an example of liberal internationalism because he championed a system of collective security through the league of nations in the wake of WW1 in order to deter future attempts to revise the existing world political order. He also championed national self-determination- supported imperial peoples' rights to determine their own leaders, classic liberal ideals. Sought to undermine traditional empires by fostering local resistance. His call for open navigation of the seas directly challenges the foundations of great empires-British empire relied on the strength of its navy.
Why does McDonald argue that Barack Obama's foreign policy also follows a liberal internationalist grand strategy?
McDonald argues that Obama is a liberal internationalist because he calls for multilateral cooperation to combat terrorism. He also supports democracy, and has broadened it to include human dignity, but he has backed down from the Bush administration from holding it as a goal that must be met, even by unilateral means. He is willing to use military force in order to enact foreign policy goals. He has also clearly backed down from the Bush administration's Primacy oriented policy.
Why does Posen in your article, "Pull Back," disagree with this depiction of President Obama's grand strategy as liberal internationalist?
Posen's critique of this assessment claims that Obama is too activist to be considered liberal internationalist.
In what ways did Moser suggest that President Obama's foreign policy diverge from Liberal Internationalism?
Moser suggests that Obama is too much of a realist to be a liberal internationalist, pushing him closer to the offshore balancer ideology. He is often too reluctant to commit US military force in support of causes. He is more reactive than proactive and isn't willing to be as expansive as is necessary to establish the liberal world order. Basically isn't completely committed to remaking the world in the American image.
What is primacy?
Primacy: Dedicated to establishing and maintaining American hegemony over the world. Primary goal is to avoid the emergence of a strong rival to American power.
What is the logic that underlies primacy?
Logic:
American interests are global and expansive
Security is best achieved unilaterally, and international organizations should be regarded with extreme suspicion
Requires that US possess extraordinary American power over its rivals
Relies primarily on hard (military) power
Is part of the realist philosophy, meaning it relies on material rather than ideological goals.
What is the chief critique of Primacy?
Critique: Often faulted for being too ambitious and costly, and well as damaging to America's image abroad due to its unwillingness to work with others.
What is neo-conservativism?
the key importance with neoconservatives is that they promote democracy and the national interest of America through military force. it started during the red-scare and then reappeared during 9/11
what are the historical foundations of neocons?
Started out within a group of American socialist intellectuals who thought Stalin had perverted the communist revolution in Russia, lending their foreign policies a strong anti-Stalin ideology. During the 1960s, domestic turmoil associated with Vietnam pushed the group to the right. They opposed the cultural backlash blaming of the government for the failures in Vietnam. A great skepticism of the efficacy (rather than the intent)of social policy also emerged- they believe that social life is too complex to re-engineer and attempts to engineer them will bring about unintended negative consequences. In the 1970s, NCs became frustrated with leaders who wanted to negotiate with communist powers, only wanting to wipe out the USSR. Raegan's hard line USSR party ideologically brought traditional conservatives and neocons closer together.
How is George W. Bush's grand strategy a neo-conservative variant of primacy?
Bush grand strategy was a neoconservative variant of primacy. Generally primacy is not motivated by an underlying ideological cause, but it can be and was during the Bush administration. Post 9/11, neocon ideology prevailed within the idea vacuum prompted by the need for immediate response. Clearly exhibits tenants of neocon ideology- strong willingness to use military force to promote FP goals in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was skeptical of international institutions and saw them as too constraining in an era of new threats that might require immediate response. Democracy promotion was central to his foreign policy.
Compare and contrast the reading by Posen and Brooks et al. Why does Posen see a need for the U.S. to pull back from its international commitments while Brooks and his co-authors remain committed to global engagement in the world?
Posen argues that the US needs to pull back from an interventionist foreign policy. He argues that American activism has had 3 negative consequences:
Believes that liberal internationalism and primacy have fused together to become liberal hegemony policy. Because of our monolithic foreign policy, (liberal hegemony), other rival states have have found themselves binding together to counterbalance US power. Also believes Liberal hegemony has gotten US involved in unending and unwinnable conflicts involving national identity and culture. We cannot stamp this out. Third, it has allowed our allies such as Europe and Japan to shirk their own defense spending and responsibilities.
Posen also argues US should replace its current policy with a more restrained one, prioritizing 3 things: Fighting the rise of another great power, fighting terrorism, and stopping nuclear proliferation.
Second, US should reduce its commitments to global allies and force our allies to do more to protect themselves. Third, stop engaging in counterinsurgency missions. If we do all this, we will be able to reduce the size of our military, which will enable us to pursue less engaged FP.
Brooks argues that the US needs to remain globally engaged. If the US pulls back, there could be significant global consequences which would likely necessitate re-intervention to protect new threats to American interests.
Brooks argues that expanded American influence deters other powers from bidding for regional hegemony in any area of the world. Argues that the costs of intervention that Posen cites are overstated. The economic costs are far from definitive, and no country has ever balanced against the US. Furthermore, alliance networks serve to prevent the US from getting pulled into unnecessary wars.
What are the major events that led to the current crisis between Russia and the West over Ukraine?
Protests broke out when the Ukrainian government started moving away from talks to join EU. Eventually, the protests pushed the president out of power, and a new-pro-EU- president took office. Russia invades and annexes Crimea, and pro-Russian separatists continue fighting with the Ukrainian government. US and EU found themselves in a militarily tough position, and instead of military actions they imposed economic sanctions intended to pressure Russia to withdraw from Ukraine by raising the cost of Russia's military actions. Nobody thought this would be a big deal, but when oil prices dropped, Russia lost a lot of revenue from its main export source which caused a huge economic crisis. In spite of this, however, Russia has not backed down, and US is now contemplating giving weapons to Ukraine
How does the Ukraine crisis threaten the post-Cold War order in Europe?
The Ukraine crisis poses the first test to how Europe and NATO will react to pressure from the East. This is a reflection of how the west will respond to Russian intervention in Europe.
Where in the constitution (which articles) is executive authority over foreign policy anchored?
Article II. Several clauses delineate president's command over FP. Presidents (especially since WW2) have primarily referred to Article II, section II which gives the president the role of commander and chief over the armed forces and the power to make treaties. Also, Article II, section I gives the president "broad executive power"- which, to many signifies predominance over foreign policy.
What is the logic of separating war-making powers and authority over foreign policy between the executive and legislative branches?
Logic: Separating FP authority between the branches is designed to curtail over concentration of power over FP in the president's hands. Congress has the power to declare war and to fund the defense department and military expenditure. By explicitly granting congress power over FP, the framers intended for the separation of powers to check any one branch's power over foreign affairs.
How do crucial differences between presidential, separation-of-powers systems such as separate presidential and legislative elections (and thus separate constituencies), fixed terms, and no "vote of confidence" for a president to maintain power produce di
Parliamentary system: Executive and legislative branches are fused. The prime minister is the leader of the majority party that wins in the legislative election, and can only retain their position if they maintain majority support within the parliament. If a coalition of parties breaks support from the president, the parliament can call a vote of no confidence, and re-elections would be held to unseat the leader. If this were the case in the US, a divided government would never be possible.
Presidential system: Has separate elections for each branch. This means separate constituencies- presidents have a national constituency, whereas legislators have more specific, local constituencies. Also, both the executive branch and legislative branch have fixed terms.
How do challenges in coordinating executive branch bureaucracies affect foreign policy decision-making?
The NSC, (which includes the VP, chairman of the joint chiefs of staffs, members of the cabinet, and some other top people) together with the president play the central role in coordinating the executive branch agencies. The problems of coordination revolve around keeping individuals or groups from getting in each others' way so that they can complete their tasks. Lack of coordination between different agencies can lead to mixed messages to foreign leaders from different departments, which can have significant negative consequences.
How do competing interests between foreign policy bureaucracies affect foreign policy decision making, for example, in the post-invasion Iraq?
Competing interests between the heads of different bureaucratic agencies can activate intense political conflict in which the agency heads compete for relative influence over the president. This leaves the president to decide who is at the top of the Bureaucratic structure.
Example: Intense conflict between Cheney, Powell and Rumsfeld over decision to go to war and subsequently the management of stabilization efforts. Colin Powell tried to get UN approval for Iraq war. When he didn't, he was booted out of the decision making process. The defense department capitalized on his fallen influence and assumed bureaucratic responsibility for managing the post-invasion stabilization. The work that the State department had put into planning for stabilization efforts was essentially discarded. The defense department, because of its neocon key figures, believed that the transfer of power in Iraq would be smooth, which led to gross policy oversight about what was needed in the reconstruction effort. Essentially this catalyzed the need for an American troop surge later on.
