US Foreign Policy Exam I

How do organizational needs and "turf wars" influence foreign policy decision-making? 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?

Organizations want what's best for the US but more so what gives them the most influence or resources policy preferences generated by organizational needs Air force is all for air strikes because then they get more funding Agencies spend all their resources (often at the end of the year) so that they can justify getting the same amount of resources the following year

How does President Obama's declaration, "That's the way we roll," help to solidify his vision of the U.S. as the indispensable nation?

Barack Obama points out that since WWII era, the US has been the country that has taken on big projects

How did the U.S. address the central dilemma of the use of force in the international realm after World War II? How did the Soviet threat help to legitimate U.S. projection of U.S. military power in Western Europe? What role did international organizations play in constraining U.S. military power?

Dilemma: American military power necessary to defeat Hitler, but how to constrain American capacity for violence after 1945 and make it legitimate? o Competition with Soviet Union - soviet threat of turning to communism worse than allying with US so allies on our side and military use legitimized o Ikenberry says that US bound its own power but subjecting it to constraints of democracy in US and international institutions like NATO - reassures other countries that military force won't be used arbitrarily § Expectation that US will consult allies before using force -

According to lecture and the Mead reading, what type of interests underpin the Tea Party movement? What is the demographic profile of this movement?

Economic interests: Distribution over taxation and distribution over spending. Membership: white, older, middle class

What is Liberal Internationalism? What is the logic that underlies this grand strategy? What is the chief critique of this grand strategy?

Liberal internationalism is a foreign policy doctrine that argues that liberal states should intervene into sovereign states for liberal purposes. The objective of this policy is security through multilateralism. They want to support progressive issues such as equality for social groups, free and fair elections, freedom of speech and religion, capitalism etc. Liberal internationalism sees security as collective rather than individual states, it emphasizes values such as democracy, human rights and free trade The logic behind this grand strategy is that threats to the US are abroad. Security is achieved through multilateralism and alliances Criticized because it can be seen as being too expensive. Can be seen as imperialism, self interested, hard to enforce

Why is the issue of climate change a potential free rider problem?

People who don't do anything will still benefit from changes. Also, climate change is a long-term issue, so it is hard to rally people for the cause since it will be a while before any benefits are seen.

What forces promoted American expansionism in the middle of the 19th century?

Population and economic growth - land provided natural resources Technology (railroads) - means for integration of territory Ideology (manifest destiny) Domestic Politics (slavery) both Monroe doctrine (premature voice) and Roosevelt corollary where he added to Monroe doctrine allowing it to intervene

How did Gorbachev's foreign policy (his "New Thinking") differ from classic Soviet foreign policy (Soviet "Old Thinking")? How did he get away with these changes?

Soviet "Old Thinking" Two Camp thesis Ideological confidence in "final crisis of capitalism" Peaceful coexistence but continued class struggle Gorbachev's "New Thinking" - Ideological Innovations Emphasis on Universal Values Interdependence and Mutual Security Denying West their "enemy image" Breslauer: How he "got away with it" Soviet loss of optimism, self-confidence Selling salvation rather than selling out

Why did the crisis of 1948-49 so greatly swing the security environment against the United States?

Soviets blockaded access to Berlin which led to Berlin airlift. Led to a creation of west and east Germany states.

What is the case for Just War? How is it related to Utilitarianism?

War as a necessary and lesser evil. "As bad as war is, it may still be necessary if it prevents a greater harm." - Crawford Utilitarian approach: war can produce greater good than harm. Defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II Defeat of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

How was the Cold War similar to a great power conflict and how did the end of the Cold War resemble a peace settlement following a great power war?

Was a great power conflict, Soviet Union defeated, US winning and gaining Resulted in major changes in international system End of the Cold War resembled the end of a great power war, with 4 changes: State/territorial change: killed states (Soviet collapse, Yugoslavia collapse, Czechoslovakia split), created new states (soviet successor states), re-established states (Germany reunited) Regime change (communist systems collapsed, democracies emerged) Distribution of military power changed (went from bipolar to unipolar world) Enforcement mechanisms changed (Warsaw Pact collapsed, NATO and EU expanded)

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: Pull Back US needs to pull back from interventionist foreign policy (NOT isolationism) American Activism has: Prompted anti-American balancing (China and Russia allies) Started unending conflict with nationalism (Iraq) Enabled allies to shirk their own defense A restrained American FP should: Focus on: preventing a powerful rival, fighting terrorism, & stopping nuclear proliferation Reduce global alliance commitments Avoid counterinsurgency Reduce the size of the military Brooks, et al.: Lean Forward US needs to remain engaged in the world Advocates of restraint overstate costs: Hard to calculate real economic costs, but US is wealthy, so it's only a small % either way Countries do not balance against US (we are geographically isolated) Do not get pulled into unnecessary small wars; US alliances constrain this Forget real benefits: Keep peace by deterring bids for regional dominance Military superiority benefits our economic power Fosters multilateral issues on new issues

What did Russia lose in the post-Cold War settlement in terms of territory, empire, international status, regime type, and economic and political stability? How did these losses shape Russian foreign policy goals under President Vladimir Putin?

Post-communist Russian "losses": Territory - adapting to the "near abroad" Empire - loss of hegemony in Eastern Europe Political system/history - loss of national identity Superpower status and influence Economic/political instability Putin foreign policy as Russian rejection of post-Cold War order, looking for ways to gain back those assets that belonged to Russia, many are anti-communist.

How does the Ebola crisis pose multifaceted challenges to Liberia's social, economic, and security environment?

Previous outbreaks of ebola were more successfully contained because they began in isolated rural villages where it could be easily quarantined. In this new outbreak, it has spread into major cities of Liberia, including the capital of Monrovia. The new Ebola outbreak is overrunning the health care infrastructure of Liberia. Extremely understaffed health care system unable to deal with the outbreak Pre-outbreak, the health care system of Liberia was already taxed 250 doctors for 4.1 million people in Liberia In Austin, 4500 doctors Not enough beds or equipment in hospitals to treat everyone Sick people being turned away from hospitals Sick people are out of quarantine, so they eventually transmit Ebola In class, the rate at which it was spreading went from 1.4 to 1.7 people per case. However, newer evidence suggests that this rate is increasing geometrically. The entire healthcare industry of Liberia is solely focused on treating those infected with Ebola, so people with health care issues not related to Ebola are being denied treatment. Ebola outbreak leading to a collapsing economy in Liberia People are staying at home to avoid contracting the illness, which has led to an economic standstill. Crisis for Liberia's social structure The rapid spread of the virus is undermining the ability of the Liberian state to cope with these challenges President of Liberia is worried that basic order will collapse, and it's already collapsing. Limited public health care, food shortages, limited police presence, and limited economic activity.

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?

Problem with sustaining public support in war "War fatigue" and declining public support for military intervention Tendency for public support for American military intervention to decline over time. High enthusiasm for military engagements, but low tolerance for long-term war efforts. Casualties and declining support for war Is the American public "casualty-phobic"? "American public opinion became a key factor in all three wars, and in each one there has been a simple association: as casualties mount, support decreases." Very little tolerance for American casualties Historical trend in Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars Immune to "damage control" Very little a president can do to avoid war fatigue. Presidents can give damage control speeches, but they do not have much of an impact according to Mueller. Long-term apprehension about future use of American military force US tends to be less willing to engage in future military events after a lengthy drawn-out war.

What were the various forms of military intervention in the Third World during the Cold War?

Proxy Wars Proxy wars were common in the Cold War, because the two nuclear-armed superpowers (the Soviet Union and the United States) did not wish to fight each other directly, since that would have run the risk of escalation to a nuclear war. Proxies were used in conflicts such as Afghanistan, Angola, Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, and Latin America. Covert Actions Staging and/or aiding rebellions Supporting Friendly Regimes Foreign and military aid U.S. support for anti-communist dictatorships

How do members of congress use the media to shape public opinion and ultimately foreign policy decisions by the president?

Public criticism of president through hearings or access to media Important oversight role in form of hearings (constitutional power) Open congressional committee meetings on some element of foreign policy. Presence or absence of divided government shapes number of hearings Agenda setting: public criticism of president can also shape public opinion of president by altering how and what the media covers.

According to Fareed Zakaria (covered in lecture), why was America slow in expanding from a continental power to a global power? How did the experience of the Civil War delay American global expansion of power?

Puzzle: given economic growth and weak neighbors, why US slow to expand outward after Civil War? Not like other great powers in the age of imperialism Fareed Zakaria: They slowed expansion from a continental power to a global power because they frequently had to curtail their plans for expansion, he shows, because they lacked a strong central government that could harness that economic power for the purposes of foreign policy. America was an unusual power--a strong nation with a weak state. Have to understand domestic institutions (big question #4) War fatigue from Civil War turns U.S. inward to focus on consolidation Institutional prerequisites for expansion: solidify federal authority over the states, executive authority over Congress, and build up federal bureaucracy

What is the "rally around the flag" effect? What tends to drive it?

