GOV 312L TEST 2

In light of the terrorist attack in Brussels, address these questions. Why is ISIS attacking Europe (what goals and strategies might ISIS be following?) What are the implications of the Brussels attack for the Europe, the future of the EU, and U.S.-European relations? How has the attack on Brussels affected assessments of President Obama's strategy against ISIS?

Update on the attack: Two brothers identified as suicide bombers; third attacker still at large; connections to Paris attackers - Attackers part of a larger wave of jihadists trained to attack European homelands? • Why is ISIS targeting Europe? - ISIS attacks Europe as recruitment tool to show success in competition for jihadists with other terrorist groups like Al Qaeda - ISIS attacks Europe as part of larger, multi-level global strategy (interior ring, near abroad ring, far abroad ring) • Shift in tactics from large attacks (9/11) to numerous smaller attacks - "the objective appears to no longer be killing as many people as possible but rather to have as many terror operations as possible, so the enemy is forced to spend more money or more in manpower. It's more about the rhythm of terror operations now." • Does this attack force a rethinking of US strategy against ISIS? - No candidate suggested a military response that would include US ground troops • Some commentators cast the attack on Brussels as evidence that the Obama administration's strategy against ISIS may be wrong - Question the West's tolerance of ISIS - a terrorist organization that holds territory that can serve as a training ground and inspiration for jihadists around the world - A similar geographical base was not tolerated in Afghanistan after 9/11 - Will the current state of affairs - a terrorist state in the Middle East regularly attacking the West - be a legacy of Obama's hands-off approach in the region?

How does McFaul characterize President Vladimir Putin's grand strategy and his worldview, especially regarding the United States? What is Putin's perspective on the mass protests that challenged authoritarian regimes in Ukraine and the Middle East and the role of the West in those protests?

Putin saw things in zero sum terms with respect to the United states. He worried about us and using our overt power to overthrow regimes that we didn't like. Sees us as competitors. -Putin thought we encouraged and supported mass protests that challenged authoritarian regimes in Ukraine and the Middle East. -He thought we were against him. This caused conflict with us that wasn't there.

LEC 11: Considering the clip on Ted Cruz in reaction to the Apple vs. FBI case, what is the importance of Cruz's statement that "nobody has a right to defy a legal search warrant?"

-"How the constitution works. Other citizens and groups need to given to search warrants." -Makes an analogy to bank records

Regarding the case between Apple and the FBI, what are the arguments from Apple for resisting the government's request to help them open the iPhone? What are the arguments from the government for compelling Apple to open the iPhone?

-Apple can't just open that one iPhone. They would have to change the who system and it would leave this situation as a way for the government to get whatever they want in the future. Where does apple draw the line/will it be able to? -The government is mad beaus they see Apple as impeding the safety of the nation as a whole.

How did American policies contribute to the Great Depression?

-Associated with anti-imperialism and self determination to protect the League of nations.

According to McFaul, how popular is Vladimir Putin and what are the prospects that an alternative to Putin could arise in Russia? How have Russian military interventions affected Russian public support for Putin?

-Putin is popular because the Russian people think they are fighting a war with us and Nazis in Ukraine. -Support will wane according to McFaul because of the money that goes into fighting these "wars" -There's no alternative to Putin. Too bad.

How did Scowcroft's (and George H. W. Bush's) approach to foreign policy differ that the approaches of the Reagan administration before it and the Clinton administration afterward? How was Scowcroft's approach demonstrated in the debate over the expansion of NATO?

-Regan and Gorbachev are talking pretty things -Bush and Scowcroft see that there is no explicit talk about defeating communism. Important to withdraw forces that can attack each other. Scowcroft was very much against the expansion of NATO. He thought that it would be detrimental to the US-Russian relationship, increase strain, etc -Clinton: back to peace.

What is mutually assured destruction (MAD)? What is a second strike capability and why is it essential to mutually assured destruction? What is Clauswitz's idea of total war and how is the idea of total war associated with mutually assured destruction?

-The idea that if both sides have nuclear weapons, if one launches, the other launches back, both will be completely annihilated. -A country's assured ability to respond to an attack -Total war is a war so terrible, where both sides are assured massive amount of destruction, that the war itself no longer serves the purpose of protecting the state.

Why is it so hard to define terrorism by the means alone without also considering goals? According to Byford, what should the American counter-terrorism strategy be built around? What does Byford mean when he suggests the U.S. should put "interests first, goals second, means third" when constructing a counter-terrorism strategy?

-Tying means and goals- Byford argues that we can't divorce means from goals... we excuse a lot in terms of means if we agree with the goals. Byford argues that you have to take into considerations the goals. We need to shift away from the idea that the US is fighting a war on terror... it's actually a war on something else. -Byford notes that in this new mission against international terrorism, the US will need to decide which actors to support, battle against, and ignore. The least important factor is rather they are defined as a terrorist group, instead what is most important is the interest and protection of Americans followed by the goals of the organizations and then the means.