How do organizational needs and "turf wars" influence foreign policy decision-making?
The specific interests of whatever agency gets control over a certain policy area shapes the way that policy will play out. Furthermore, Common manifestation of the influence of competing organizational interests influence on FP dynamics occurs when agencies try to spend all their resources at the end of a fiscal year in an attempt to secure more funding to their agency than what is given to other agencies.
How do incentives to spend all resources in order to maximize budgets affect foreign policy and military planning, for example, in the allocation between branches of the military such as the air force versus the army?
During the cold war, much of the debate centered around the degree to which the US should rely on air power. The air force, in an effort to secure more funding, resources and responsibility, pushed for increased dependence on air power instead of ground power during the cold war. The inter-service rivalry ended up having a huge impact on the course of action that the US took.
According to conventional wisdom, war increases presidential power not only in the prosecution of war itself but also in domestic policy. According to Howell, Jackman, and Rogowski (cited in lecture reading), why does the legislative branch allow the expa
Howell, Jackman and Rogowski note that because the president represents a much larger and more moderate constituency than congressional members. Therefore, congressional members have diverging national and local interests, since what's good for the nation may not necessarily be good for the particular district the congressional member represents. In this circumstance, congressional and presidential positions on defense appropriations are likely to diverge. In wartime, however, congressional members are more likely to consider defense spending in terms of the national interest.
According to the interview with Professor Bobby Chesney, what was President Obama's legal justification for using force against ISIS without congressional approval when the conflict with ISIS emerged in Fall 2014?
Obama claims that he can go to war against ISIS in fall 2014 because congress authorized it in 2011. The patriot act and the growth of signals intelligence also serve to support this claim. Obama has most recently claimed that the 2001 AUMF gives him re-authorization for military intervention against ISIS. After 9/11 congress passed a statute giving the president the right to use "all necessary and appropriate force" against the perpetrators of the attacks, which in this case was specific to AQ. In recent years it has been expanded to include AQ and cooperative groups. Obama administration relying on the argument that ISIS has developed to eclipse AQ as the primary terrorist threat, and because it is a subsidiary of AQ in some respects and represents what AQ used to represent, the AUMF is still legally credible.
How did Professor Chesney challenge Obama's legal justification for bypassing congress and not requesting a new AUMF in 2014?
Chesney says that because ISIS has branched off from AQ, and isn't at all the same organization.Without fresh congressional buyin, members of congress can retroactively buy in and comment on the legality if the fight against ISIS doesn't go well.
What is an Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF)?
An AUMF is a congressional authorization legally allowing the president to engage military conduct.
According to your reading by Golan-Vilella, what have been the main consequences of the AUMF passed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11?
The 2001 AUMF has been used extensively to justify military action against a broad, classified list of unnamed targets. The author argues that the AUMF has allowed congress to shirk its military responsibility and divert its attention away from the wars, leaving the president to operate without constraints, which some argue has led to an overreach of presidential power in cases like the detainment of political prisoners at Guantanamo. Furthermore, the secrecy of the named targets damages US democratic accountability, because the president can carry out his military missions secretly. Furthermore, by including on the list groups and individuals whose intentions are primarily localized and who don't have the capacity to launch attacks against the US, the US is making more enemies than need by and legitimizing the threat of otherwise peripheral organizations.
Where in the constitution (which articles) is congressional authority over foreign policy anchored?
Two articles:
article 1, section 8: congress has the power to declare war and to appropriate funding to the various military branches.
article 2, section 2: congress has the power to block a president's treaty if over 1/3 of its body objects
According to your Kaye reading, what is "stealth multilateralism"?
Stealth multilateralism: refers to efforts by presidents to work around congress's rejection of treaties by simply acting as though the US were part of a treaty without legal ratification. Essentially, even though the US is not formally bound by a treaty, presidents will still pursue policy in accord with the terms of the unratified treaty to signify US commitment.
How does the idea of stealth multilateralism capture the influence that Congress can have on foreign policy through the constitutional provision that the Senate must ratify treaties with a 2/3 majority?
Congress' influence over foreign policy because of this provision means that congressional representatives of the party opposing the president are usually able to block the president's treaty efforts with 1/3 of the majority. The recent trend since the cold war has been for the senate to reject virtually all treaties presidents pursue. Kay finds this destructive to US FP goals and ability to engage in multilateral solutions to modern problems. Forces us to work unilaterally in a world which requires multilateral solutions.
Even if the President can get around Senate ratification of treaties and still enter into international agreements, as Kaye suggests, why does the ability of the Senate to block international treaties still complicate international negotiations?
Even stealth multilateralism is problematic because some issues require long term policy where only a formal treaty would suffice because it signifies a long term commitment which will last beyond the particular presidents term in office. Other states are less likely to make agreement with the US without a long-term commitment. Furthermore, presidents acting unilaterally without congress angers the public when things go poorly.
What is the War Powers Resolution (1973) and why is it an important congressional restraint on executive war-making powers?
Brought on by dissatisfaction with Nixon's "presidential overreach" in the Vietnam era. Resolution is congress' attempt to take back some presidential authority over troop deployment. Tried to "rebalance" the power between the president and congress by interjecting congress into the debate about the use of military force, relying on congress' ability to declare war as well as the "necessary and proper" clause which says that congress has "necessary and proper" broad powers over foreign policy.
What does the War Powers Act require of the president in its dealings with Congress?
Specific rules laid out for when the president has to consult congress. Puts time limits on the president's ability to deploy troops abroad without a declaration of war or specific congressional authorization.
How has every president since Richard Nixon (who had his veto of the bill overridden) viewed the War Powers act?
Since its enactment presidents have tended to argue that it is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers or that it doesn't apply to a particular circumstance where they want to use military force without getting prior approval from congress.
There are many ways that Congress affects presidential decision-making on the use of force. What are these ways?
Congressional representatives can call hearings to publicly debate a presidential policy, which provide a public forum for members of the opposing party to call attention to the president's decision. Furthermore, congress can also pass legislation that restricts presidential power in foreign policy. Congress can also pass defense authorization bills, which limit the amount of money congress gives to the president for defense spending if they don't like his policies.
Examples in which Presidents use some form of executive orders to get around Congressional oversight. What are these examples?
Presidents can act unilaterally to push through policy by executive order. Also they act through something called "stealth multilateralism" in which they follow all the orders of an unratified treaty.
How does divided government generate greater congressional oversight over foreign policy?
First, electoral incentives increase when for one party when its opposing party controls the white house. Criticism of the president help advance the electoral prospects of the opposing party in the next election. On the other hand, congressional officials in the opposing party can't be too supportive of the president because it would undermine their party's election prospects. Divided gov't also leads to more oversight because of the information advantage that the president holds. The president has broad access to information from intelligence agencies that help him make better judgements about the likelihood of success for certain policies, and is more likely to share that information with members of his own party to help enlist them to build support for his policies. Therefore the party opposing the president will use oversight as a tool to try to force the president to give up this information, though hearings that compel administration officials to shed light on the information. Divided government has historically been an effective constraint on president's use of military force: as the number of seats held by the oppositional party increases, the president is less likely to use military force during his term. Negates the idea that opposing parties do not rally around the president in wartime.
How do members of congress use the media to shape public opinion and ultimately foreign policy decisions by the president?
Congress hold more hearings when the government is divided. Hearings provide a public forum for members of congress to voice their displeasure with the president's policy. The presence of bipartisan support for legislation tends to diminish criticisms of it in the news. Without bipartisan support, the media focuses on the opposition party and gives them a platform from which to speak. In this way congressional officials can set the agenda for what will be covered in the media, while also taking advantage of the media as a vehicle to voice their opinions about the president's foreign policy.
How do the more regional constituencies of the members of Congress versus the national constituency of the President help to explain why the President and Congress disagree on foreign policy so often?
It is easier to take a position if you represent one state than if you represent the entire country, so members of congress are more likely to lean farther to the left or right. Also, congressional representatives are worried about their re-election within a narrower constituency, and thus have to represent their local interests over the national interest even if they may align with the president's national goals. Presidents have to win over more moderate voters.