Rally Around the Flag" effect: The tendency for the public to rally behind the president and the cause of war at times of perceived crisis. Why? Nationalism Citizens tend to come together and support their leaders based on their national values/national support/patriotism Lack of interest/information Results in unstable policy positions, e.g. spikes within a week Dramatic impact of foreign crisis A public that doesn't know much about a region can be easily swayed by a dramatic situation overseas Fleeting nature of support The rally around the flag movement does not seem to last. Support tends to be fleeting, and can dissipate within a long war as the above three reasons begin to change/decrease.

What are the two perspectives on the role of Reagan foreign policy in the end of the Cold War?

Reagan Foreign Policy - Did Reagan have a plan? Two Contrasting Views on Reagan: Pushed USSR to Reform No Effect

How did the foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union differ in Reagan's first term and his second term?

Reagan Foreign Policy I - Confrontation Rhetoric -- renewed confrontation Arms buildup Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) The Reagan Doctrine Reagan Foreign Policy II - Negotiation Cooling the rhetoric, embracing Soviet reform Arms control

What is the difference between the approaches of realism and idealism toward U.S. foreign policy? What values did Woodrow Wilson champion in his famous fourteen points speech?

Realism is more about the security of one nation, while idealism is just a broad ideal about the bettering of several countries into one unified group. Wilson promoted spreading democracy (because democracy is a universal value) and that the USA has a moral obligation to spreading democracy. He also advocated for collective security (League of Nations) and national self-determination (choosing their own sovereignty) wanted to empower people living under imperial rule to determine their own political fate, declaring political independence (free will and empowerment) He was trying to impose an ideology that would take time to hold, enforcing leagues provisions when strong countries were not acting this way and he couldn't get congressional approval also advocated for open covenants rather than secrecy between nations.

What do Senator Marco Rubio's remarks and Senator Rand Paul's letter to Time Magazine ("I am not an isolationist.") illustrate about the role of domestic politics, and Republican party presidential politics in particular, in foreign policy surrounding the American response to ISIS?

Republicans want action in Syria, so Rand Paul changed his earlier ideas about isolationism to appeal to the party. Rubio says it's a good thing that people want to act, he is critical about isolationists within his party. Rubio urges quick action by president without congressional approve Domestic politics can directly affect foreign policy. When a politician seeks presidential election, he curtails his radical views and falls more in line with the majority (approved) political stances in an effort to not alienate his constituents.

In the crisis over Ukraine, why is Russia in a much better situation than the U.S. and the west? What advantages does Russia possess?

Russia doesn't have a timeline, they can be patient. Russia is in a better situation because America's abilities (military enforcement, and economic sanctions) are less than effective or possible. Russia is also geographically closer which allows them to be more responsive in numerous contexts, especially regarding military action. Russia is arguing on a nationalist stance, saying that Russian ethnics in Ukraine should be "free" and not "oppressed." Russia is able to play the propaganda game. Flexing military. Russia has advantage of nuclear deterrence. Additionally, Russia is more militarily powerful than Ukraine.

How does nuclear deterrence work in Russia's favor in this crisis?

Russia has a lot of nuclear weapons and there is a very real threat that if US gets their military involved a nuclear war will begin. This works in Russia's favor because they know we don't want to enter into a nuclear war. Russia also stated that they would retaliate with nuclear weapons if they perceived a threat from the US or the west

What made 9/11 an historical watershed (critical turning point) event? How did it change US foreign policy goals, American public opinion on the tradeoff between security and liberty, domestic security levels due to increased vulnerability, and the balance between executive and legislative authority over foreign policy?

9/11 was a watershed historical event because it was a direct, hostile attack on the American homeland. What changed: Shift to terrorists and states harboring them as chief threat Defining thing for U.S. foreign policy Changes in public opinion: debate over security/liberty tradeoff (biggest legacy of 9/11 is dilemma of how does a free society make a tradeoff between security and liberty) vulnerable to foreign attack ~ privacy of citizens Increased domestic security measures due to vulnerabilities Increased presidential authority

What was the significance of international institutions like the United Nations, NATO, and economic institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, and GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) to the peacetime settlement after World War II? How did these institutions help the U.S. resolve the central dilemma of politics and the use of force?

All designed to eliminate trade barriers and cut tariffs - creating new international economic order centered around promoting globalization Sets forth idea that a collection of countries bound together through these orgs has more legitimate power because all voices (or more voices) are heard and action is taken with the perspectives and ideas of all involved parties

According to Ikenberry (cited in lecture), why was the 2003 invasion of Iraq so problematic for the constraint of U.S. military power?

Allies and UN say no to going to Iraq but US does it anyway - Is American power still legitimate outside of the US? What gives US power to enforce self-determinism? Furthers the idea that US is an indispensable nation→ free rider problem

What did the United States and the West gain in the post-Cold War settlement in terms of military hegemony, economic hegemony, ideological hegemony, and the shift from bipolar to unipolar distribution of power?

American/Western "gains" from the end of the Cold War: Military hegemony over eastern Europe - expansion of NATO Economic hegemony - expansion of European Union Ideological hegemony - ascendance of democracy Unipolarity - Unrivaled US power around the world Collapse of USSR and communism provided huge gains in security and power.

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? How did Germany's submarine campaign contribute to a shift in American public opinion? How does Wilson's desire to shape the terms of the postwar order enter into his calculations?

April 1917, Germans forced his hand, they wanted to implement submarine warfare against merchant shipping in coasts of Europe, meaning more American merchant vessels would be destroyed and US citizens would die Woodrow Wilson consistently worked to keep US out, campaigns on in 1916 election E.g. Peace Without Victory Speech German submarine campaign shifts public opinion, makes it politically impossible to stay out of war In January 1917, Germany announced that it would lift all restrictions on submarine warfare starting on February 1. This declaration meant that German U-boat commanders were suddenly authorized to sink all ships that they believed to be providing aid of any sort to the Allies. Because the primary goal was to starve Britain into surrendering, the German effort would focus largely on ships crossing the Atlantic from the United States and Canada. The first victim of this new policy was the American cargo ship Housatonic, which a German U-boat sank on February 3, 1917. Although Wilson tried hard to keep the United States neutral, by the spring of 1917, the situation had changed significantly, and neutrality no longer seemed feasible. Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare was taking its toll, as American ships, both cargo and passenger, were sunk one after another. Finally, on April 2, Wilson appeared before Congress and requested a declaration of war. Congress responded within days, officially declaring war on Germany on April 6, 1917. Wilson also wants to shape the terms of the peace wanted to get collective security system centered around League of Nations

How does Obama's speech at the UN relate to his speech at West Point? What are the major themes he touches on in both speeches?

Argues that in order to address threats from global forces of integration and technology requires a collective multinational response, commits US to leadership role to respond to all these threats but also stresses that US will not do these things alone - LIBERAL INTERNATIONALISM Allies like Great Britain? Is this a shift? No, a lot of similarities with West Point speech, just shift from president in sense that he lost some of "military force" Three primary threats he sees Non-human threat (diseases such as Ebola) Transnational actors (terror groups, ISIS and al Qaeda Large states (Russia, using military power to impose Ukraine)

Where in the constitution (which articles) is executive authority over foreign policy anchored?

Article II, Section 2 President as commander in chief: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States" Article II , Section 1 Executive power of the president: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America"

Why was Berlin such an important signal to American commitment to protect Western Europe from Soviet aggression?

Because Berlin was the only place where America and England had control of in the east part of Germany during the cold war. To stop other countries turning into communism, they put a lot of money into west Berlin, to persuade people that life is better without communism.

From a utilitarian point of view, what are the potential harms versus the potential benefits that the U.S. confronts in the Ebola crisis?

Benefits: -Relieve human suffering, save lives -Prevent disease spread -Prevent social/economic breakdown -Prevent civil conflict -Boost international and domestic image •Harms/Costs: -Risk American lives by sending soldiers -Strain American economy -Overstretch American military -Distract from greater threats -Political risks - Failure, Disappointment -Risk setting a precedent - Where do our obligations end? benefits: saving lives, reducing human suffering, preventing greater spread of disease and economic breakdown, preventing return to Civil War, improving US image abroad costs: risking innocent lives of US soldiers, cost money ($1 billion), overstretching US military (distract us from bigger threats like ISIS), potential political costs (US bound to disappoint someone), issue of setting a precedent (if we do help, where do our obligations stop?)

How do special interest groups influence foreign policy?

Collective Action and societal influence in foreign policy Interest group influence in foreign policy from their ability to organize voters Politicians tend to listen to people who are loud - they tend to focus on groups that go to the media, have money for campaigns, etc. Collective Action problem - groups are more effective when acting together when they can solve the free-rider problem. Organizational capacity (and influence) set by ability to transcend free riding.

Why did wartime cooperation between the United States and Soviet Union so quickly collapse after World War II? How did the different worldviews of the U.S. and Soviet Union, the mutual suspicions of each country against the other, and individual leaders' idiosyncrasies such as Stalin's insecurity and paranoia and Truman's anti-communism contribute to the emergence of the Cold War?