According to McFaul, what are the three main elements of U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration toward Vladimir Putin and Russia? How successful does McFaul think the Obama administration has been in executing these three elements?

1: Punish Putin for bad behavior (annexing Crimea, supporting rebels in east Ukraine) through sanctions. 2: Strengthen NATO. Putin needs to understand that we will defend any and all of our allies. 3: Help rebuild Ukraine (most underdeveloped). -McFaul is impressed by the sanctions that the US has put on Russia. -Supports increase in NATO budget.

According to the Krauthammer reading, what is the difference between a soldier, a terrorist, and a terrorist with information in terms of ethically permissible counter-terrorism measures?

A soldier caught in battle is not doing anything wrong to the captor except being on the other team. They deserve all their basic rights and should only be detained to keep him/her off the battlefield A terrorist lives outside the laws of war because they hide among citizens and deliberately target innocent people. Because of this they are entitled to nothing, but we should not torture them because we should not sink to their level A terrorist with information is different since now torture can be used to obtain said information (subject of TTB)

Why does Byman argue that the United States needs to remain engaged, and even increase its military involvement in the Middle East? According to Byman, how is military intervention to stop civil war related to counter-terrorism efforts?

Connections between civil war and terrorism - Counterterrorism often means intervening in civil war • Statebuilding to prevent civil war and terrorism

How are public attitudes regarding the proper balance between security and civil liberties influenced by Americans' perceptions of threats to national security? Explain how the government's attempts to protect national security in a "war on terror" may affect the balance of power between the government and society.

Domestic consequences of war o Presidents can use war to strengthen their authority relative to society. o When threat goes up, civilians accept more restrictions on their civil liberties.

What is extended deterrence and how do alliance commitments complicate credible deterrent threats? Explain how questions about credibility complicated American deterrent threats against the Soviet Union to protect Western Europe. What actions were taken (and contemplated) by the United States during the Cold War to enhance the credibility of its extended deterrence threats?

Extended deterrence: preventing an armed attack against another state Peace during the Cold War rested heavily on threats of the US attacking Soviet Union if they invaded West Germany If Soviet's doubt US credibility, they will attack and take West Berlin; if US allies (mainly France), doubts US credibility, they will exit the alliance (moving to Soviet Union side or neutrality, leaving US on its own) Once Soviets had lots of nuclear bombs, were we willing to sacrifice our own land to protect Germans in West Berlin? Solutions to enhance credibility (make irrevocable commitments) Tripwires: sent US troops to West Berlin and Korean peninsula, mainly to die. It would be hard for US to retract nuclear threats if thousands of Americans had died in an initial commitment Give West Germany nuclear weapons so it's no longer our problem

MOD 11: Drawing from lecture and the "X" article reading, how did George Kennan view the Soviet threat? How did Kennan's definition of the Soviet threat naturally give rise to the containment strategy? 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?

George Kennan and Containment ➢ Deputy head of the U.S. mission in Moscow. ➢ Long Telegram: Containment strategy written by Kennan. ➢ Kennan's view of SU o Patience and Marxist Ideology o Dictatorship and the need for an external enemy o Containment as a contest between rival political systems • The SU would be antagonist against U.S. and it's allies. o He didn't think that war was a possible choice. Instead wear them down through persistent containment.

LEC 15: Why does Mandelbaum argue that Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon? What makes the Iranian case different from other countries that the U.S. did allow to obtain nuclear weapons, particularly North Korea?

Mandelbaum argues that Iran must not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. Why? - Political consensus in U.S. that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon - Unlike N. Korea, Iranian bomb could spark regional nuclear proliferation - Unlike MAD during Cold War, nuclear competition in Middle East would be unstable - South Korea opposed U.S. military intervention in N. Korea, Iran's neighbors would not oppose U.S. military intervention in Iran • How best to keep Iran from getting the bomb? - Does not take a position on Iran nuclear deal. Asks instead what to do if Iran cheats, the deal is canceled, or the deal expires - Dismisses "snap-back" economic sanctions - Argues for deterrence - threatening military intervention if Iran tries to get a nuclear weapon

According to Mandelbaum, why is deterrence a better strategy than "snap-back" economic sanctions? What challenges does Mandelbaum foresee the U.S. facing in implementing a deterrent threat of military force against Iran? What solutions does he offer?

Requirements of Deterrence against an Iranian nuclear bomb: - Requires clarity and credibility - Problems with clarity • Defining what violation would trigger military response • Detecting violations - Problems with credibility • Previous U.S. behavior - tolerating Iran's nuclear program, Obama's nuclear deal - may lead Iran's leaders to doubt threat of military intervention - Deterrence needs extra steps to be credible - resolute articulation and greater military presence

How did McFaul characterize Putin and Russians' attitude toward the American presidential contest?

They love Trump.

Explain the basis of stability under mutually assured destruction and how missile defense systems undermine that stability.