Explain the arguments for and against plans for the U.S. to provide "lethal aid" - arms such as drones, anti-aircraft missiles, and radar - to the Ukrainian government in its fight against pro-Russian separatists.
Arguments for: Providing Ukraine with weapons will raise the human and economic costs of Russian military intervention and get Putin to back down. Although it would not enable Ukraine to beat Russia, but being able to defend itself might be too costly for Russia. Also, the peace agreement will send a terrible message that the west can't really stop aggressive invasion of sovereign nations.
Arguments against: Arming Ukraine will backfire and escalate the violence. This will end up galvanizing the Russian people against the West and provide Putin with support and justification for Russia to increase its military involvement in Ukraine. European leaders argue that military intervention and the rejection of the peace treaty threatens to provoke a broader European war.
Why did President Obama announce at a recent press conference that the U.S. would not be extending negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program?
Obama declared that he would not extend negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program, which puts more pressure on the negotiators and Iran. The US has designed a heavy sanctions policy that is putting immense pressure on the Iranian economy. Sanctions won't be relaxed without a deal and are likely to get more severe. Obama is announcing this to give the Iranians a timeline to respond.
Explain the politics surrounding the proposed speech by Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu to the U.S. Congress.
Obama condemned Netanyahu for scheduling an address before congress. He argues that the speech is a breach of protocol in Israeli-American relations. The conflict is driven by domestic politics in both countries.Furthermore, Netanyahu's speech is generating domestic backlash in Israel, as many Israelis fear that he is endangering US-Israeli relations for domestic political gain. Iran's nuclear program is at the heart of this conflict. Obama argues that diplomacy is the best method to avert the launching of a preventive strike against Iran.
How is Netanyahu's speech to congress an example of Congress exerting influence on U.S. foreign policy?
In allowing the speech, congress is using its power to call attention to its criticism of Obama's supposedly soft-line on Iran. Obama will tolerate compromise that leaves Iran with nuclear energy capacity, which Israel completely opposes. There is an emerging partisan split where democrats are taking a less supportive position towards Israel, and the republican controlled house is voicing its support for Israel and its condemnation of Iranian nuclear weaponization attempts.
What are the four primary ways that the public shapes U.S. foreign policy?
Shifts in public opinion, usually measured by opinion polls.
Economic interests (the interests of trade groups, or other groups specifically concerned with economic focus)
Special interest groups: lobby groups which have a broader interest focus than just the economy.
Political and social movements (such as the tea party and occupy movements)
What is the "rally around the flag" effect?
Rally around the flag effect: surge in public support for president and the war because at times of perceived crisis when intervention is at its initial stages.
What are some historical examples of rally around the flag effect?
Historical examples: Approval ratings for GW spiked right after 9/11 attacks and the initial invasion of Afghanistan. Also a spike in support for GW right after the invasion of Iraq. Korean and Vietnam wars also started out with widespread public support. George HW Bush saw his approval ratings spike after the start of the 1st gulf war in 1991.
What tends to drive rally around the flag effect?
Driving forces:
Nationalism: citizens tend to come together and rally around their leader in times of crisis as a psychological form of defense.
Lack of interest/information about the conflict: Public tends to ignore FP issues which results on relatively unstable policy opinions which can change quickly and are thus subject to quick surge in support.
Drama of military conflict: If citizens hold weak opinions on FP issues, they can easily be swayed by dramatic events and thus support for country can dramatically increase.
Has President Obama experienced a "rally around the flag" effect surrounding the crisis with ISIS?
Arguably, yes. As the US public became more aware of ISIS because of its dramatically violent tactics, public support for air strikes increased dramatically.
What is "war fatigue"?
War fatigue: dramatic drop in support for military intervention with the passing of time and mounting casualties.
According to lecture and your Mueller reading, why has it been so difficult to sustain public support for military interventions in the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars?
It has been difficult to maintain public support because US public has a low tolerance for casualties. Americans are casualty-phobic. Mueller argues there is very little presidents can do to reverse this trend. They cannot resist the decline. This makes Americans less willing to engage in a new prolonged conflict in the wake of a long conflict's end.
What is a public good?
Public good: a good that everyone has an interest in seeing provided. It is non-excludable, meaning that once it is provided, it is too costly to exclude someone from receiving it, and non-rivalrous, meaning that one person's consumption of it doesn't limit anyone else from using it. Together, these 2 attributes create the free rider problem.
What are some examples of public goods?
Examples: National defense, public education, air, public parks.
What is the free rider problem and how does it relate to the provision of public goods?
The free rider problem occurs when people enjoy the benefits of something without necessarily contributing to the costs.
How does the free rider problem relate to foreign policy and the provision of something like national defense?
For the example of national defense, everyone collectively agrees that the nation needs some kind of national defense. However, at an individual level, one person's contribution has a negligible effect on the funding of national defense. Everyone has an incentive to avoid their taxes, but this threatens to leave the public good underfunded and underdeveloped. The government instead relies on institutions like the IRS to force people to contribute to the public good.
How do special interest lobbying groups solve the free rider problem?
Unless you have a lot of money, the public's influence over FP depends on group mobilization. Individual voters have negligible influence simply thru the act of voting. Interest groups function to organize lots of voters. Politicians will support policies that might alternatively lose them large blocs of voters if they voted against it. Their organizational influence depends on their ability to coerce people into funding or mobilizing a certain cause. Their relative influence depends on their ability to make individuals sacrifice for the greater cause (because individuals tend to free-ride on the lobbying efforts they support and not actually participate in the movement). Special interest groups get around the free-rider problem by offering selective incentives that are available only through paid membership in a group, which the groups can then use to fund lobbying efforts.
Special economic interest groups are more effective lobbyists than the general public because to the average consumer, the benefits of free trade and the abolishment of tariffs are negligible compared to the effort it would take to mobilize a base against trade restrictions. Groups that are actually threatened by the exportation of jobs are more effective lobbyists because their interests are concentrated in preventing the abolition of tariffs even at the expense of free trade.
How have powerful economic interests captured state power and fashioned economic trade policy to further their interests through the Open Door policies of the 19th century?
The need to secure international consumer markets and cheap raw materials have played a large role in the global projection of American influence. "state capture theory" claims that large corporations possess disproportionate influence over American FP, and that the global interests of these corporations become the political interests of the US government. US "open door" policy states that even if foreign access to the American consumer market is shut off, the US has championed equal access for all its own corporations in foreign markets. American firms tended to be very competitive in international markets, and through this the US could challenge imperial positions of European powers in Asia, Latin America and India. Traditionally, imperial colonies granted preferential access to firms from their ruling power. Because this disadvantaged American firms, the US became an advocate for the open door. This theory assumes that the US can export its own goods to other nations as its primary tool for economic growth. However, it couldn't gain market access without military intervention in support of its economic interests, and this meant intervening in central and south America as well as the middle east. This all helps to explain the development of US FP in terms of the economic interests of the capital holding class in the US. American interventions in Latin America and the Middle east support this view and explain US interventions in the name of oil interests.
According to the reading by Mearsheimer and Walt, why has AIPAC been so influential on U.S. policy toward the Middle East and why is this a problem?
AIPAC has been extremely influential in Foreign policy because of its ability to concentrate and organize supporters of Israel to solve the collective action problem and marshall huge financial resources to promote their position.
AIPAC's influence over US policy is problematic because it has granted a small group an outsized role in Foreign policy discussions, and that it has pushed the US too close to Israel. They think that national interests should be defined by the relative external threat they pose, which should be proportional to the importance the government assigns to them. Also, national interests should be national and not specific to a certain group.Thus the growing influence of the lobby directly contradicts their FP model. They say that the costs of maintaining close ties with Israel outweigh the benefits.
Is this problem of AIPAC's influence easily remedied in a democratic political system?
It would be difficult to remedy this problem in a democratic system because the principle of free speech theoretically allows for the public to organize in a way that would more effectively promote their cause, which does in some cases (like this one) result in a disproportionate representation of certain interests in policy.
What are the main elements of the ceasefire agreement between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian separatists?
ceasefire and withdrawal of heavy weapons from the conflict zone, prisoner exchange and amnesty for rebel fighters, removal of foreign fighters and disarmament of rebels, local elections and self-rule in the separatist regions. Most importantly, a change in the Ukrainian constitution to grant those regions a special status and decentralization.