Competing Goals: U.S. Goals: Universal and Ambiguous Maintain U.S. International Engagement Promote democracy, free and fair elections Promote free and open markets United Nations and Collective Security Soviet Goals: Concrete and Territorial Buffer zone Sphere of influence Joseph Stalin: "This war in not as in the past; whoever occupies a territory also imposes on it his own social system. Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach. It cannot be otherwise." Mutual suspicions: Philosophical underpinning: World Revolution U.S. mistrust of the Soviet Union Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Negotiations over Eastern Europe Soviet Army occupied Eastern Europe Philosophical underpinning: Capitalist imperialism Soviet mistrust of the U.S. History of Western Invasion Western Intervention during Russian Revolution Second Front Issue during WWII Individual level: Stalin's paranoia Maxim Litvinov, former Soviet foreign minister, said in 1945: "If the West acceded to the current Soviet demands, it would be faced after a more or less short time with the next series of demands." Individual level: Truman's anti-communism Harry S. Truman on the second front issue: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."

What is the logic of separating war-making powers and authority over foreign policy between the executive and legislative branches? How do crucial difference 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 different foreign policy decision-making processes and outcomes compared to parliamentary systems, which have greater fusion of executive and legislative powers?

Congress can make treaties and declare war (haven't since WWII), this was Madison's separation of powers and checks and balances, a way to be sure nobody gets too much power and there is a solution for gridlock if that becomes an issue Parliament vs. President: separate elections, fixed terms, vote of no confidence for Parliament allows parliament greater say if things aren't working well within branches On separate constituencies, the legislature have regional or statewide policy at the forefront of their minds, while the President has concerns for the country as a whole.

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 and a reading), why does the legislative branch allow the expansion of presidential authority when their mandate is to check it? What effects do different constituencies and levels of information have on the ability of the president to get Congress to go along with his foreign policy goals?

Congress donates much of it's power to the executive (their local goals somewhat less important than national goals at the moment) Importance of constituencies Generate different composition of societal interests to represent President has a larger constituency Supposed to represent the entire nation Congress has a narrower constituency; societal interests can be concentrated on left or right side of ideological perspective Think of the ideology a representative of a largely democratic state represents vs a representative of a largely republican state War changes the relative importance of local and national goals in political calculations of congressional officials Congress cares more about national policy outcomes during a period of war induced crisis as a result, these narrower constituencies aren't as important as national policy outcomes (therefore the interests of a larger constituency) during this time period. As a consequence, they tend to move closer to the president's position, enhancing his authority and enabling him to achieve more of his policy goals. Increase in national foreign policy concerns President has more access to foreign policy bureaucracy The President can use these crises to redefine issues that are often thought solely in domestic terms like energy policy, infrastructure spending, or tax cuts as national security issues. The increase in national policy concerns over local ones enable the president to push congress to support his positions on these domestic issues as well Congressional uncertainty about optimal foreign policy choices strengthens the Executive (who has the informational advantage) War elevates the importance of national goals in political calculations, enabling the President to achieve more of his policy goals 9/11: shifted national policy debate to national security, local interests have become less important, Congress gives more power to president

The reading by Jack Webb expresses frustration with Congress and its abdication of oversight over foreign policy and war-making. However, there are many ways that Congress affects presidential decision-making on the use of force. What are these ways?

Congress was given the power to declare war and appropriate funds Importantly and often forgotten these days, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution was also carefully drawn to give Congress, not the president, certain powers over the structure and use of the military. True, the president would act as commander in chief, but only in the sense that he would be executing policies shepherded within the boundaries of legislative powers. In some cases his power is narrowed further by the requirement that he obtain the "Advice and Consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. Congress, not the president, would "raise and support Armies," with the Constitution limiting appropriations for such armies to no more than two years. This was a clear signal that in our new country there would be no standing army to be sent off on foreign adventures at the whim of a pseudo-monarch. The United States would not engage in unchecked, perpetual military campaigns. Congress would also "provide and maintain a Navy," with no time limit on such appropriations. This distinction between "raising" an army and "maintaining" a navy marked a recognition of the reality that our country would need to protect vital sea-lanes as a matter of commercial and national security, confront acts of piracy-the eighteenth-century equivalent of international terrorism-and act as a deterrent to large-scale war.

Where in the constitution (which articles) is congressional authority over foreign policy anchored?

Congressional Authority over FP is anchored in 2 articles of the Constitution Congress: Article I, Section 8: Declaration of War Article I, Section 8: Power of the Purse: funding the armed forces Senate Article II, Section 2: make treaties which pass if ⅔ majority of senate approve

How does divided government generate greater congressional oversight over foreign policy?

Congressional Oversight: Ability for congress to bring public light to presidential actions that they do not necessarily agree with. Examples: Call more hearings Engage in public criticism Pass legislation that restricts Presidential action Set conditions on spending bills to implement policy Why does divided government lead to more Congressional oversight? Electoral incentives to increase when opposing party controls White House Presidential information advantage: more likely to share information with own party, so opposition increase oversight to offset Examples: Congress and the Iraq War, 2003-06; Obama and Syria 2013 Congressional opposition can be an effective constraint on use of military force if numerous: president is less likely to engage in military force as opposition party gets more seats in Congress.

What is the War Powers Resolution (1973) and why is it an important congressional restraint executive war-making powers? What does this law require of the president in its dealings with Congress? How has every president since Richard Nixon (who had his veto of the bill overridden) viewed this law?

Congressional attempt to rein in presidential war-making power in Vietnam War Attempted to rebalance Congress and Presidential powers Necessary and Proper: Congress, not the President has the final say Specific rules for when the President must consult Congress and when they must seek authorization from Congress Every president since Nixon has said that this law is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers

According to Crawford, what sort of transformations in war have made Just War theory less applicable in the age of terrorism and counter-terrorism? What is the counter-argument to these assertions?

Crawford argues that it is extremely difficult to fight a just counterterror war given the nature of terrorism and the realities of contemporary warfare. And she argues that the Bush administration has made an effort to engage in a just counterterror war by meeting the criterion of self-defense and seeking to avoid noncombatant harm. Even so, current U.S. policy and practice in the counterterror war are not just. But any government would have a problem fighting a just counterterror war in the current context; indeed, the utility of just war theory itself is challenged.

What are the main foreign policy actors within the executive branch? What are the main responsibilities of each foreign policy department within the executive branch?

Department of Defense- Manages armed forces; headed by civilian. Oversees and works with the joint chiefs of staff. Has control of the instrument of military force. Plays big role in Foreign Policy because it is responsible for the military, the tool that the U.S. to defend itself. State Department- Develops and implements presidential FP (Like the PR of FP. ) Responsible for day to day interactions between the US government and all other government that United States recognizes and has relations with. EX: negotiations of arms agreements or issuance of visas to come into the US. Secretary of State John Kerry Treasury Department- Manages and coordinates financial policies-unique b/c it has strong domestic responsibilities as well. Recently engaged in borrowing money from foreign countries (China and such), over past 15 years borrowing function has increased National Security Council - Advise and assist the president on national security and foreign policies; First to brief president. Principal arm for coordinating these policies among various government agencies.-NOT SUBJECT TO SENATE INTERVENTION Central Intelligence Agency - Collect and evaluate foreign intelligence Director of National Intelligence- Principal advisor to the President's NSC and Homeland Security about intelligence matters related to National Security. Directs and oversees the National Intelligence Program.- formed after 9/11

What was the principal dilemma and choice facing Russia as it adapted to the post-Cold War settlement? How did Russia view the expansion of NATO and Western foreign aid?

Dilemma of CW defeat for Russia: Should Russia try to "join" the West? Debate in 1991: Could the US and the West be trusted? NATO expansion could make Russia an enemy, if excluded it NATO expansion as a "broken promise" and betrayal of Russia Western aid and policy advice as sabotage NATO expansion as a back door to strengthening the West

What was the principal challenge facing the United States as it fashioned the post-Cold War settlement? How did this challenge shape the debate over policies related to NATO expansion and foreign aid to Russia?

Dilemma of CW victory for US: What to do about post-communist Russia? Debate in 1991: Would post-communist Russia be a friend or foe? Could US policy channel Russian one way or the other? NATO expansion: would this disillusion or safeguard against resurgence Foreign aid: a "Marshall Plan" for Russia or wasted money?

How has domestic politics impinged on President Obama's plans for immigration reform?

Discussing immigration will have a net negative effect on reelection for Democratic party congressmen - could cost Democrats senate control Obama did promise reform by the summer, he would use his sole executive power if necessary - promised to issue more greencards and to defer deportation of youths But this didn't happen because Obama is playing "Raw Politics" by avoiding a topic that would hurt his party, and help the republicans, around election season.

According to the interview with Professor Bobby Chesney...

Disruptive impact of technology - technology has made surveillance laws fuzzy Blurred line between war and peace causes debates about whether to use the war model or peace-time model Legal architecture is critical to political legitimacy in the long-run-->sustainability President has never been more constrained by law nor more capable of doing things despite those constraints (workarounds)

How does the potential spread of the Ebola crisis challenge ethical decision-making regarding the public health response to the epidemic? How have tangential issues such as insecure borders factored into the debate?

Due to how Ebola spreads and its lethality, the potential for disaster is high. As a result, people who may be infected by the disease might hide their diagnosis/symptoms in order to remain a part of functional society. This mentality leads to more drastic measures to secure potential infected in order to prevent the spread of the disease. New, stricter measures are being put into place in order to contain the disease. Freedom is decreased in order to increase security or the disease. Closing of borders is a real possibility in order to prevent spread.