Stability rests on threats to engage in violence, not the actual use of military force. So the threat of mutually assured destruction deters nuclear war If we can defend ourselves with missiles etc. to shoot down approaching nuclear weapons, then one side can gain first strike capabilities and upset the balance of power, and only one side gets annihilated it would survive the nuclear attack, but when launch the missiles, missiles would be shot down defense might destabilize missile defense removes second strike capabilities, state that does not have missiles and could be attacked has different set of motives two options for vulnerable state: arms build up or preemptive strike either way, missile defense destabilizing, states have great incentives to start nuclear war Ironically, having a better defense against nuclear weapons is more likely to lead to a nuclear war

What is the German security 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?

The German problem and the Cold War in Europe What was the German problem? • Unified Germany in Europe both threatening and threatened o 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 o Creates incentives for territorial expansion for buffer zones • Franco-Polish-Czech-Russo security problem: German economic and military strength significant threat o They want territorial buffers How did it contribute to the cold war? • Cold war I Europe driven by fundamentally different strategies to solve German Problem • American solution: Partition, occupy, democratize West Germany and integrate it economically and militarily in Western alliance How was it resolved? • Soviet solution: Partition, occupy, Communize East Germany and integrate it economically and militarily into soviet led bloc. ➢ Americans concerns: Would soviets retake West Berlin? Invade Western Europe? o Berlin as important signal of American commitment to defend western Europe ➢ Soviet concerns: Integrated in the west, would West Germany reconstitute economic and military power and attack Soviet Union? o Aggravated by Eisenhower willingness to rearm Germany maybe even with nukes • Escalated the war

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?

The absence of great power war since the mid-20th century can be explained briefly: There has been economic interdependence and changing value of each respective territory. Globalization reduced the need to expand, this was done by equalizing access to economic resources of territory and this eliminated a lot of the need to compete by working together like U.S.-China. The use of Nuclear Deterrence eliminates the chances of a military invasion and this has frozen territorial boundaries. Unipolarity of the U.S. has caused the U.S. to be so far ahead in military terms than the nearest competitors, this allows the U.S. to see and adjust to most threats.

In the interview with Michael McFaul, what three theories did he note were circulating at the time of the Soviet Union's collapse with regard to how Russia's foreign policy would develop in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse? Which theory did he subscribe to at the time?

Theory 1: After the soviet ideology, they would become democratic, market supporting europeans. (This is what McFaul thought) Theory 2: Power, The cold war ended because Russia was weak and the Soviet system failed. Now that it is stronger, they are classic regional great power politics. Theory 3: Russia is an imperial place with an attitude with their neighbors after 100's of years of imperialism. Eventually they are going to be confrontational against the west. (He straight up thought this was wrong.)

What are the positions of the major presidential candidates in regards to the case between Apple and the FBI?

Trump: Apple needs to comply with law. Rubio: Apple needs to comply with law. Kasich: Obama is the problem / Apple needs to comply. Clinton: Sees both sides. Sanders: On both sides.

What are the basic facts regarding the two-week ceasefire in effect in Syria beginning in late February 2016?

Two-week ceasefire went into effect on Feb. 27th. Can be extended. • Ceasefire did not include ISIS or Nusra Front, which allowed U.S. and Russia to continue airstrikes • Despite violations, ceasefire has substantially reduced violence. Also, resulted in resumption of peaceful protests against Assad • Talks to resume in Geneva in next few days

LEC 14: Why does Simon and Stevenson argue that the U.S. needs to pull back from military intervention in regions like the Middle East? How is their logic similar to that of Posen from an earlier reading?

Why pullback? • Changing regional dynamics: oil, altered strategic priorities of allies, diminishing effectiveness of US military power • How answer larger questions in module about American intervention in civil war?

MOD 13: Wrong questions:

o According to lecture, the post-war settlement after WWII, unlike the settlement made after WWI, created formal security agreements between the United States and key western European countries. • I chose False, which was wrong. • Unlike after WWI, when it largely pursued a policy of isolationism, in the period following WWII the US created formal collective security agreements with states in western Europe, most notably through the Marshall Plan and the formation of NATO. Truman and others believed these security agreements, as well as the economic policies enacted through GATT and Bretton Woods, would help prevent the breakdown of the international system and a return to great power war. o President Vladimir Putin accepted the diminished status of Russia after the Cold War as a natural consequence of the failure of the Soviet system. • I chose true, which was wrong. • Putin is dissatisfied with the current territorial status quo and, as his actions in Ukraine would indicate, seems intent on changing that status quo. We discussed in lecture how post-war settlements have varied in their ability to create a stable and long-lasting status quo amongst the great powers.