What are the main differences between realism versus idealism?
Realism: a foreign policy orientation that prioritizes security over other values and rejects the notion that moral values should be a central part of policy decision making, especially if the values come in conflict with Realists have little faith in international organizations to safeguard the international system from its own perpetual state of anarchy. Therefore, they believe, world order must be kept by balancing military power among the world powers. Realists are willing to work with dictators if it means promoting security.
Idealism: argues that security is best achieved through the pursuit of core values and the attempt to craft an international system that matches those values as closely as possible. Have faith in the ability of international organizations and believe that nations can reshape the international system if they try to follow their core values.
Based on the clip from the Vox interview, how does President Obama describe his own approach to foreign policy in relation to realism and idealism?
Obama describes his approach as neither idealist or realist. Obama questions America's ability to promote democracy in nations which he feels lack the necessary foundations for a democratic system, and tries to conduct a FP where military isn't the solution to everything
What are the key provisions of President Obama's recent request for a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress to fight ISIS?
Key provisions of the AUMF: claims he isn't seeking authorization for a new ground war, but rather a continuation of the air strike campaign already in place. Furthermore, he imposed a 3-year deadline on the authorization in an attempt to put some restraints on the next administration. Most importantly, there is no geographic restriction on the use of military force. This is requested in anticipation that new ISIS offshoots could appear anywhere.
How have major Republican and Democratic members of Congress reacted to Obama's request for a new AUMF?
Many democrats are glad that the president is formally consulting them. Republicans are more divided. May want the authorization to delegate even more power to the president to escalate the military conflict if necessary.
How did a global conflict originating in Europe help bring about the American state?
The French-Indian war was a global conflict that originated in Europe. Most important consequence was a British victory against the French and Spanish that brought huge territorial gains for the UK. This led to the collapse of the British economy because of war debts and military expenditures to try to defend their borders in the newly gained territory. To fund this, the British turned to the economy of its American colonies for support, which brought about a series of new economic policies aimed at providing new revenue through taxation to pay off the war debts, which prompted political backlash from the colonists.
What challenges did Great Britain face in managing its colonies in North America in light of the Seven Years/French & Indian War?
UK deferred the cost of war by borrowing money to fund current military expenditures. The war brought new territory that needed to be defended, which aggregated its already significant war debts. Together, these challenges demanded a new source of revenue.
How did these challenges lead to new taxation and limits on self-government that ultimately spurred mobilization for independence?
Britain turned to the rapidly growing economy of the American colonies to fund its increased military presence and accrued war debts. To do this, Britain imposed significant new tax policies such as the stamp act, sugar act, and monopoly on the tea trade and heightened the rigidity on how these taxes were collected. These policies generated political backlash in the colonies which included embargoes of British products, decisions by local officials not to impose the taxes, and reformation of local legislatures after they had been disbanded by the British. British gov't responded to this retaliation by circumventing local authority and implement their own people to restore authority, provoking calls for independence.
How did France help to secure independence for the American colonies from Great Britain?
France helped counterbalance the British military, which at the time was arguably the strongest in the world. By contrast, the colonists had a relatively weak army. The French provided economic and military support. in 1778, France commits to fight until the colonies achieve independence. France then expands this alliance by pulling Spain into the war. The end result was that the international coalition against the British helped secure huge territorial gains for the colonists.
What role did the Declaration of Independence play in signaling to France that the American colonies were worth supporting in its drive for independence?
The declaration of independence served as an irrevocable signal to both foreign and domestic actors that the United States was unwilling to settle back into an agreement with the British. Legitimized the colonists' commitment to independence to the French, who were worried that its encouragement of the revolution could prompt a new war with the British. Needed to be sure that if that happened, the US would not fall back into the arms of the British, who could then use North American resources against the French.
How did the Articles of Confederation and its concentration of power in the states shape American foreign policy?
The Articles of Confederation produced a loose union among the states, making America relatively weak internationally when compared to Europe, which heightened fears of a new European intervention. The fear of external threats was a powerful incentive to generate the national consensus needed to ratify the constitution. This paved the way for the federalist movement's position that a strong central power was critical to prevent states from becoming so autonomous that they would hesitate to aid other states against external aggressors. Common interest of preventing threats bound the nation together and shaped a sort of collective national identity that didn't exist previously.
How did war and the anticipation of war in Europe lead to constructing a constitution with a stronger national government capable of reining in state powers?
Federalists argued that European war should be taken as a constant, and that America needed a strong central power to keep individual states from being drawn into this conflict. If the central government didn't have some authority over individual states, any state potentially risked entangling the larger union into an unwanted war.
How did Washington's Farewell Address set a precedent of isolationism for the United States?
Washington's farewell address warns against the danger of getting drawn into a European war. He questioned America's ability to survive given that the two main parties were aligning with different foreign governments. Therefore advocated for having as little foreign engagement as possible.
What was Washington's fear regarding international cleavages and American domestic politics?
The two main parties at the time were aligning with different foreign governments, which Washington believed threatened his core value of a unified government. He worried that the United States would find itself focusing more on its allegiances than its domestic policy, and he didn't want to polarize a nation so soon after its independence.
What were the main principles of the Monroe Doctrine?
First, the western hemisphere was declared closed to colonization, basically asserting US sphere of influence over the Americas. Secondly, it stated that the US would refrain from participation in European wars and would not disturb existing colonies in the Western Hemisphere, but that it would extend protection to newly independent Latin American states within its sphere of influence.
How did the Monroe Doctrine establish a sphere of influence for the United States in the Western Hemisphere?
Monroe declares a sphere of influence for the United States over Latin America, but notes that the sphere is limited and that the US would refrain from involving itself in European wars and wasn't willing to try to dislodge any European powers from the western hemisphere.
Why did the U.S. assert as ambitious a foreign policy as the monroe doctrine at this time?
The choice to pursue this policy at this time was driven primarily by external developments. Independence movements in Latin America created newly independent states that presented new opportunities/risks that the US felt it had to respond to. Also, in Europe the end of the Napoleonic wars created a new atmosphere in which conservative non-democratic monarchies saw democratic movements as threatening to the world order. Emerging democracies sought to counterbalance coalitions between imperial monarchies. This provided an opening for the US to assert itself in Latin America.
What was Great Britain's role in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine and why was it so supportive of American ambitions in the Western Hemisphere?
Great Britain supported the Monroe doctrine, since it was in Britain's interest to keep other European powers (especially Spain) out of the Western hemisphere. Britain provided the essential military enforcement of the monroe doctrine, since the US was too weak to enforce it itself.
What were the implications of the Monroe Doctrine?
Established precedents that the US lay claim to a sphere of geographic influence in Latin America, and also acknowledged that European powers had their own sphere of influence in Europe. Second, Monroe doctrine represents an enactment of higher ideals like anti-colonialism and promotion of democracy. Finally, it theoretically laid the foundations for American imperialism- future presidents used the Monroe doctrine to meddle in Latin America themselves.
What were the reactions of Egypt and Italy to violence by ISIS against Coptic Christians from Egypt in Libya?
Egyptian air force responded to ISIS murders of Egyptian Christians living in Libya by bombing ISIS targets in Libya. Italy has responded by calling on NATO to act against ISIS.
How did the reactions of Egypt and Italy to ISIS affect the emergent coalition against the threat from ISIS?
Arab states are now rallying around destroying ISIS as to prevent ISIS from continuing to take advantage of political instability in the Middle East. Jordan and Egypt's air strikes are being supported by the United Arab Emirates. The coalition provides a more broad justification for American intervention in the middle east.
Describe Senator John McCain's position on President Obama's request for a new AUMF for military intervention against ISIS.
McCain argues that Obama's request isn't broad enough and that it restrains the president too much. Says that the AUMF gives congress too much power and gives them the authority to cut off funding if they disagree with Obama. Furthermore, argues that the US never should have withdrawn from Iraq and that there should be boots on the ground right now in Iraq and Syria.
How do constitutional and strategic considerations factor into Senator McCain's position on Obama's request for military intervention against ISIS?
The constitutional argument rests on the premise that the president is the commander in chief over the armed forces, and congress shouldn't be able to weigh in every time congress wants to use force.