According to classical liberalism, why does war expand presidential authority?

During war there is a higher threat of invasion, so people are more willing to pay for an increase in taxes if it makes them feel safer President could use this to raise money for their own plans. The fact that Congress has to declare war helps prevent this from happening War also motivates for democracy as a means of peace War elevates the importance of national goals in political calculations of congressional officials, which moves closer to the president's position, enhancing his authority and enabling him to achieve more of his domestic policy goals. domestic policies framed to public as NS concerns (Ex: Eisenhower was able to secure funding for domestic interstate highways by tying it to the war and saying US needs a place to land air craft "just in case" they bombed the AirForce bases...Kind of abusive of "Rally around the flag") Congress gives up power during war

Why did the United States adopt the Marshall Plan? What were the policy's goals and how did the policy play to American strengths and contribute to American prosperity?

Economic dislocation and extremism Curbing domestic attraction to communism Building on U.S. economic power Soviet Union claimed that the Marshall plan was just US imperialism Soviet union saw the Marshall plan as a strategy to get Eastern European countries into the capitalist system Economy and international security go hand in hand

What explains the absence of great power war since the mid-20th century? Be sure to discuss the impact of globalization, nuclear deterrence, and unipolarity?

Economic interdependence and changing value of territory Globalization has reduced imperative to expand by equalizing access to economic resources of territory. Ex: US-China relations Countries can get more money with comparative advantage, has reduced need for more territory, no economic reason for US to invade Mexico or Canada, instead US has robust trading relations with them. Nuclear deterrence: secure second strike capabilities (state can absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough power to strike back ex: nuclear armed submarines, very hard to detect, still have secure second strike submarines) make military invasion of another great power extremely less likely Frozen territorial boundaries among great powers May fight proxy wars (e.g. Vietnam), but avoid direct conflict Still compete (e.g. Ukraine), but limited Unipolarity: US so far ahead in military terms than nearest competitor that it reduces incentives to challenge US can see it coming and adjust

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?

Economic interests of big corporations have captured the state and shaped foreign policy interests of US American territorial expansion to facilitate "Open Door" Equal access for all firms in global economy to a market In practice has meant access for American businesses to external markets to sell their products; and cheap inputs (raw materials and labor) Examples: US 1890's: Caribbean and Philippines Wilson fights to undermine European empires Post WWII US fosters German economic recovery (French oppose) Force British to stop limiting access to their Empire Interventions in Central and South America—Chile, Grenada, Venezuela? Middle East—special relationship with Saudi Arabia, Iraq shaped by oil

What are the differences between ethically prohibited, ethically required, ethically permitted, and ethically ideal decisions?

Ethically PROHIBITED- moral code would bar people from doing EX: murder, theft, violence toward another person Ethically Permissible REQUIRED- bare minimum that is required of individuals to be moral. EX: as father morally required to take care of kid (feed, clothes, shelter) Ethically PERMITTED- vast zone between what's minimally required and what is ideal. You could do it but you should not do it. EX: Not masturbating on a plane. Considered Highly frowned upon doing customer service for Comcast. Ethically IDEAL- heroic behavior—run into burning building, seeing what the team needs before insta-locking the 5th mid (*slowclap)

What factors make the Ebola crisis such a challenge to regulatory and medical authorities in the U.S.?

Exit screening is taking temperature and questionnaire - relies on people being honest - Central problem created is fear - people don't act in normal ways - act like parents not logicians

How does self-interest enter the picture? Is self-interest and ethical decision-making necessarily contradictory?

Fighting Ebola because it could spread to the U.S. •Self-interest and ethics are not necessarily contradictory: -Self-protection of your own citizens is a moral obligation -Ethical action can benefit the state -Self-interest helps to "sell" ethical foreign policy

What critique did congressional Republicans lodge against President Obama's military strategy on ISIS? Why have Republicans become so eager to engage in military operations against ISIS? How have domestic politics and approaching elections factored into these choices?

First, Republicans criticize Obama for not properly training the Free Syrian Army so they could take this fight on in the territory. Instead, Obama abandoned the Free Syrian Army. Now, Republicans are being critical of Obama's policy of air support for ISIS - they say ISIS is the size of Indiana with over 30,000 people involved (Pat: may only be 5,000-10,000 people) and there must be ground support, Special Forces, and intelligence rather than simply air weaponry. Dana Milbank: "Republicans gallop toward ground war..." Tom Cole - Obama was "far too quick to rule out options and tools that he in fact may need later." Jack Kingston - "If it's important enough to fight, it's important enough to win." The reason why Republicans have become so eager to engage in military operations against ISIS because they argue that it will not be an easy fight and they need to engage now before ISIS gains more power in the region. They argue they need to use more resources than are at the table at the moment. The Republicans imply that the current strategy against ISIS is destined to fail Domestic politics are in play in their criticism. Their inflammatory criticisms are a tactic that is trying to shift the public debate. It's election year, so part of this is it's an opportunity for the Republican party to criticize Obama They can imply and explicitly state that this is Obama's mistake They argue that the Democratic party is too weak for this issue, which makes the Republican party seem tougher and stronger, which may be beneficial in the upcoming election

What is Selective Engagement or Offshore Balancing? What is the logic that underlies this grand strategy? What is the chief critique of this grand strategy? How are Dwight D. Eisenhower and George H. W. Bush historical examples of this grand strategy?

Selective engagement → Goal is to better align capacity and interests which are both limited. Mindful of limits of American power. It embraces the superpower status of America and is more comfortable with diplomacy (unlike isolationists) - less concerned about having commitments to other countries Hesitant to intervene in local conflicts unless there is a threat of expansion of great powers (i.e. WWI) Basically they are willing to work alongside a country, but wants to avoid any potential wars. Logic: American interests abroad are still global but not unconstrained. American power has limits. US must prioritize its interests and bring them in line with capacity. US must partner with regional powers Critique: offshore balancing is difficult to execute Balancing: prevent concentration of power, efforts to block growth of power of other states (containment) Not to have too much power outside US Eisenhower (1953): Reduces America's presence in Europe and get's NATO to take some responsibility to lower the burden of the cost on America, rely on nuclear weapons (deterrence) H. W. Bush: Cautious with respect to the Soviet collapse, he didn't kick them while they were down, tried to compromise. He was pragmatic and focused on preserving the peace with the Soviet Union and status quo in Europe. He recognized there were problems at home. didnt want to spend much

What were the causes and implications of the Truman Doctrine?

Set precedent for the entire Cold War US replaced Great Britain in the power vacuum - seen as only powerful enough nation Established the Domino theory: Made American interests incredibly expansive, though the territories may not be useful to the US, but had to keep the USSR from expanding US intervention in Greece, was a parallel to the later conflict in Vietnam—power vacuum in a country with no importance but stepped in to keep the Soviets out

How did France help to secure independence for the American colonies from Great Britain? What role did the Declaration of Independence play in signaling device to France?

France was our ally in our fight for independence and helped us to secure it by aiding in loans and military support The Declaration of Independence signaled to France that we were serious and that we were a worthy cause to invest in Alliance with France in 1778 Victory at Saratoga in 1777 signals chance at victory Each guarantees others' possessions in N. America, no separate peace, French aid, France fight until independence, French get British possessions in West Indies, commercial agreement Important: alliance kills British offering of compromise peace France seeks to weaken G. Britain, but also wants weak U.S. North America

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?

From the Articles to the Constitution (1789) Foreign policy and American weakness key role in move toward Constitution Weakness also provoke attack European War fairly regular: US in danger of being drawn in, more so if loose confederation. Need to be able to enforce foreign treaties on states that resist John Jay: Worry that state rivalry invite foreign intervention, alliances Commercial problems created by different state tariffs; could strengthen commercial leverage if bargain as an entire economy Shift debate from internal distributional conflicts (access to western lands, different state size) to unifying issue—national strength

What is the central dilemma of the use of force to establish for political order in domestic politics?

Fundamental dilemma of politics: once endow some organization with capacity to use violence to enforce its orders, how regulate, limit, or legitimate its use of force? Government or organization strong enough to enforce its directives is also strong enough to leverage authority for its own gain (Weingast) Violence can facilitate predation: the forcible redistribution of resources (as armed robbery by a political organization) How empower government to enforce directives while also constraining its ability to engage in predatory activities that could strengthen its authority? Successful societies have figured out how to regulate use of violence in a way that constrains its arbitrary use and makes its deployment legitimate

How do social interests affect foreign policy?

Shifts in public opinion - what does public in the aggregate think? Economic interests - war is expensive Special Interest groups - main example will be Israel lobby Political movements - include things like the tea party, things that came from the bottom up, occupy movement Given importance of public opinion its important to know what drives the public opinion.

How do different specific grand strategies differ from one another?