According to the interview with Professor Bat Sparrow, what characteristics made Brent Scowcroft such an important and trusted authority and adviser on U.S. foreign policy?

o Brent Scowcroft served on the national security council of president Richard Nixon and was the national security advisor to both presidents Ford and George H.W. Bush o Played a central role in managing American foreign policy during the collapse of the soviet Union and the end of the Cold War

MOD 15: Wrong Questions

o Cold War historian John Lewis Gaddis argues that since the end of WWII US generals and presidents have all assumed that because of their destructive capabilities nuclear weapons were taboo and would never actually be used. • Gaddis argues that although later on in the Cold War a nuclear taboo developed such that presidents and generals assumed they would never actually be used, early on in the Cold War nuclear weapons were considered a viable military weapon by US military leaders and presidents, such as Dwight Eisenhower. o The Cold War experience, particularly the conflictual relations of the Truman and Eisenhower presidencies with Stalin, suggests that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by non democratic regimes like Iran will increase the likelihood of a nuclear strike against the United States. • This question was designed to reinforce the discussion of nuclear weapons that highlighted their massive destructive power. This potential to destroy cities seems to induce all leaders, even notorious dictators--like Joseph Stalin--to be cautious both in their use of nuclear weapons and threats to use them. o President Eisenhower threatened nuclear strikes to contain and prevent small, regional conflicts. • President Eishenhower threatened the use of nuclear weapons even in relatively small-scale conflicts such as North Korea. He believed that by threatening the use of nuclear weapons in any war, he could prevent the war from breaking out in the first place. Note though, the effectivness of this strategy waned as the Cold War went on, particularly after the Soviets acquired secure second strike capability. A threat to launch an attack against the Soviet Union if they invaded a third world country like Afghanistan faced a credibility problem. The United States could not eliminate all Soviet nukes in a first strike. Consequently, it became more difficult to deter attacks against countries like Afghanistan if the promised response (a nuclear strike on Moscow) resulted in a Soviet retaliatory strike on New York City.

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?

o Competing goals of two different systems that result in two different views. ➢ Competing goals: o US • Maintain US international engagement • Promote democracy, free and fair elections • Promote free and open markets • United Nations security o Soviets • Buffer Zone • Sphere of influence ➢ Mutual Suspicions o US philosophical underpinning: World Revolution • Molotv-Ribbentrop pact • Negotiation over Eastern Europe • Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe o Soviet philosophical underpinning: Capitalist Imperialism • History of western invasion • Western intervention during Russian revolution • Second front issue during WWII

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?

o Dilemma for the United States: American military power necessary to defeat Hitler, but how constrain American capacity for violence after 1945? • Competition with Soviet Union • Inkberry: bind American military power through institutions • Internal: Democracy • External: NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

MOD 17: Discuss how the attack on 9/11 led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. How did the decision not to distinguish between terrorists and states that harbor terrorists play into this decision? How did considerations of domestic reaction and the possibility of another attack affect this decision? What were the key attributes of the initial campaign in Afghanistan? Explain the significance of NATO invoking Article 5. Why did great powers like Russia and China provide at least tacit support for this initial campaign in Afghanistan?

o How did 9/11 contribute to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? o Competing political voices on torture ➢ What is the extent of the terrorist threat? o Terrorism is a serious threat: • U.S. is vulnerable to another major attack • Terrorist groups could get possession of nuclear weapon • # of deaths from terrorism is not the point • Another attack could prompt the public to demand a national security state and the widespread suspension of civil liberties

What is the nature of the conflict between the values of national security and civil liberties in the United States? What is the argument regarding this conflict from the security perspective and the civil liberties perspective?

o How should the US balance national security and individual liberty? • A decision would need trade-offs • Are the long-run outcomes worth the current problem? o Security perspective: Unconstrained protection of civil liberties in the face of a terrorist threat is "constitutional suicide" because it leaves the U.S. vulnerable to actors trying to destroy our open society o Civil liberties perspective: Sacrificing civil liberties for security is self-contradictory because it attempts to save democracy from threats by giving up the very rights that define democracy

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

o Isolationism is still very strong. o FDR wants to support Churchill but he cant because he was constrained by the neutrality acts. o FDR delicate game of expanding support for war but not committing the US. • Gets congress to repeal arms embargo • US Navy patrolling Atlantic • Destroyers for naval bases deal with British by executive order • Lend lease: Huge in the defeat of Germany and Japan. o Domestic constraint. o Pearl harbor destroys isolationism.

For Crawford, what sort of transformations in war have made Just War theory more problematic in the context of terrorism? According to Crawford, in what ways did the Bush administration frame American military interventions in terms of Just War theory? What perennial and novel concerns does terrorism raise about Just War theory?

o Just War Theory never neatly fit with changing nature of war • Nevertheless, the Bush Administration declared: • War has been transformed by terrorism • But, the fight against terrorism was a "just war" ➢ War has been transformed in the age of terrorism o Terrorists fight wars differently than states and states counter the terrorist threat differently than countering the threat of other states • Aims, combatants, and conduct of war has changed with the end of the Cold War o War is also transformed by terrorism because: • States fight terrorism with conventional forces making "just initiation of war" difficult • The line between war and peace is blurred making "just conduct of war" difficult ➢ Just War Theory in the age of terrorism: Discussion of Crawford reading (II) o Despite the transformation of war the Bush Administration: • Framed the U.S. counter-terrorism in Afghanistan and elsewhere in Just War terms: • Just initiation: Pre-emptive attacks were self-defense; attack on Afghanistan was last resort • Just conduct: Avoided civilian casualties and Islam per se is not the enemy