The Strategic argument states that the AUMF request was wrong on strategic grounds. Argues that the weak nature of the military plan ignores the necessity of putting boots on the ground. This represents a central contrast between the conservative and liberal internationalist philosophies of intervention in the Middle East. McCain maintains confidence in America's military capacity to stabilize Middle Eastern conflict. This view assumes that the emergence of ISIS was a direct result of Obama's troop withdrawal from Iraq.
How did Western expansion in the mid-1800s contribute to the emergence of the United States as a global power?
Expansion helped the US project power globally through:
the new land itself was a source of wealth and provided opportunity for people to move west and settle.
new land provided new natural resources, which helped the economy and were also important for war resources
the new territories served as a basis for new economic growth which helped the US emerge as a global world power
Forces that promoted American expansionism: Four main forces
population and economic growth: expansion was needed due to pressure from a rapidly growing population
technological developments: the railroad in particular made westward expansion mobilization much faster and easier.
Ideology: Manifest destiny in particular provided a justification for outward expansion. Justified expansion for material reasons thru the ideology that the will of god compelled American people to take over lands in the west.
Domestic policy-specifically slavery drove westward expansion because Southern states wanted to spread slavery to newly settled states. Whichever side had more senators could be expected to determine the fate of slavery as an institution in the US.
What made the American Civil War an international event?
The Civil war was an important international event because the fate of the American experiment had huge implications for the survival of the United States not only as a nation, but as an idea. US was the only exception to monarchical rule at the time. Democracy was seen by many as unstable and chaotic, viewed as a threat to the long-term stability of the imperial world order. The Civil war had global repercussions on the American model of democracy. Nations with multi-ethnic populations who were considering changing to a more democratic rule looked to the outcome of the American experiment.
What differentiated Union diplomacy from Confederate diplomacy? What did each side rely upon to generate implicit or explicit support from European powers?
Union diplomacy relied on ideological anti-slavery standpoint to appeal to international allies. Slavery had long since been abolished slavery. Also, the North had a lot of industrialized production and traded with Europe at high rates. Russia strongly supported the Union because a strong, United America countered its main rival imperial power.
Confederate diplomacy relied on "king cotton", or the South's cotton industry, which provided the European textile industry with its main source of cotton. Confederate diplomacy relied on threatening to cut Europe off from the cotton supply, thinking this would force Europe to back out of the conflict. This strategy failed, however, because it took too long to have a concrete impact on european economies. Furthermore, Britain's refusal to take a stance, while it initially granted legitimate "belligerent" status, eventually ended up hurting the confederacy because it never established a concrete position in support of them.
According to Fareed Zakaria (covered in lecture), why was America slow in expanding from a continental power to a global power?
US slow emergence as a global power can be attributed to domestic institutional conflict in the wake of the Civil War. Right after the war, congress took over FP decisions and the budget was restrained to pay pack war debts. Until the 1890s, there was a lot of friction between congress and the president because the president wanted to solidify executive authority over congress and build up the federal bureaucracy. Congress retaliated against this reduction in their power until 1890s, when the divided government ended as republicans took over both houses. The unified presidency helped consolidate FP goals. Economic growth and industrialization allowed businesses to expand nationally across state borders. This meant that everyone was making more money, which allowed the government to raise taxes to pay for more military expenditures. In light of this, the US could embark on more military annexations and build up its empire.
According to Walter LaFeber and the Wisconsin School (covered in lecture), how did crucial business interests and the need for foreign markets contribute to the timing of American expansion in the 1890s?
LaFeber argues that deflation during the civil war stalled economic growth. Deflation is bad for the economy because people, in expectation that prices would fall further for consumer goods, held off on buying anything, leading to a drop off in market consumption , which caused the collapse and failure of many businesses. American leaders, however, attributed the collapse of the economy incorrectly to overproduction, and because of this US leaders argued that they needed to make American goods more available in foreign markets, This required building up a strong navy to secure trade routes, as well as requiring tariffs on European goods to keep them out of American markets.
How did the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Bosnian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip lead to the outbreak of World War I?
War broke out between AH and Serbia when a member of the Serbian nationalist movement assassinates the AH Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The declaration of war entangled a large network of alliances and international commitments in which Russia backs Serbia, and Germany defends AH. France backs Russia, and UK backs France. In the course of a few weeks, Europe goes from complete peace to complete war.
What role did the threat of nationalist uprisings in the Austro-Hungarian empire play?
The nationalist movement that the assassin belonged to threatened the larger stability of the entire empire, because it was the fighting chance of imperial peoples to achieve self-determination. AH initially went to war to quash the emerging nationalist movement.
Why did the U.S. enter World War I in 1917 when President Woodrow Wilson ran for reelection on keeping the U.S. out of the European war?
Originally, US leaders didn't believe that America had a direct stake in the conflict. In the first half of the war, the US really tries to remain neutral.
How did Germany's submarine campaign contribute to a shift in American public opinion?
In January 1917, the German military opts to implement unrestricted submarine warfare against merchant shipping, which directly threatened the lives of American citizens. Germany implements this policy despite the fact that Wilson was trying to broker a peace treaty probably because they didn't realize Wilson's intention in time. This also represented Germany's last attempt to try to counter the shifting of resources against them.
How does Wilson's desire to shape the terms of the postwar order enter into his calculations?
Wilson envisioned a new world order to stamp out imperialism and form international coalitions, which he thought would dramatically reduce the power of European countries. He felt that a tough peace settlement would accomplish these goals-creating the LON and ending imperialism. He felt that US capacity to shape the terms of the peace settlement would be limited unless the US was directly involved in the conflict.
How did American entry into World War I shape the end of the war and its aftermath?
US entry into the war changes its course. Large scale surge of US troops into Europe and American financial aid to UK in 1918 shifts the balance of military and economic power. Germany was running out of resources and funds to continue the war at the same time that its enemies received a surge in funds.
How did Wilson's ideas of national self-determination contribute to the collapse of empires?
American intervention also had political consequences. US establishes a global political system that reflected its values of democracy, anti-imperialism, open door and support of international institutions. The defeat of Russia, AH and Germany meant the end of multinational empires. Wilson champions self-determination and political independence for these peoples and therefore has a lot of influence in how European countries will be divided at the end of the war.
How did the Versailles Treaty, particularly the harsh terms imposed on Germany, contribute to World War II?
The terms of the versailles treaty were presented as a take it or leave it offer to the Germans. Dictated complete German de-militarization- no army, no navy. Imperial government of the Kaiser toppled, democratic government instituted in its place, which is severely stressed because of the reparation terms. Reparations were a commitment device that forced Germany to comply with the terms of the treaty, which ended up being a huge burden to the German people and newly formed democratic government. It was very difficult for the German government to impose new taxes on citizens who were reeling in the wake of the war. Basically it killed the chances of a working democracy, and helped foster a new nationalist fascist movement that tried to gain back the lost territory and rebuild the economy. Apart from weakening German domestic institutions, the peace settlement served as a focal point around which opposition parties could center the main critique of the democratic government. Furthermore, Wilson fails to secure ratification for the treaty in the settlement, which undermines its credibility because it demonstrated to European leaders that the US didn't really trust them.
How did Wilson's compromises on his ideals contribute to World War II?
Wilson had to make more concessions to Europe than he wanted in order to keep his idea of the League of Nations on the table, including French demands for a harsh peace on Germany. Also, he agreed to large German territorial concessions which contributed to the mantle of rising nationalist radical movements preceding WW2.
How did American capital play an important role in keeping the reparations system afloat and the withdrawal of American capital contribute to the end of German reparation payments?
In the wake of WW1, Wilson (mistakenly) thought that the US public wasn't ready to engage in the maintenance of the new system, and therefore refused to sign the treaty. The US then started to withdraw its commitment to the larger system and pull out economic aid that was helping Germany maintain long-term stability. Furthermore, the German government took out loans from the US to pay its reparations. During the depression, the US couldn't continue to lend money and it really destabilized the reparations program
How did American policies contribute to the Great Depression?