Geographic scope of interests: regional or global Sometimes the scope of interests will be narrower while other times they will be more expansive. Unilateralism v. multilateralism Unilateralism - the US wants to act with its own power and capacity rather than be held down by institutions and allies Multilateralism - Stresses the need for the US to work with partners/international organizations Hard vs. Soft Power hard- military force - normally the predominant form of power. soft-economic levels, political clout, or even cultural influence may be emphasized as a way to have influence over outcomes. Different grand strategies identify different central problem to be Addressed ex, one grand strategy, such as isolationism, will want to seclude the U.S. from the rest of the world (physical security of homeland) the central problem to be addressed, will shape the ideas behind the grand strategy and its approaches. Defining the scope and identity of the threat can change the grand strategy. isolation - will want to leave U.S. alone Other grand strategies will want to expand more powerful threats will cause higher risk and different grand strategies. what are the goals of the threat and how can we use them against them

What is Isolationism? What is the logic that underlies this grand strategy? What is the chief critique of this grand strategy? How are George Washington and his Farewell Address and Republican presidential successors to Woodrow Wilson in the 1920s historical examples of this grand strategy?

Goal is to reduce foreign interventions and avoid future commitments Logic American threats abroad are minimal vast oceans separate US from the next great power; canada and mexico are substantially weaker than US Foreign conflicts can infect domestic policies (weak neighbors) Foreign intervention itself can create a threat or can make relationships scared America First: scarce resources should be devoted to domestic problems Critique: Allows problems to fester Washington's Farewell Address Famous address which has been used as a basis for the broad grand strategy of isolationism. Set against wars associated with the French Revolution Warned against foreign entanglements: antipathies or alliances Recommended detachment from Europe Republican successors to Wilson in the 1920s Example of Calvin Coolidge pulling back because of WWI This was in response to Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations speech, which received huge pushback from the Republicans and was ultimately not ratified Rely on private economic influence rather than political-military power Expressed preference towards tax cuts (to pay for WWI), demobilizations, and limited political involvement in Europe. Pull back in FP in 1920s because of WWI

How did Gorbachev's withdrawal from hegemony in Eastern Europe through his refusal to use force to sustain communist rule there contribute to the end of communist rule in the Soviet Union? What were the intentions of this policy and what were its unintended consequences?

Gorbachev's policies of glasnost("openness") and perestroika("restructuring") as well as summit conferences with United States President Ronald Reagan and his reorientation of Soviet strategic aims contributed to the end of the Cold War, removed the constitutional role of the Communist Party in governing the state, and inadvertently led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Intentions - Broadening support for reform, lowering costs of empire Specific reforms -- ending hegemony in eastern Europe Sinatra Doctrine Refusal to use force Unintended consequences Loss of empire and prestige Provided a model for ending communism

What is grand strategy? How does grand strategy intersect with domestic partisanship? How do the differences between Republican politicians John McCain and Rand Paul illustrate the differences between grand strategy and domestic partisanship?

Grand Strategy: A set of overarching ideas that guide the conduct of foreign policy An ideology akin to domestic partisanship theoretical debates over national ideals or economic activity define national interests, define global threats ideology or kin (domestic partisanship) going alone or with partner? choosing means and some mapping with partisanship because debates over grand strategy have a very political component, but it's not a perfect parallel. EX: Rand Paul has somesomassociation with isolationism but McCain wants to use military to promote democracy, AND he knowing hard vs. soft power believes ISIS is the central threat which actually pushes him closer to the Obama administration. (both are Republicans) Grand strategy can cross or unite or split Republicans and Democrats

Based on President Obama's speech at West Point, what type of grand strategy best approximates his general philosophical approach?

He defines terrorism as the principal threat and multilateralism as the means He is a compromiser (He is somewhere in the middle) he wants to use Soft Power in his grand strategy. (the fight of ideas) His grand strategy seems to be one of selective engagement. He finds that American interests are global but American power has its limits; emphasizes multilateralism (though does state that America will go it alone if push comes to shove)

How is George W. Bush's grand strategy a neo-conservative version of Primacy?

He was willing to use force and was skeptical of international organizations Promotes democracy through US military dominance Shifted to neo conservative after 9/11 Neoconservatives are very assertive in promotion of democracy

What is a historical example of predatory behavior in the international realm? What is a contemporary example?

Historical: Hitler before/during WW2 when attacking surrounding states. *Contemporary: Russia invading Ukraine and claiming that Crimea as their own.

How do your readings by Mead and Ikenberry see the current post-Cold War settlement and the prospects for the continuation of the US-led global system of alliances, international institutions, and values such as democracy and free trade? What are the chief challengers to this system? How does Mead view these challengers versus Ikenberry?

How long will this American order last? Perhaps long if an extended and robust period of great power peace? - Ikenberry - Yes because of globalization, nuclear weapons, and unipolarity o These three acting in system and aren't that revisionist o Faith in robustnest of international system to not allow revisionist states to come up and take over o Thinks we can incorporate revisionist states into existing order o Revisionist states can't invade/are too weak to take on west - Mead - No because new rivals dissatisfied with Status Quo - challenge of Russia, China, and Iran in return of geopolitics o Understanding ability of liberal international order? o Not as peaceful as you might think it to be o Order is robust and very unlikely for things to change o Everything in Ukraine is against current order o China more apt to go with international system

How has the coalition-building process strengthened President Obama's hand in the domestic political battle over airstrikes against ISIS?

ISIS is unifying people against it. It's easier to legitimate military action because many people agree it's evil.

How does this same dilemma frame the problem of war and political order in the international order?

If predators in international politics, what to do? e.g. Hitler: use violence to overturn Weimar democracy and then embarks on horrific program of genocidal expansion Use of violence for predation as self-sustaining: take what they want and then use those new resources to bolster military so can engage in more predation Sometimes have to go to war to impose limits on or regulate violence If do not counter force with force, future of political impotence as target of extortion

What were the implications of the Monroe Doctrine?

Importance of the Monroe Doctrine Key Moment of Evolution of U.S. foreign policy An assertive United States enters the world stage Introduces key concepts/ideals: Sphere of influence Anti-colonialism Protection of democracy Basis for American imperialism? Roosevelt Corollary (United States will intervene in conflicts between European countries and Latin American countries to enforce legitimate claims of the European powers, rather than having the Europeans press their claims directly)

How does Obama's themes relate to Liberal Internationalism and the legacy of Woodrow Wilson?

In order to address threats, requires collective multinational response Committed US to leadership role in leading collective action both are liberal internationalists Must work in multilateral effort

What does your Heilbrun reading argue regarding the recent re-emergence of "neo-isolationism" in the U.S.?

In the Myth of the New Isolationism, Jacob Heilbrunn argues that bipartisan resistance to intervention in Syria represents a healthy democratic pragmatism in foreign policy regular democratic push back of isolationism, natural push and pull Even those with isolationist tendencies are moderated and pushed to the political center so long as they hold political ambitions (Rand Paul for Presidential Election)

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?

Innately Antagonistic—give up any hope with any type of alliance with the soviet union, any sort of looks like cooperation is a lie and is calculated Dual Nature: Expansionary but Cautious Containment -- "The Adroit and vigilant application of counterforce at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy." (Kennan, p. 862) Soviet union is like water, it will flow wherever it is allowed to and it will take it but if it faces a barrier it will stop, always probing but will retreat if the counter force is too overwhelming- US is that counter force He argued that the US could not defeat with USSR military in the near future, he saw the cold war was an extended conflict that would take a long time, over decades, wearing down the USSR by keeping it from expanding, the USSR could not survive in it's current form if it cannot expand, so we have to keep it from expanding --- We must outperform the soviet union--- this came true.

What were the political consequences of the Great Depression and how did they contribute to World War II?

International Political Consequences FDR and US withdrawal from Europe (isolationist from 1933 to 1938) Congress passes series of Neutrality Acts (1935, 1936, 1937) German government makes collapse worse by pursuing austerity (dramatic spending cuts, tax hikes, high interest rates) and creates political space for Hitler's Nazi Party to seize government through legal, constitutional means Hitler then uses rearmament to generate economic recovery, which leads directly to WWII Significant political consequences: facilitates rise of Hitler and temporary American withdrawal from world stage

How does realism, idealism, and pacifism each view the role of morality in war?

Is killing ever ethically permissible? Realism, Idealism, Pacifism Realism: morality should not be considered in international relations Idealism: morality must be taken into consideration but may require the use of force for just ends Pacifism: killing is never justified; murder, maiming, destruction always wrong

How does FDR get around an isolationist Congress and support the Allied powers (particularly the British war effort) against Germany?

Isolationist sentiment in US after Great Depression limits how FDR can respond to German threat FDR delicate game of expanding US support for British war effort while not publicly committing US to fight the war Sep 1939: gets Congress to repeal arms embargo of Neutrality Acts US Navy patrolling Atlantic (skirmishes with German navy in fall of 1941) Destroyers for naval bases deal with British by executive order (Sep 1940) Lend Lease (March 1941): US as arsenal for democracy Domestic constraints fall away with Pearl Harbor Relies on economic support of British effort until Pearl Harbor switches public support for intervention

What are the requirements of Just War theory within its three realms (jus ad bellum - just resort to war; jus in bello - just conduct of war; and jus post bellum - just aftermath of war)?