What is war? What did Clauswitz mean when he described war as "the continuation of politics by other means"?

o Military contest among competing organizations o Organizations possess conflicting interests over some set of issues in dispute o 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 o Violent means to some political end • Clausewitz: War as the continuation of politics by other means. • War is a political act

What is the moral hazard problem? How can this concept help to explain how the prospect of intervention from a third party (like the United States) might actually increase incentives to leave civilian populations vulnerable to attack and genocide?

o Moral hazard problem: mechanism of insurance actually encourages risky behavior that trying to deter o Often talked about in context of financial bailouts o For secessionist groups that are losing civil war, can create incentive to leave civilian population vulnerable o Genocide or attacks on civilians can prompt international intervention

Applying Just War theory to the conflict with ISIS, what considerations should be taken into consideration when deciding whether the United States' conflict with ISIS is a just war?

o Perennial Concerns: • What is self-defense?; What justifies preemption?; What is last resort against terrorists?; Don't both sides feel they are fighting "just wars"? o Novel Concerns: • How to define terrorism?; How to limit terrorism/counter terrorism war?; Can war on terrorism be successful?; How can counter-terrorism employ discrimination? How is counter- terrorism proportional? o Outside Just War Theory: o How does Just War Theory matter without strong international law?; Why not concentrate on avoiding war altogether?

How does violence shape political order? Give an example of how the use of coercion by a legitimate authority helps to establish political order.

o Political order: Stable patterns or regularities of social behavior induced by authority relationships and/or coercion: the ability to impose costs. Does not equate with authority. Like a schoolyard bully. o Critical role for coercion and violence in politics • Violence (deployment or threat of it) often necessary for enforcement of directives • E.G. Hobbes Leviathan o Centralize power and give it to certain people so that in general, peace can be kept. • 6th Street on a weekend night at 2 A.M. o Cops are there to keep the people in line. Their authority is legitimate because of their coercive force.

LEC 13: According to Stent, how does Russia's international behavior under President Putin affect U.S. national interests? What is her policy recommendations for how the U.S. should approach relations with Russia? Is she optimistic or pessimistic regarding future prospects for cooperation between the U.S. and Russia on a wide range of issues?

o Pragmatic, skeptical view of US-Russian relations o Limited opportunities for cooperation o Putin attempting to reassert Russian influence and challenge American-Led post Cold War order o Conflicting interests in Syria, both Assad and ISIS

LEC 10: What are the basic facts surrounding the case over opening an iPhone involved in the San Bernardino shooting case?

o Terrorists killed people o They had an iPhone w important information o Wont help the FBI break into an iPhone o "Government overreach" literally can't help. o If apple did take this step, where would Apple draw the line in helping FBI?

LEC 12: What is the basic logic behind Just War theory and what are the basic requirements of just initiation of war, just conduct of war, and just aftermath of war?

o War as a necessary and lesser evil. o "As bad as war is, it may still be necessary if it prevents a greater harm." - Crawford, p. 7. • Just identification of war (self-defense) • Just conduct war (discrimination and proportionality) • Just aftermath of war (re-establish peace)

What is torture (be sure to understand the main components of the definition presented in class)? Compare and contrast the video clip of President Bill Clinton discussing torture with that of John McCain commenting on torture and counter-terrorism in a Republican presidential debate. Where does each of these politicians draw the line on the use of torture in counter-terrorism? What moral frame does John McCain draw upon when he lists notorious dictators like Pol Pot who used torture and says that the United States is "better than that"?

o What is torture? • The infliction of extreme physical pain/suffering • searing with hot irons/thumbscrews • electric shock to the genitals • cutting off body parts/severe beatings • waterboarding o intentional, victim must be non-consenting and defenseless o substantial curtailment of the exercise of the victim's autonomy o generally undertaken for the purpose of breaking the victim's will Bill Clinton on the permissibility of torture and the Jack Bauer moment Video: 3:50 Mitt Romney and John McCain at the 2008 Republican presidential debate Video: 4:13

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

world needs to US to confront predators (e.g. World War I and World War II) but can us observe limits on use of force (e.g. Iraq 2003)?

How do military setbacks for ISIS and the Taliban help explain recent terrorist attacks in Baghdad (by ISIS) and Lahore, Pakistan (by the Taliban)?

• Attacks in Brussels, south of Baghdad, and Lahore - Similar strategic circumstances: attacking soft targets to offset a deteriorating strategic situation • US strikes at leadership of ISIS (War Minister and Finance Minister) - Shift in counterterrorist strategy? Treating ISIS like a state with things to lose - Targeting government ministry, economic and financial assets

What have been some of the major implications of the civil war in Syria, particularly regarding the migrant crisis and its effects on European politics? How do these implications correspond to the readings by Simon and Stevenson and Byman?