The Federal Reserve raises interest rates for banks trying to take out loans from it, in an effort to raise the cost of buying stock on credit because stock prices were rising so rapidly, and the bank didn't want people to default on their loans. This made it much more difficult for Germany to borrow money to fund its reparations. Germany responds to this by raising interest rates, which accelerated an economic contraction there. Herbert Hoover campaigns in 1928 on the need to increase agricultural prices, and does this by inviting congress to raise taxes on imports (tariffs). Congress obliges by imposing the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which imposes new, higher tariffs on much more than just agriculture. The effect of this is that new foreign companies are essentially shut out of selling their products to the American people, and so foreign governments responded by shutting out US exports to international markets with tariffs of their own. International trade effectively collapses. Finally, in 1933 FDR takes the US off the gold standard, which had been in place to guard the international system from inflation, in an effort to end a cycle of deflation. This damages international monetary relations because it devalues the dollar relative to other countries, and this made US exports more competitive by pushing down their prices, which made other countries' exports less competitive. With this action, FDR was withdrawing the US from international economic and political cooperation. He was sick of the incompetence of European leaders to solve international economic crises like the struggle for reparations and the depression more generally. This ushered in a new wave of isolationist policy in which he tried to unilaterally and domestically turn the economy around.
What were the political consequences of the Great Depression and how did they contribute to World War II?
FDR withdraws the US from international affairs and elects to focus more on domestic politics. While the security situation deteriorated in Europe as Hitler became more successful in lobbying against the Versailles treaty, the US decided to remove itself from Europe. This was arguably the worst time it could have done this. Congress solidified this attitude in policy by passing the Neutrality Acts in 1935-7 that legally prevented the US from intervening in European military conflict. These prevented the US from aiding any side of a conflict, banned loans to states fighting in a war, and forced anyone involved in a conflict to use their own ships to move products from the United States. They saw the threat of war in Europe as imminent, and wanted to remove themselves from it. In removing itself from the world stage, however, the US created a political vacuum in Europe which enabled Germany under Hitler to threaten Europe. The economic collapse in Germany obliterated the political right and middle, and the people hurt most by the collapse increasingly voted for the Nazis, who campaigned on a platform of anti-semitism, territorial expansion, and military rearmament as a means of jump starting the economy.
How did FDR get around an isolationist Congress and support the Allied powers (particularly the British war effort) against Germany?
The movement towards isolationism complicated FDR's foreign policy goals. FDR knew that British survival was crucial to American security, but FDR felt that the US public wasn't ready to enter the war militarily. Therefore, he tried to delicately expand US support for the British without publicly committing to the war. Most important way he convinced congress to pass the lend-lease program, which basically entailed a huge transfer of economic aid to the British. Pearl harbor effectively destroyed isolationism. US was reluctant to declare war on Germany, but because of Germany's alliance with Japan, Germany declared war on the US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor rallied the American public around the necessity of the German threat. FDR personally wanted to attack Germany first, but because of the Isolationist mentality in congress, he had to attack Japan first until Germany declared war on the US.
Why did wartime cooperation between the United States and Soviet Union so quickly collapse after World War II?
Wartime cooperation collapsed following WW2 can be explained in 3 ways.
First, the US and USSR had conflicting goals. The US wanted a free market and self-determination, as well as a forward leaning FP and international engagement under FDR and Truman. Russia wanted a very different type of international system. Stalin wanted territory and a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe to make up for how much they lost in the two world wars. The US was not willing to negotiate on spheres of influence.
Second, there was a history of distrust between the two nations long-rooted in ideological incompatibility, which led each nation to interpret events within a specific framework. US saw communism as inherently threatening, were suspicious of Hitler and Stalin's pacts together while they were allied to split up Europe. Russia saw Americans as hypocritical and capitalist imperialists because of the west's history of invasion, western intervention and aid of the whites during the Russian revolution, and during WW2 Russia suspected that the US had intentionally delayed opening up a second front in Russia to weaken the USSR.
Third, individuals-specifically Stalin's paranoia and Truman's anti-communism. Stalin was completely paranoid about foreign encroachment that threatened to dethrone him from power. He had been fighting cold wars with foreign leaders his whole life. On the other side, Truman was an extremely strong anti-communist.
Drawing from lecture and the "X" article reading, how did George Kennan view the Soviet threat?
Kennan defined the nature of the Soviet threat to those in power in DC, which was used as the basis for developing containment strategy, which served as the pillar of US FP throughout the Cold War. Kenan argued that the USSR would be persistently antagonistic towards the US. The nature of the Soviet Regime, its Marxist ideology, and its need for an external enemy would make it an adversary of the US as long as Russia remained communist. Kenan says the US needed to give up on any chance of a renewal of an alliance with Russia. Secondly, the USSR presented a special type of threat that was different from that of Hitler and Nazi Germany. Russia, unlike Hitler, didn't want war because it was too weak after WW2 to directly confront the US. He argued that Russia would try to take over and influence whatever it could, but it wouldn't try to overstretch over overestimate its own strength. Therefore, pressure had to be applied all the time to ensure that Russia would heed to American strength.
How did Kennan's definition of the Soviet threat naturally give rise to the containment strategy?
He argued that Russia would retreat in the face of overwhelming force. This definition of the threat necessitated a strategy to vigilant containment of the threat with incentives for Russian retreat never any incentives for Russian expansion.
According to Kennan, why did the Soviets behave the way that they did?
Kenan argued that the USSR acted with careful consideration not to overstep its power but still took advantage of opportunities to spread its power for 2 reasons. First, he argued Marxist ideology demonized the US, which caused the innate antagonism, and also provided Soviet leaders with the patience to wait out the inevitable eventual collapse of capitalism due to gross inequality. Second, Stalin's authoritarian regime required an external enemy to justify the extreme force and coercion that the regime used to maintain its power. Therefore, Soviet leaders relied on the idea that the forces capitalism presented a constant threat.
According to Kennan, why did the Soviets behave the way that they did? For Kennan, how was the United States to overcome the Soviet threat and win the Cold War?
Kenan argued that the US was not strong enough to militarily beat Russia. Therefore the strategy was to draw out the conflict into a long-term engagement, wearing down Russia by keeping it from expanding. Kenan thought the Soviet system couldn't survive long term if it didn't expand, and would ultimately implode in the long term due to its internal contradictions. The US simply had to outperform the Russian economic system and at the same time prevent it from expanding- territorially, politically, or economically.
What were the causes and implications of the Truman Doctrine?
Causes: Truman doctrine brought on by Greek civil war between the UK backed Greek government and a communist revolutionary movement. After WW2, the British no longer had the resources to defend the government, and pulled out, leaving a power vacuum. The Truman doctrine established the US as a new global leader, because the US was the only country capable of intervening to protect the government from the communist movement.
Implications: Established the US as a new global leader. Also set a precedent for American intervention in other country's domestic conflicts. Third, it set communism as the new primary focus of FP. Finally, it established the "domino theory" as a justification for US intervention in domestic disputes in other nations. The domino theory made US interests incredibly expansive: it implied that a communist foothold in any country, even ones that didn't pose a direct threat to US security, could provide the platform for communist spread to more important European powers, which directly threatened US interests. This logic was applied throughout the Cold War to justify third-world interventions.
Drawing on lecture and the film on the Marshall Plan, why did the United States adopt the Marshall Plan?
Economic devastation in the aftermath of WW2 threatened the stability of democratic states in Europe. US feared that the publics in major European countries would vote in communist governments, which Stalin would then be able control. The underlying theory behind this policy was that communist ideology appealed to people in poverty, and economic growth was the best preventative measure against domestic attraction to extremism. Massive poverty and the desperation it caused meant a lot more marginalized people in the potential constituencies for the radical left. Socialism provided a broad program of economic redistribution, which drew a lot of support from the masses.
What were the Marshall Plan's goals and how did the policy play to American strengths and contribute to American prosperity?
Economic growth was the best deterrent for domestic attraction to communist ideology. The US had a stronger economy than Russia, and by tying the European economies to the global capitalist economy anchored on the US economy, the US could both contain communism and provide itself with foreign export markets for its goods and services which served to fuel domestic economic growth at home after WW2. The marshall plan also implicitly tried to draw in Eastern European nations to the western sphere of influence. The Marshall plan was extremely effective in stamping out domestic radicalism in France and Italy, and the establishment of the European Union revived the western European economies.
What is the German security problem?
World leaders needed to figure out what to do with Germany so that it would never destabilize the world again. A politically united Germany both threatens and is threatened by its neighbors at the end of WW2. At the time, it was the greatest military and economic power in Europe. Prior to Hitler's rise, Germany was composed of scattered states without much central authority. The consolidation of these states into one with a single primary objective heightens the threat of Germany invading its neighbors. On the other hand, Germany was militarily vulnerable to a coordinated attack between of its western European neighbors which would force Germany to send troops out to defend all its borders. The threat of this pushed German leaders to try to control other states on its borders to negate the potential for a coordinated attack against it. The vulnerability of Germany to attack in the end threatens its neighbors.