Jus ad bellum - Just resort to war just cause like self-defense. taken as a "last resort" and all other means have been exhausted. can only be undertaken by a legitimate authority - a state. "right intention" (motivated by defense, not aggression) reasonable chance of success. Proportionality: the ends of war must be proportional to the means of war. Jus in bello - Just conduct in war Discrimination: There are legitimate and illegitimate targets of war. Must be able to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. Not permissible to kill those not engaged in fighting. Proportionality: How much force is morally acceptable? Is anything that weakens the enemy, and can aid one's victory, acceptable? Or are there certain actions that are off limits even in wartime? Most societies have agreed there are atrocities that should be avoided in wartime. Jus post bellum - Justice after war After war, victors should achieve the goals of war but not pursue vengeance. Principles of discrimination and proportionality apply. Civilians should not be harmed. Punishments for the conquered should not be severe. Rights should be protected. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. That peace must be preferable to the peace that existed before the war.

How has the Republican position on airstrikes become closer to the president's position?

Like the previous question, it is unanimous that ISIS is bad and needs to be stopped. Republicans aren't going to criticize Obama for trying to stop ISIS, and things were progressing so quickly that they probably weren't even going to hold him accountable for not seeking Congressional approval.

1. How do great powers structure international politics after great power wars like WWI and WWII? What changes in the aftermath of these wars and the peace settlement that follows?

Long wars fought among great powers tend to remake the structure of international politics by transforming the main political actors in the system Victors write the rules of the new system and shape the long term sustainability Set requirements for membership and redraw territorial boundaries: statehood and sovereignty Regime type creation(US promotes democracy after 1919, 1945, 1991) Distribution of military power Enforcement mechanisms (reparations, league of nations) Division of territory among surviving great powers changes as well Important: shapes degree of satisfaction with new status quo and long-term sustainability of the system. Putin's efforts in Ukraine efforts to revise something.

What were the main principles of the Monroe Doctrine? How did the Monroe Doctrine establish a sphere of influence for the United States in the Western Hemisphere? Why did the U.S. assert such an ambitious foreign policy statement at this time? What was Great Britain's role in enforcing the Monroe Doctrine and why was it so supportive of American ambitions in the Western Hemisphere?

Main principles of the Monroe Doctrine: The Western Hemisphere was no longer open for colonization Drew a line between colonies and newly independent Latin American states, extending American protection against European interference only to the latter Dual message: Asserted sphere of influence Would refrain from participation in European wars and would not disturb existing colonies in Western Hemisphere Why did the U.S. assert the Monroe Doctrine when it did? Latin American independence movements Developments in Europe Napoleonic Wars, Holy Alliance (Russia, Prussia, Austria), and fear of return of monarchy Balance of power system in Europe allowed for greater assertiveness British help U.S. too weak to enforce the Monroe Doctrine but Great Britain and the British Navy enforced it for them The British Foreign Secretary George Canning wanted to keep the other European powers out of the New World fearing that its trade with the New World would be harmed if the other European powers further colonized it. The United Kingdom, for much of the early years of the Monroe Doctrine, was the sole nation enforcing it through the use of its navy

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? Is this problem easily remedied in a democratic political system?

Mearsheimer and Walt as theoretical "realists" Significance: national interests should be defined by external threats to the United States; alliance relationships can be transient, subservient to these Argument: The Lobby/AIPAC too powerful, hijacking US interests How? Campaign contributions; collective action problem of societal opposition According to Mearsheimer and Walt, the loose coalition that makes up the lobby has significant leverage over the Executive Branch, as well as the ability to make sure that the lobby's perspective on Israel is widely reflected in the mainstream media. They claim that the American Israel Public Committee AIPAC in particular has a stranglehold on the US Congress, due to its ability to reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge. The authors conclude by arguing that when the Lobby succeeds in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, then "Israel's enemies get weakened or overthrown, Israel gets a free hand with the Palestinians, and the United States does most of the fighting, dying, rebuilding, and paying".

How did American entry into World War I shape the end of the war and its aftermath? How did Wilson's ideas of national self-determination contribute to the collapse of empires?

Military consequences: Shifts in balance of military power alters German perceptions of potential for victory Political consequences: War and Wilson's support of self-determination facilitates imperial collapse and democracy Get collective security system centered around League of Nations Economic consequences: United States as preeminent economic power of world and victor's creditor U.S. plays critical role in construction of postwar international political order Through Wilson's inducement to break apart multinational empires and replace them with nation-states at the center of a more peaceful and democratic global order, the essence of this vision of self-determination emphasized the link between peoples (nations) and independent states.

What is war? What did Clauswitz say war was?

Military contest among competing organizations Organizations possess conflicting interests over some set of issues in dispute Use of physical punishment to secure political concessions or disarm the adversary Military force signal resolves (willingness to sustain costs in service of some political goal); reveals the distribution of military power between sides; and can enable one side to impose settlement on other Violent means to some political end Clausewitz: War as the continuation of politics by other means

What challenges did Great Britain face in managing its colonies in North America in light of the Seven Years/French & Indian War? How did these challenges lead to new taxation and limits on self-government that ultimately spurred mobilization for independence?

New challenges for the British in N. America Paying for the war Protecting western frontier War shocks the political relationship between Great Britain and the colonies Significant new taxes to pay for the troops Stamp Act, Sugar Act, Currency Act, Townshend Act, Monopoly on Tea Trade Political opposition, increasingly focused on independence, mobilizes in colonies Great Britain responds with new limits on self-governance

Has President Obama experienced a "rally around the flag" effect surrounding the crisis with ISIS? How has divided government potentially influenced the political dynamics of this crisis?

No, he has not. In the past three months(6/22/14 - 9/7/14), military interventionism (more specifically, air strikes against ISIS in Iraq) has risen from just under 50% to 71%. However, despite the rise in favor of air strikes, Obama's support levels have stayed quite low. Divided government can significantly influence the political dynamics of this crisis Mixed messages from Republicans. They say yes, we need to do these air strikes, however Obama may not be doing it the right way, he might need to put ground troops, he has made bad commitments that might actually be emboldening ISIS which could undermine us later, etc.

In what ways did Moser suggest that President Obama's foreign policy diverge from Liberal Internationalism? (See clip from John Oliver.)

Obama values protecting human rights and is more similar to Bush. Obama believes in remake faith of America but is skeptical to fashion outcomes. Obama is too much of realistic and more towards to off shore. He is cautious as in the clip he says that strikes in Iraq won't be like the earlier war. John Oliver clip - air strikes in Iraq Obama says that it's the right thing to do, and how little he wanted to do it Girl not getting back together with her ex example ("just getting a drink with Iraq")

How did the Versailles Treaty, particularly the harsh terms imposed on Germany, contribute to World War II? How did Wilson's compromises on his ideals contribute to World War II? 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?

estabilizing new (Weimar) democracy in Germany had to impose unpopular economic policies democracy died in Germany opening door for Hitler's Nazi party Isolationist sentiment in US after great depression limits how FDR can respond to German threat Relies on economic support of British effort until Pearl Harbor switches public support for intervention

What is foreign policy? What are the aspects of foreign policy? What are its targets? What is it designed to influence?

foreign policy- actions and statements of the US federal government directed toward some foreign audience Foreign policy consists of the strategies chosen by the state considering interactions with foreign countries. if two states share the same political interests then they can work together to meet achieve their interest since no conflict exists. influences: beliefs, capabilities, interests and behavior or actions of a foreign audience it is essentially trying to influence other governments to reshape their behavior based on the expectation that international politics may have of them. Targets (foreign audience): other governments, international organizations, non-state actors (citizens)

Using lecture and the Fukuyama reading, trace the evolution of neo-conservativism as an ideological movement from its beginnings on the far left through its evolution under the Reagan administration to its emergence as the dominant ideological approach to foreign policy under President George W. Bush after 9/11.

frustration with realists in republican party on foreign policy (Nixon and Kissinger); prevented alliance with conservatives until Reagan's staunch anti communism and escalation of cold war; although frustrated with his willingness to negotiate with Gorbachev in second term emerging alliance with Evangelical wing of Republican party during and after Reagan frustration with rising secularism and decline of personal responsibility (ie: anti cultural relativism or permissive cultural mores); support of Christian right for Israel influence by Wohlstetter during Cold war (nuclear balance was delicate and not stable, pushing arm races), big supporters of Reagan and his characterization of Soviet Union as evil empire; rollback (not containment) frustration in 1985-86 Post 1991: embracing vision of American primacy that fuses American power with pursuit of liberal ideals (use American power to promote liberalism/democracy around the world, US should pursue moral foreign policy -- supported Clinton interventions in Haiti and Bosnia) The founder of the neo-conservatist movement is Trotsky (anti-Stalin), took a very hard stance against the Soviet Union during the Cold War, started left but was pushed right during the 60s because of the dislike of cultural relativism, believe that government plans can have unintended consequences (ex. the US misunderstood how the world would react to US invasion in Iraq)

How did Stalin acquire a nuclear weapon years before the United States expected him to?

he had spies in the Manhattan Project

According to Walter LaFeber's alternative argument (also covered in lecture), how did crucial business interests and the need for foreign markets contribute to the timing of American expansion in the 1890s?

important role of business interests need new foreign markets, many of which closed because of European colonialism to cure problem of overproduction and deflation (falling prices, expectation of falling prices mean that people don't buy so businesses fail, it undermines economic growth) summary: business pushed by appealing to nationalist causes to expand American market and isolation from European competition behind tariff walls, new spending of military acting as gov stimulant and economic growth and jobs