• CNBC clip on Europe's response to migrant crisis • Syrian civil war has sparked the largest migrant crisis since World War II • Migrant crisis has given rise to far-right parties across Europe • Migrant crisis threatens the economic and political stability of EU member states and the very survival of the EU itself, e.g., Britain's referendum on leaving the EU.

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

• Dangerous legacy of 2003: Allies and U.N. say no to Iraq, but US do it anyway. America unbound? American power still legitimate outside of US? • US as indispensable nation: World needs US military power (e.g. ISIS in Middle East), but is exercise of US military power sufficiently regulated?

What policy positions, particularly regarding American commitments abroad, did Donald Trump take in his extended interview with members of the editorial board at the Washington Post? What did Trump's statements to the Washington Post suggest about his grand strategy?

• Distribution of economic burdens among allies • NATO • Benefits of American military bases overseas? • ISIS • China and America's untapped market power • Virtues of unpredictability

What are the different positions that Donald Trump has taken on the use of torture in American counter-terrorism strategy? Describe why Trump sees the capture of the Paris terrorist suspect ten days before the Brussels attack as an example of the ticking time bomb scenario. How does this help explain Trump's renewed calls for changes in the law to allow for the use of waterboarding and other forms of torture?

• Evolution of his position on torture: supports waterboarding and worse, then appears to pull back because unlawful, supports changing the laws post-Brussels • Specifically invokes TTB scenario in the Brussels cas

What is the central dilemma of the use of force to establish political order in domestic politics? How does this same dilemma frame the problem of war and political order in the international order?

• Force is sometimes necessary... however; they can also use this power for their own gain. ➢ The fundamental dilemma of politics o 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 in the long run have figured out how to regulate use of violence in a way that constrains its arbitrary use and makes its deployment legitimate. ➢ Violence and international political order: Implications for the U.S. o If predators in international politics, what do we do? • E.G. Hitler: Use of 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 o 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.

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

• 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, and destruction is always wrong

Why was Berlin such an important signal of 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 Russia during the cold war, so stop other countries turning into communism, they put a lot of money into west Berlin, to persuade people that life is better without communism.

What were the policy statements from Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to AIPAC (the pro-Israel lobby group) and how did they differ?

• Trump: more supportive of Israel, critical of Iran nuclear deal, critical of UN • Clinton: tougher Iran deal?, critical of Trump's negotiating tendencies

LEC 16: According to Hoffman, what is the "boomerang effect" and how does it contribute to the threat from ISIS to Western states? What are the main elements of the organizational capacity of ISIS and how does ISIS compare to Al Qaeda in its ideology and tactics?

• Two sets of claims: - ISIS poses considerable terrorist threat ("boomerang effect") to Western nations - This threat rests on its unique organizational capacities and expansionist political goals • Most of article about organizational capacities of ISIS - Significant strategic/territorial gains in summer of 2014 - Access to military hardware - Independent revenue sources: oil, looting, taxation, trafficking, smuggling - Political/organizational capacity: acting like a state - Effective recruiter: drawing in large quantities of foreign fighters • Along with Byman, get a view of ISIS and its relationship to Al Qaeda

How did Gorbachev's foreign policy (his "New Thinking") differ from classic Soviet foreign policy? How did Gorbachev's refusal to use force to sustain communist rule in Eastern Europe contribute to the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union?

➢ Gorbachev, New Thinking, and the end of the hegemony in Eastern Europe Gorbachev as crucial "first mover" in end of the Cold War • Gorbachev's "New Thinking" - New ideas about security • Ending hegemony in Eastern Europe • Moving away from the Brezhnev Doctrine: Using military force if necessary to maintain Communist regimes in Eastern Europe if there was any pressure to change. • After the fall of the Berlin wall -> Sinatra Doctrine: Removal of threat to use force. • Consequences of the Sinatra Doctrine • Enabling and accelerating the collapse of communism • Contributing to the collapse of the Soviet Union o Loss of empire and prestige o Providing a model for ending communism in the USSR

What were the main pillars of the peace settlement after World War I? How did President Woodrow Wilson influence the international system in 1919?

➢ How did US influence subsequent international political order in 1919? o Wilson • National self determination (new states and anti-imperialism) own institutions of government • Support for democracy • Collective security in League of Nations

What were the main elements of the peace settlement after World War II and how did the United States influence the political order after 1945? 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?

➢ How did US influence subsequent international political order in 1945? o Truman and FDR • Democracy promotion and support (think Marshall Plan aid) • Nation building in Germany and Japan (reintegrated into Western order) • Collective security through NATO • Diff from 1919: Creation of new international organizations (UN, International Monetary Fund, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], World Bank) • Diff from 1919: New international economic order around promoting globalization (Bretton Woods) • Liberalization of trade barriers.

How did we get from the attack on 9/11 and war in Afghanistan to war in Iraq? What was the role of key members of President Bush's administration such as Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz? How did the following issues play into the decision to invade Iraq: a) Iraq potentially possessing weapons of mass destruction; b) historical antagonism (Iraq as a member of the "Axis of Evil"); c) the idea of Iraq as a leverage point to democratize the whole Middle East region play into the decision to invade Iraq; d) taking the fight against terrorist organizations abroad? According to lecture, what complications arose after the invasion of Iraq?