What was the American solution to the German problem? What was the Soviet solution?
The US and Soviets agreed that the best solution was disaggregation of German states. But, the different policies they put forward to accomplish this shape the Cold War conflict. The strategies rested on the political realities of post WW2 Germany. Each of the major allied powers had occupation zones in Germany within which they assumed responsibility for preventing the re-constitution of the German army and for de-Nazifying the area. Berlin complicated the occupation zones. Even though Berlin fell in the Soviet zone, the allies further divided Berlin into 4 occupation zones.
US solution divided Germany into East and West parts, with an acceptance of Soviet domination in East Germany and democratization of WG, and the economic and military integration of WG into NATO and the EU.
The Soviet solution was to communize and occupy EG. Also, wanted to prevent WG from acquiring nuclear weapons.
How was the German problem aggravated by Eisenhower's willingness to rearm Germany, potentially with nuclear weapons?
Berlin was extremely significant to the Western alliance, because the safety of WB represented American commitment to protecting Western Europe in a larger sense from Soviet invasion. American failure to protect Berlin could potentially prompt European nations to back out of the cold war and declare neutrality to save themselves from invasion. The US therefore remained committed to re-arming WG, and even stated that they would be willing to give WG nuclear weapons, which aggravated Russian fears of a German invasion.
Why was Berlin such an important signal to American commitment to protect Western Europe from Soviet aggression?
It represented the validity of America's commitment to protecting western Europe from Soviet invasion. If the US backed down to Russia in Berlin, it could send a message to European leaders that Russia was threatening to their sovereignty, which might prompt them to declare neutrality and back out of the war. On the other hand, it might also cause Russian leaders to doubt the broader American commitment to UK or France, and would be incentivized to invade.
What were the various forms of military intervention in the Third World during the Cold War?
Three Types of military intervention: proxy wars, covert actions, and supporting friendly regimes.
Proxy wars refer to wars in third world countries in which the US and USSR fought over the prevention or promotion of the spread of communism. US intervention in Vietnam and Korea was preventative, USSR invasion of Afghanistan was proactive.
CIA conducted covert operations to keep left-leaning governments from taking or remaining in power, and putting US-friendly leaders in their place.
The US also supported friendly regimes around the world that furthered US economic and security interests. This was controversial because for the large part, these were authoritarian regimes or right-wing anti-communist military dictatorships (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela).
Why was containment so much more difficult in the Third World than it was in Europe?
Military intervention in the third world was largely ineffective, resulting in military disasters like Vietnam which spurred domestic backlash and forced the US to ally with unstable, unreliable and undemocratic governments in Asia and South America. Less effective for 2 reasons- the advantages of Containment in EU, and the disadvantages of Containment in the 3rd world.
the advantages of Containment in EU
One, Greater connections between the US and Europe made the American and European public more likely to accept US involvement. US had historically played a huge and largely positive role in European affairs during world wars, making commitment to the region more justifiable. (2 main reasons for this)
One, The immediacy of the external Russian threat was more credible in Europe. Containment strategy of providing strong counterforce and military presence seemed to match the reality for Europeans because Soviet troops were actually stationed in Europe.
Two, the US had long-standing political, cultural, and historical ties with Europe that made them much less resistant to American military and political intervention on ideological grounds than the 3rd world.
disadvantages of Containment in the 3rd world.
Historically, Western imperialism in Asia and Africa only ended for most developing countries at the end of WW2. The legacies of imperialism- undeveloped economies and weak political institutions made imperial countries hostile towards their former ruling nations, some of whom were America's closest allies. US was therefore guilty by association with these countries, and viewed as an imperial power itself. MIlitary intervention to prevent communist spread was viewed simply as the latest manifestation of American imperialist ambitions, and unlike in Europe, communism wasn't necessarily considered an undesirable outcome.
Ideologically, communism had strong ideological support because of the imperial legacy and the damage it did to the economies and political development of the 3rd world. 3rd world peoples were inclined to blame their poor economies of Western capitalism, which is in line with communist thought that Western Powers pacify their own working classes with higher wages and thus avoid communist revolution by exporting their exploitation to the 3rd world.
Also, in the 3rd world, there was much greater risk of communist insurgency. Reasons for this:
Unlike in Europe, whose main risk of communist takeover was through elections, the 3rd world didn't have a history or tradition of democratic government or longstanding capitalist institutions. This made economic aid relatively ineffective, leaving military intervention as the only effective method of containment. But military intervention in the 3rd world (and often in the civil wars of other countries are militarily difficult for 2 reasons)
In terms of political will, insurgents hold a home field advantage- they are much more invested in their country's independence and survival, and are therefore much more willing to shoulder high casualties.
Insurgents also could engage in guerilla warfare and other unconventional military tactics which the US wasn't well equipped to fight. When combined with the lack of political will in the American public created a winning strategy for the insurgents. The insurgency didn't actually have to defeat US forces- they only had to inflict enough damage in terms of casualties to make the American public pressure the government to end the war.
Drawing on lecture and the film on the fall of the Berlin Wall, how did Gorbachev's foreign policy (his "New Thinking") differ from classic Soviet foreign policy?
G. represented a significant change in FP ideology. Russian leaders previously assumed a constant ideological hostility between the US and Russia that barred either side from negotiating with the other. Gorbachev transformed this ideology, publically and internationally emphasising the importance of engaging in collective security efforts to protect all nations. He stressed universal values that connected all nations, rather than ideological differences between capitalism and communism. Basically,he was willing to concede Russia's powerful image in order to force the west to accept Russia as a potential friendly state.
How did Gorbachev's refusal to use force to sustain communist rule in Eastern Europe contribute to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union?
Prior to his taking power, Russia had followed the Brezhnev doctrine, which said that Russia would engage militarily to prevent western influence in Eastern Europe and stamp out revolutionary democratic movements. Basically G. removed the threat of Russia using force to keep Eastern Europe under its control by enacting the Sinatra Doctrine, marking a reversal of Russia's position on its traditional sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. The Sinatra doctrine emboldened protesters in the Soviet Union territories, who began protesting en masse once their fears of provoking a Soviet invasion were eliminated. From this, a wave of collapses of communist regimes swept through Eastern Europe. This provided a model for ending communism in Russia.
How was the end of the Cold War a manifestation of successful containment and Kennan's vision of how the strategy was supposed to work?
Some argue that the cumulative effect of US containment policy eventually wore down the Soviet system. Kenan predicted that eventually the Soviet system would be forced to reform because the US contained its expansion and triumphed over the Russian political and economic system.
What role did mass publics within communist states play in the end of the Cold War?
Mass actors within USSR pushing for change far more expansive than what Soviet leaders intended to enact. Protest movements succeeded in dismantling the entire system despite the wishes of Soviet leaders like Gorbachev who were willing to reform but still wanted to keep the regime in power.
Hard vs. soft power:
Hard power relies on military force and coersion. Soft power relies on diplomacy, persuasion and influence.
Unilateralism:
the tendancy to persue military objectives without cooperation with allies. Inherently suspicious of international organizations' ability to protect the international system from its base anarchical state.
Multilateralism
Refers to FP objectives achieved through cooperation, through diplomatic relationships, treaties and participation in international organizations.
Narrow vs. global scope of interests
Narrow scope of interest refers to domestic interests and threats. Global scope of interest refers to a FP which considers threats to the US global and expansive, and therefore sees the nessecity in international relations.
Separate presidential and legislative elections, separate constituencies
In the separation of powers presidential system, the legislative branch is elected seperately from the executive branch. Allows for a divided government. Also means that the president has a much larger constituency and therefore has to be more moderate than the legislators, who have a responsiblity to represent the interests of their district and can lean heavily to either side of the spectrum.
Fixed terms
Once elected, US political actors serve out a fixed term. Their position in office is not threatened once elected.
No "vote of confidence" for a president
In a parlaimentary system, if the legislature disagrees with the Prime minister, who is the head of the majority party, then parlaiment can call a "vote of no confidence", in which the parlaiment can vote to unseat the leader. Typically happens when a coalition of parties breaks over a a policy, thereby disrupting the majority. Eliminates the possibility of divided government.