How do competing interests between foreign policy bureaucracies affect foreign policy decision making, for example, in the post-invasion Iraq?

intense political conflict among agency heads who all want to influence the president president has to pick the "winners" and "losers" elevates national security advisors in managing this process who gets invited to the meetings big implications for implementation ex from Iraq: intense conflict between Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld over decisions to go to war for Iraq, and Powell seeking approval to UN for war and when his efforts failed he lost significant ground among key players because these were neoconservative thinkers, consequently these predispositions lead these people to believe that transfer of power would be easy, and establishment of government in Iraq would be easy, underinvested in basic security issues and this lead to postwar chaos in Iraq even though Hussein had been attained, delegation to defense department contributed to need for surge later on

What is Primacy? What is the logic that underlies this grand strategy? What is the chief critique of this grand strategy?

main objective: use unilateral means to establish & maintain US dominance over rivals Primary goal: to avoid or keep down any rival that could oppose the U.S. logic: US interests abroad are global (vs regional) Security achieved unilaterally through superior US power Reliance on military power (hard power) Can be marked by a primarily realist (material) or idealist (values) worldview However it can have strong values, as it relates to the spread of american values critique: can lead to overreach and isolationism

What is the national interest? What are the arenas in which the U.S. has important national interests? What dimensions help to determine preferences over outcomes?

national interest: Preferences about outcomes. country's goals and ambitions whether economic, military, or cultural. (what we want to happen in parts around the world.) Include security interest (Other countries invading poorer countries), economic interests (wants to maintain free trade world wide) values or ideals. Dimensions: The level of analysis - states, bureaucracies, who are we trying to reach content of preferences - material (military or economic) vs ideational institutions aggregating preferences. Politicians often don't concretely define the content of the national interest to avoid controversy

How do challenges in coordinating executive branch bureaucracies affect foreign policy decision-making?

presidential and national security advisory, secretary of state department, defense department etc. NSC has a sizable support staff and this office is within the white house so national security advisor does not have to be approved by congress helping coordinate rapidly expanding NS bureaucracy and state building when cold war occurred president and national security council play the crucial role among all FP agencies of executive branch, everyone needs to communicate and coordinate efficiently and effectively otherwise conflicts occur, groups don't have conflicting goals but need to take turns Ex: different agencies work at cross purposes from each other; Saddam Hussein was given different messages on how US might respond to invasion of Kuwait, he had confusing signals, failure to communicate in crucial weeks leading to US to go to war some months later: state department and defense department sending completely different signals--failure to coordinate American FP, led to war in Iraq Ex: months leading up to 9/11: may have been able to make sense of different stories and put US on heightened alert level, failure of sharing info led to creation of director of national intelligence

How do special interest lobbying groups solve the free rider problem?

selective incentives offering extra goodies if you join their organization that can only be consumed if you make a donation towards the public good ex: AARP

What are the five frameworks for approaching practical ethics? What are the principal metrics by which each framework deems a decision to be ethical?

utilitarianism: (think Ozzymandias) approach by weighting the most harm vs. the most benefits Which alternative maximizes the most good for the greatest number? rights: respecting rights of individuals regardless of the cost (never focuses on number of people) fairness: fair treatment for all victims common good: interconnected nature of the individual and society. Advances common good of the entire community. virtue: make ethical decisions to cultivate ethical habits

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?

Successful Containment - Basis of US Success Appeal of democracy Economic success Technological revolution Soviet system failure Soviet implosion and the end of the Cold War

How did a global conflict originating in Europe help bring about the American state?

The 7 years war/French and Indian War. Britain was fighting against the French and Spanish. Britain needed to pay for the war in N. America and protect the western frontier so they enacted taxes to pay for the troops (e.x. stamp act, sugar act, currency act, Townshend act, monopoly on tea trade). Efforts to secure new revenues for British government prompted a backlash from local officials and the creation of local government bodies. Great Britain responded to this with new limits on self-governance. The shock of the 7 years war fundamentally altered the political relationship between the colonies and Britain.

How did the Articles of Confederation and its concentration of power in the states shape American foreign policy?

The Articles of Confederation (1781) More like an alliance: loose union of states, state loyalty more important Congress possesses authority to control diplomatic relations, requisition money and soldiers from states, coin and borrow money, settle disputes among states Commercial regulation and taxation remain with the states Article 2: "each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."

What is the interrelationship between the threat from ISIS and other potential threats to U.S. interests such as the Assad regime and Iran? How does this complicate the military and diplomatic strategy to combat the threat from ISIS? How have congressional Republicans taken advantage of this situation to criticize the president through the media?

The US deems ISIS to be a key national security threat to the region. However, if the US responds militarily this could help some groups we don't want to help, like Assad, because they also do not cooperate with ISIS. Even Al Qaeda believes ISIS is too radical. they take advantage of this because they want to shift public opinion; they are influencing decisions that Obama did not want to make (conventional wisdom)? Hezbollah receives support from Iran and Assad's regime in Syria, so pushing against ISIS could simultaneously strengthen Hezbollah in the region

How did American policies contribute to the Great Depression?

The United States contributed to the Great Depression with a restrictive tariff policy and higher interest rates that slowed the flow of credit to Europe. Smoot-Hawley (1929): high tariffs provoke reciprocal measures in world and global trade collapses Tight monetary policy (pushes interest rates up) by Federal Reserve in 1928 halts loans to Germany (big implications for reparations) FDR (1933): takes US off gold standard to offset deflation (foster inflation)

How did the "loss of China" contribute to McCarthyism and the Red Scare?

The United States saw that the most populated country in the world turned to communism and the communist nations had gained a new ally. How difficult would it be for the US to go red if China did so easily?

How did Kennan's definition of the Soviet threat naturally give rise to the containment strategy?

The United States was facing a long-term strategic challenge. Believing in the infallibility of their belief system and the certainty of its ultimate triumph, our adversaries were therefore in no hurry to achieve their goals. But he added, importantly, that we should not assume that they were necessarily embarked on a "do-or-die" struggle to the end. The American response to this challenge, Kennan argued, must be a long-term and patient strategy of containment - the application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographic and political points.

What is the free rider problem and how does the fact that national defense is a public good relate to this problem?

The free rider problem is people receiving the benefits of a good without having to pay the costs. National defense as a public good relates to this because everyone will receive defense no matter what they do because the US cannot selectively exclude people from defense based on participation Because the number of people in the United states is so large and because the military is so large, individual tax contributions to the military is going to have a minimal or nonexistent effect on the quality of protection provided by the military, therefore people free ride (forego paying taxes and rely on others payment of taxes) we need some level of coercion to overcome the free rider problem In the case of military/national defense, we use the IRS to deduct necessary funds from salaries in order to contribute to the common good of national protection

How does the role of indispensable nation potentially increase the moral responsibility of the United States in this crisis?

The status of being an "indispensable nation" carries a weight of potential moral obligation. Hypothetically, let's say the current institutional structure (including non-government organizations, international organizations, and the U.N.) cannot handle this situation alone. That potentially increases moral obligation for the U.S. Does the status of an "indispensable nation," aka the only actor capable of fixing this outbreak, obligate American military intervention? In that case, there may be arguments justifying American intervention as a moral obligation. Logic. "If you can help, you should!"

How do different approaches to practical ethics confront the ethical dilemma of the Ebola crisis?

There are five different frameworks of ethics that you could use to confront the Ebola crisis. (these frameworks were discussed in lecture 2). Utilitarian framework weighs harms vs. benefit of any action to decide decision More harms than benefits = negative aggregate good More benefits than harms = positive aggregate good Benefits: Relieve human suffering and save lives, Prevent spread of disease Prevent (further) social/economic breakdown Prevent civil conflict Boost international and domestic image Harms/Costs: Risk American lives Strain American economy Overstretch American military Distract from greater threats Risk of failure & disappointment damaging our politics Risk of setting precedent (where do our obligations end?) Rights based framework emphasize the protection of each individual's rights, regardless of the cost Fairness framework emphasize the fair treatment of all victims Who gets treated and who is left to die? Western aid workers vs African victims Most severe cases vs most likely to survive Social categories: young vs old, rich vs poor Utility: Urban vs rural, educated vs uneducated issues arise out of scarcity What if we can't help everyone? (plot twist: we can't) We would be forced to choose what victims to help, who should get treated? (the ones who need the most help or the ones more likely to survive? women and children first?) has been used extensively in this situation Common good framework emphasizes the interconnectedness between all of us viewpoint of this may depend on whether one views themselves as a citizen of the U.S., safe from this outbreak, or as a citizen of the world tied to the fate of others across the globe. Virtue framework argues that one should take ethical decisions to promote ethical habits Biggest stretch of all. This framework is easier applied to an individual rather than an entire nation. However, one could argue that the U.S. should help fight the ebola outbreak just to help it get accustomed to placing ethical considerations into it's foreign policy.

Why was containment so much more difficult in the Third World than it was in Europe?