➢ How do we get from 9/11 to the war in Afghanistan? o Pretty straightforward, Pres. Bush and advisors felt at war right away, doing nothing not seriously discussed o Huge decision by Bush on night of 9/11: no discrimination between terrorists and states that harbor them • Commitment to broaden war against states and non state actors • Decision of Bush, Rice, K. Hughes and speechwriters (Gerson); key national security players left out • Quickly determined to strike Al Qaeda, given sanctuary in southern Afghanistan by Taliban in return for substantial financial support o Tremendous pressure on military and CIA to be ready ASAP, concerns about breakdown in order if another attack before striking back • Bush addresses Congress 9/20, addresses nation announcing commencement of air strikes on 10/7 ➢ Important attributes of initial campaign in Afghanistan o Challenge: difficult terrain, place where empires go to die (e.g. Soviet Union) o US allies with Northern Alliance, collection of groups in Northern Afghanistan fighting Taliban • Insert CIA and special forces to coordinating coalition and hold it together with funding and weapons o NATO invokes Article 5, attack on one is attack on all o Convergence of great power interests: both China and Russia share anti-terror interests • Illustrates convergence of national interests of all states, terrorism as a threat to their viability as organizational form ➢ How do we get from 9/11 to war inAfghanistan to war in Iraq? o Bush faces pressure from within administration to go to war against Iraq right away after 9/11 • Rumsfield raises possibility on September 12 • Wolfowitz, 9/13, "ending states who sponsor terrorism" • Orders Rumsfield on 11/21 to begin updating war plan for Iraq ➢ How do we get from 9/11 to war in Afghanistan to war in Iraq? Overdetermined... o Weapons of mass destruction • Saddam Hussein seeking to augment capabilities and would threaten allies in region • Might give to terrorists • Had used in the past (deterrence would not work) • Wolfowitz: settle on this because easier to sell domestically o Iraq part of Axis of Evil and key enemy of the United States • Might harbor terrorists o Leverage point to transform and democratize Middle East • Democratic Iraq would put pressure on autocratic countries in region to liberalize • Needed bold solution to long term (two generations) problem of terrorism o Better to fight the terrorists in a foreign theater (Cheney)

How is civil war different from international war? What dilemmas associated with the commitment problem arise from the need for one side to disarm in a civil war? How can intervention from a third party (like the United States) help to resolve the commitment problem?

➢ International intervention in civil war (I)? o Most civil wars do not end with disputants finding bargain on their own —one side imposes solution or third party helps enforce. Why? o Civil war different from international war: one side has to disarm o Disarmament creates intense period of vulnerability because no longer use military force to punish other side if do not abide by peace terms ➢ International intervention in civil war (I)? o This is commitment problem: fear of one side not fulfilling peace obligations coupled with vulnerability of disarmament leads to continuation of war o Civil war has destroyed institutions (judiciary, police, power-sharing like federal division, minority rights) used to solve this enforcement problem o Can substitute third party guarantee (B. Walter) if: • External state has self-interest in upholding • Third party willing to use force if necessary • Can signal resolve to stay the course • The intervening party will make sure the disarmed group is fine.

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? What other early Cold War crises led to a militarization of containment?

➢ Marshall plan and containment o Economic dislocation and Extremism o Curbing domestic attraction to communism o Building on U.S. economic power. Open door. • Tries to connect economic interest with security interest. Global U.S. led capitalist economy. • Seprated east and western Europe. o Continued evidence of Soviet Union Communist expansion • Czechoslovakia • Berlin blockade • Soviet atomic bomb • Communist china • Korean war • Potential threat to Japan an interest point of the US • Coming to a transition point.

LEC 17: Compare and contrast the readings by Mayerfeld and Krauthammer on the use of torture in counter-terrorism. What are each author's views of the so-called "ticking time bomb" scenario? Why does Mayerfeld argue that torture should never be legally or morally acceptable? Conversely, why does Krauthammer argue there needs to be certain exceptions to a ban on torture?

➢ Mayerfeld: The case against all torture o I. TTB scenario is unrealistic and never happens in real life. o II. TTB scenario requires that guilt of captured terrorist is certain (which is impossible). Due to uncertainty, many innocents are tortured. o III. TTB scenario requires that we are certain torture will work. Actually, torture produces bad information because victims will say anything to make the pain stop. o IV. Torture cannot be restricted to the TTB scenario. If you provide an exception the use of torture will expand past that scenario. o V. Torture is counterproductive. It alienates target populations, like Muslims, and does irreparable harm to intelligence and military personnel tasked with carrying out torture. ➢ Krauthammer: The case for exceptions to a ban on torture o I. Krauthammer: TTB scenario is realistic and has occurred • A. Moral Liability: Terrorists bring torture on themselves • 1. Key distinctions: soldiers, terrorists, terrorists w/information • B. TTB scenario is realistic and torture sometimes "works" as counter-terrorism • 1. Need only a low threshold of certainty • 2. Real-world scenario- Israeli example • 3. Utilitarian moral calculus: Torture as "moral duty" to save innocent lives

MOD 16: What made 9/11 a historical watershed 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?