Divided government and the making of U.S. foreign policy
Divided government creates greater congressional oversight over FP. Electoral incentives increase for one party when the opposing party holds the presidency. Critiqing the president can advance electoral prospects for the opposing party. Also, the president holds an informational advantage in which he is privy to information from intelligence agencies which help him make better judgement calls about FP. The opposing party will use their powers of oversight to call hearings in order to compel white house officials to testfy about the classified information. Furthermore, historically divided government has constrained the president's ability to use military force
Rally around the flag effect
surge in public support for the president and war effort at times of perceived crisis when the intervention is in its initial stages.
War fatigue
dramatic drop in support for military intervention with the passing of time and military casualties.
Free rider problem, public good provision, and national defense
A public good is a good that everyone has an interest in seeing provided. It is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Together, these 2 attributes create the free rider problem, in which people enjoy the benefits of a public good without nessecarily contributing to the costs. In the example of national defense, everyone agrees that the US needs to be able to defend itself. However, at an individual level, one persons tax contribution towards this has a negligible effect on defense funding. Everyone has an incentive to avoid paying their taxes, which threatens to leave the public good underfunded and underdeveloped. The government overcomes the free rider problem by forcing citizens to pay taxes through the IRS.
Open door policy and free trade
The open door policy states that even if foreign access to American consumer good markets is cut off, the US should still enjoy equal access to foreign markets. The US tended to be very competitive in international markets. Traditionally, imperial colonies granted preferential access to businesses from their ruling power. This disadvantaged American businesses, and prompted the US to enact the open door policy, which assumes that US exports to other nations should be America's primary tool for eocnomic growth. The US had a hard time gaining access to these markets without military intervention (usually in the name of promoting self-determination), and this meant intervening in central and South America and the middle east. Helps to explain the development of US FP in terms of the capital holding class (often referred to as "state capture theory").
Washington's Farewell Address and isolationism
Washington's farewell address warned Americans against the danger of getting drawn into a European war. He felt that the cleavage of the 2 main parties in aligning with different foreign governments threatened America's ability to survive. Therefore, eh advocated for as little foreign engagement as possible.
John Quincy Adams foreign policy thinking
John Quincy Adams wrote the Monroe doctrine, which declared a sphere of influence over Latin America but was careful not to dislodge standing European colonies. It represents his beleif in American exceptionalism common at the time which manifested into manifest destiny, but also reflected his resolve not to get involved with European wars through his choice not to dislodge existing European powers from the area.
Roosevelt Corollary
The roosevelt corrolary was an amendment to the Monroe Doctrine which turned its policy from essentially passive to proactive. It stated that the US would intervene as a last resort to ensure that other nations in the Western Hemisphere didn't default on their loans, violate the rights of the US, or invite foreign agressors to threaten the US. In practice, it ended up allowing the US to increasingly use military force to restore internal stability to nations in the region, justifying US intervention in Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, an the DR.
Isolationism
Isolationism strives to reduce US influence and international role and protect US security and national interests by withdrawing from the world stage. Is the most constrained and narrow grand strategy. Based on the logic that threats to US security are minimal because of its geographic position, and using resources for aid to other nations is too risky to be considered a good use for them.
Selective Engagement/Offshore Balancing
Selective engagement recognizes US as a global superpower with broader interests and threats than isolationism does. It focuses primarily on preserving the balance of power between great powers, because great power wars directly impinge on US interests. Selective engagement is unwilling to engage in relations with smaller nations unless they pose a direct threat to the stability of the great power structure. More comfortable with diplomacy and international institutions as a stabilizing mechanism for the international order. Balancing behavior refers to efforts to prevent the concentration of military, economic or political power in any state or group of states in order to prevent it from matching or exceeding US power.
Liberal Internationalism
Focuses on establishing a liberal international order through multilateral military efforts. Liberal in this sense means free trade, democracy, individual rights, etc. Assumes that US threats are global and expansive, and that security against these threats is best achieved multilaterally through organizations and alliances. Main critique is that pushing American values on the rest of the world may be too activist and expansive, and can be seen as imperialist.
Primacy
Primacy is dedicated to establishing and maintaining American hegemony over the world. Its primary goal is to avoid the emergence of a strong rival to American power. This requires that US posess extraordinary power over its rivals, relying primaily on military power, which is best achieved unilaterally. Is inherently suspicuous of the efficacy of international organizations. Is generally not associated with any ideoogical goal, instead prefering material goals.
Neoconservatism
An offshoot of primacy that is motivated by an underlying idological cause, which advocates for a hard line against the imminent threat of foreign attack (specifically from Russia and now the middle east) because of inherently conflicting idologies. Neocons advocate for strong military force as a preventative measure, are inherently skeptical of international institutions, seeing them as too constraining in an era of new imminent threats.
Executive Order
orders given by the president to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution f congressionaly established laws. In many cases, EOs are enacted to run contrary to congressional intent. Don't require congressional approval to take legal effect. Subset of these are National Security Directives, which are concerned with national security or defense issues.
Realism
FP oreintation that prioritizes security over other values and rejects the notion that moral values should be a central part of decision making, especially if the values come in conflict with national security. Has little faith in international institutions ability to keep the world order stable and safe from a perpetual state of anarchy. They therefore believe that world order must be kept by balancing military power among the world powers, and are willing to work with dictators or authoritarian regimes in the name of security.
Idealism
FP orientation that argues security is best achieved through the creation of an international system which matches US core values. Have faith in the ability of international institutions, and believe that the international system is permeable if its reformers follow their core values.
Partisanship
Partisanship a single-dimensional scale of relative agreement with certain theories about the nature of policial systems.
Manifest Destiny
Ideology that stated the will of god compelled American people to expand westward. This served as the ideological justification for materially motivated expansion.
Slavery and American expansionism
Debate over slavery was one primary factor driving westward expansion. Southern states wanted to settle new territory and establish new slave states. Congress was expected to vote on slavery soon, and whatever side had more senators would emerge on the right side of history.
Wilson, self-determination, democracy, collective security
When Wilson led the US intervention in WW1, it was motivated by his desire to stamp out imperial power and form an international coalition which he felt would greatly diminish the relative influence of American imperial power. He was willing to concede to French and British demands for harsh peace settlement terms if it meant keeping LON on the table including large German terrirotial concessions which contributed to the rise of radical facist movements preceeding WW2.
German war reparations and American capital
Germany relied on American loans to pay its reparations to UK and France. In the wake of WW1, Wilson mistakenly thought the US public wasn't ready to engage in the maintenance of this new system, and withdraws American commitmentment to the rebuilding effort, pulling out the economic aid that was helping Germany maintain long-term stability. Furthermore, during the depression the US couldn't continue to lend money which completely destabilized the reparations program.
Smoot-Hawley Act (1929), high tariffs, and the global depression
The collapse of agricultural prices in the US caused a lot of farmers to default on their loans, which led to a national banking disaster. In an effort to raise agricultural prices, Hoover campaigns on a mantle of imposing tarrifs on international imports. Congress escalates his policy goals by passing Smoot-Hawley tarrif, which imposed new, higher tarrifs on much more than just agriculture. This meant that foreign governments were essentially shut out of the American market, which led them to shut the US out of their markets, leading to the effective total collapse of international trade.
Franklin D. Roosevelt and the gold standard
In 1933, FDR takes the US off the gold standard, which had previously been in place to guard the international system from inflation, in an effort to end a cycle of American deflation. This damaged international monetary relations because it devalued the dollar relative to other currencies, making US exports more competitive by pushing down their prices, making other countries' exports less competitive, prompting them to shut the US out of their markets. Ushered in a new wave of isolationist economic policy in which FDR tried to unilaterally revive the domestic economy.
Congress and Neutrality Acts (1935, 1936, 1937)
FDR withdrew the US from international affairs and focused primarily on domestic policy in the depression, and to solidify this passed a series of Neutrality acts that legally prevented the US from intervening in any European war. These prevented the US from taking any side in a foreign conflict, banned loans to states fighting in a war, and forced anyone in a war to use their own ships to move products from the US. The implication of this, however, was a power vaccum left in the US's absence as a world power which enabled Germany under Hitler to once again threaten European stability.
Lend Lease Program
A program that represented FDR's delicate expansion of US commitment to the war. The program was basically a huge transfer of economic aid to the UK which, for Churchhill, cemented FDR's personal commitment to intervention despite the American public's hesitancy.