They rejected American intervention whereas Europe accepted US involvement 3rd world saw US as an imperial power and they had had negative experiences with colonialism in the past (with Europe) - Lenin's theory of imperialism communism was more attractive because was seen as liberating 3rd World had the Soviet Union as a model for development could use the centralized state to spur dramatic economic dev. quickly Domestic threat of communist insurgency more home grown - nationalism Countries just had to outlast the US, not win directly US didn't have good partners to work with in the 3rd World - less collaboration military conflicts were fought with unconventional methods (guerilla warfare)

How does the press misinterpret President Obama's statement about "not having a strategy to combat the ISIS threat?

This was taken out of context by Republicans - Full Context: what should the US strategy be in response to ISIS in Syria? If the US attacks ISIS in Syria, could this simultaneously strengthen Assad? Conflation of a Very narrow question. Obama is not referring to his grand strategy, but is rather speaking about not having a policy formed yet to deal with ISIS in the Middle East - Obama emphasized there must be a military and a political component, the political component is navigating conflicting interests and conflicting groups within the Middle East. and if we react militarily, this may help Assad.

What does your Jetleson reading argue regarding "strategic recalibration"?

U.S. needs to stay engaged in the world, but it needs to re-appraise US interests, power, and leaderships role to fit a changing strategic environment. Not supposed to be a detailed manual, but rather a flexible framework US should be influential, not just powerful Argues U.S. needs to recalibrate in 4 ways: Hegemony is NOT in the U.S. interest Needs to reassess commitments, alliances, and interests Recognize shift in threats from inter-state competition to intra-state instability. Threats are "inside out" in nature rather than "outside in" like the Cold War Broaden security interests to include things like climate change and global public health.

Drawing from lecture and the "X" article reading, how did George Kennan view the Soviet threat?

USSR innately Antagonistic towards US/allies Give up hope for renewal of alliance with Soviet Union or negotiation with regime (cooperations are only strategies for future conflicts with US) Persistent but patient Dual Nature: expansionary but cautious - use containment Different from Nazi Germany—too weak for war but ideology taught it that it is on right side of history Argued that soviet union was like water "it would flow wherever it is allowed to but if it finds barriers, it accepts them and accommodates but always will be pressure"

What impact does Ukraine's non-membership in NATO have on the crisis? How does the geopolitical situation in Ukraine resemble that of Estonia and Latvia (both NATO members)?

Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so it will not receive military treatment from the US. Geographically, Estonia, Ukraine and Latvia are all within Russia's "sphere of influence" and were former members of the Soviet Union. As a result, Russia has a high amount of political and military pressure in the area.

What is the German problem? Why did it emerge in the late 19th century? What was the American solution to this problem? What was the Soviet solution? How was the German problem aggravated by Eisenhower's willingness to rearm Germany, potentially with nuclear weapons?

Unified Germany in Europe both threatening and threatened Concentration of economic, military, and political power in central Europe after consolidation of German empire under Bismarck in 1871 Solved before by German fragmentation/weakness German security problem: challenges associated with fighting a two-front war i.e. being surrounded Creates incentives for territorial expansion for buffer zones Cold War in Europe driven by fundamentally different strategies to solve the German Problem American solution: partition, occupy, democratize West Germany and integrate it economically and militarily in Western alliance Soviet solution: partition, occupy, communize East Germany and integrate it economically and militarily in Soviet-led bloc Soviet concerns: Integrated in the West, would West Germany reconstitute economic and military power and attack Soviet Union? Aggravated by Eisenhower willingness to rearm Germany Integrated Western Germany made American sphere stronger

What differentiated Union diplomacy from Confederate diplomacy? What did each side rely upon to generate implicit or explicit support from European powers?

Union diplomacy - in trying to get Europe to stay out of the conflict, relying in economic ties and industrial base (key aspect in European markets), because it was largest and populist of the two sides, the union had a lot of advantages and those would win out Confederate diplomacy - reliance on world market (cotton was required by textile mills in Europe to fuel the industrial revolution), this bet that Europe would come to aid of confederacy because they depended on cotton - failed and allowed the North to win

What is the definition of politics? What are the two central components of this definition?

Use of authority to allocate scarce resources Means of coordinating social behavior Two elements Authority: capacity to direct social behavior (actions of others) Often relies on coercion: capacity to impose costs (physical, economic, social, emotional) if directive not followed But presence of authority also rests on some legitimacy (target of directive recognizes right of person or organization to do so, even if they disagree with the command) Allocation of scarce resources: implies some degree of competition or social conflict over that allocation 2. How does violence shape political order? Give an example of how the use of coercion by a legitimate authority helps to establish political order. Authority nested in capacity for coercive use of violence, but presence of authority requires that coercion is legitimate Coercion can be used to enforce and to predate Political order: stable patterns or regularities of social behavior induced by authority relationships and/or coercion Critical role for coercion and violence in politics Violence (deployment or threat of it) often necessary for enforcement of directives E.g. Hobbes, Leviathan 6th Street on a weekend night at 2 a.m.

How do values come into conflict when making ethical decisions? How does the immigration crisis reflect some of these tradeoffs between competing values?

Values can come in conflict...should this be about the individual good, or good of the community? Loyalty vs truth? Justice vs Mercy? Short-term vs Long Term? The immigration crisis shows us that we should have mercy...we should allow these children to cross the border safely to a better place. But would that not encourage more child immigrants to take a dangerous journey alone in order to do so, knowing there will be no repercussions? What are the minimally required necessities we should provide the children if we were to let them in? What standard of living should be provided? Is it ethical to house them in prisons and refugee camps? US ethically prohibited from mistreating immigrants; ethically ideal - letting them stay

What were the main pillars of the peace settlements of World War I and World War II? How did these two settlements differ from one another?

WWI: Wilson championed self-determination, support for democracy, collective security in League of Nations WWII: Truman and FDR - democracy promotion and support, nation building in Germany and Japan, collective security through NATO. Post WWII settlement yielded a formal security commitment to many countries in Western Europe from the United States. Also victors took much more care in constructing an international economic settlement that supported their broader political goals (Bretton Woods negotiations)

How does Charles Tilly's dictum, "war made the state," apply to the American war for independence? How did that experience shape the American state?

War made the state..." Charles Tilly The experience of the American revolution helped establish the new state The successful Revolution against England gave the American people an independent place in the family of nations. It gave them a changed social order in which heredity and privilege counted for little and human equality for much. But most of all, it gave them the challenge to prove they possessed a genuine ability to hold their new place, to prove their capacity for self-government.

How did Washington's Farewell Address guard set a precedent of isolationism for the United States? What was Washington's fear regarding international cleavages and American domestic politics?

Washington's Farewell Address Warns against foreign entanglements: antipathies or alliances Critical to survival against internal and external threats Sets up a tradition of isolationism by suggesting detachment from Europe Washington's fear regarding international cleavages and American domestic politics: Attachments and animosity toward nations will only cloud the government's judgment in its foreign policy Longstanding poor relations will only lead to unnecessary wars due to a tendency to blow minor offenses out of proportion when committed by nations viewed as enemies of the United States. Alliances are likely to draw the United States into wars which have no justification and no benefit to the country Often lead to poor relations with nations who feel that they are not being treated as well as America's allies, and threaten to influence the American government into making decisions based upon the will of their allies instead of the will of the American people Dangers of nations who seek to influence the American people and gov.

What questions arise when considering the Ebola crisis from a fairness framework?

Who gets treatment? -Western aid workers vs. African victims -Most severe cases or most likely to survive? -Social categories: Young vs. old, rich vs. poor -Utility: Urban vs. rural, educated vs. uneducated •Problem of scarcity: -What if you can't help everyone?

How are Woodrow Wilson and Barack Obama historical examples of this grand strategy? Why does Posen in your article, "Pull Back," disagree with this depiction of President Obama's grand strategy?

Wilson was willing to use both military power and international organizations, and was motivated by a large ambition to transform the world. Focused on empowering people living under imperial rule to determine their own political fate and political independence Wilson's objectives: Collective security system through League of Nations National self-determination (anti-imperialism) Democracy Free Trade Open navigation for the seas (for trade, challenged British naval dominance) Obama as a liberal internationalist. Supports multilateral cooperation (West Point Speech) Supportive of democracy promotion Willing to use military force Pulls back from Bush's grand strategy of primacy by withdrawing from Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan. Posen said US needs to pull back from interventionist foreign policy Posen argues Obama is more similar to Bush having a grand strategy in the primacy end of the spectrum but what about liberal internationalism? Obama is a realist and reluctant to commit military force. Bush was more faithful to democracy promotion than obama is Obama seems skeptical we can remake the world, while Bush was confident we could do anything

What made the American Civil War an international event?

World was watching during civil war (can't be seen as failure) Civil war and the survival of democratic governance If US can't keep itself together, less support

What is the problem of integrating a just resort to war (jus ad bellum) and the just conduct of war (jus in bello)? How is the morality of the conduct of individual soldiers affected?

combatants' actions in carrying out the war justified, so long as they adhere to jus in bello principles? In other words, is it ethically permissible for soldiers to kill combatants trying to defend themselves and others from unjust aggression, so long as they have received the orders from proper authorities and only attack those in uniform? (e.g. soldiers fighting for Nazi aggressors)