➢ What was 9/11 and how did it change us? o New enemy in terrorism and new mission of counter-terrorism o The domestic fight against terrorism: rise of the security state and the debate over the balance between liberty and security o Taking the fight abroad: Foreign wars and counter-terrorism

What is nuclear proliferation? Compare and contrast the pessimistic and optimistic perspectives on how nuclear proliferation will affect international stability. Why does the United States have a strong national interest in preventing nuclear proliferation?

➢ Nuclear proliferation: stabilizing or destabilizing? o Proliferation generally discussed in horizontal terms i.e. more countries getting the bomb • Sometimes vertical (nuclear states getting bigger stockpiles) o Proliferation pessimism: more states with nuclear weapons means higher risk of nuclear war, nuclear accidents o Proliferation optimism: because costs of war so high in nuclear world, nuclear weapons stabilizing ➢ Proliferation Optimism o Associated with Kenneth Waltz o Nuclear weapons generate tremendous caution in a crisis, deterrence limits aggression o Secure second strike capabilities fairly easy to achieve (can hide, use mobile launchers) • Adversary can never be sure will get them all in first strike, therefore don't attempt o Helps to limit violence in wars, both states caution about escalating conflict because might face nuclear retaliation o States have strong incentives to maintain control of nukes ➢ Proliferation Pessimism o Associated with Scott Sagan o Recent proliferators fewer nukes and less likely to possess secure, second strike capabilities o Organizational impediments within military over command and control • Tradeoff between readiness (capability to launch quickly in a crisis) and safety • Military more concerned about readiness o New proliferators less likely to have stable civilian control over military • Risk of unauthorized or accidental use o Period of vulnerability during stage of nuclear weapons development might heighten risk of preventive war • Example: Israeli pressures on US for strike against Iran ➢ US: strong national interest in preventing proliferation o Part of this stems from reasons cited by Sagan o Also, nuclear weapons great equalizer: blunts advantage of great powers (like the US) in conventional weapons o Freezes territorial status quo for nuclear armed states: cannot invade without risking nuclear retaliation o Takes military coercion or threat of regime change off the table for the United States and other great powers • Compare "Axis of Evil": Iran, Iraq, and North Korea • If don't have nuclear weapons (Iraq), get invaded; if do have nuclear weapons (N. Korea), get tough diplomacy • Creates incentives to get nuclear weapons

What is pragmatic humanitarian intervention? How does it differ from both the norm to stop genocide and the responsibility to protect?

➢ Practical Ethics: Pragmatic Humanitarian Intervention (Pape) o Pragmatic Humanitarian Intervention • Stop mass homicide campaign -killing several thousand citizens • Low-cost intervention • Nearly zero casualties and those involved in intervention are volunteers • Identifiable target population separable from those not at risk • Local ally • Organized international coalition • Extreme imbalance of power • Enduring security following intervention o Exit strategy

What is genocide? What are the four problems associated with the international norm of stopping genocide? What is the responsibility to protect? How is this mandate even more expansive than the mandate to stop genocide? What are the problems associated with this approach to humanitarian intervention?

➢ Practical Ethics: What is genocide? Why does the international community not stop it? o Genocide: "the deliberate destruction of a nation or an ethnic group." (Pape, 2012) o Is stopping genocide morally required? o Four problems with norm against genocide: • International community can't decide there is genocide in time to halt it. • Focus on group rather than individuals • Does not consider long-term security • Neglects cost of intervention o Utilitarianism vs. a right-based framework ➢ Practical Ethics: What is responsibility to protect (R2P)? o R2P: "call for the international community to intervene whenever "a population is suffering serious harm" • Stop genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity • Prevent harm by helping states protect populations before humanitarian crises occur • Rebuild societies after intervention o Problems with R2P • Does not define a threshold of atrocities, resulting in obligation to intervene in almost every instance of human suffering even when states are not targeting its citizens • Does not consider costs for interveners • Potentially obligates interveners to nation building, social transformation, and regime change

What is the case for an important role of Reagan foreign policy in the end of the Cold War? How did the foreign policy regarding the Soviet Union differ in Reagan's first term and his second term?

➢ Regan Foreign Policy - Republicans see him as the one that ended it o Regan Foreign policy I - Confrontation • Rhetoric - Renewed Confrontation • Arms buildup • Anti missile / Star wars / Strategic defense initiative (SDI) • The Regan Doctrine o Regan Foreign Policy II - Negotiation • Cooling the rhetoric, embracing Soviet Reform • Arms control - Tried to reduce the number of weapons each side had o "Here's my strategy on the Cold War, we win, they lose."

What are the sources of the commitment problem? How do shifts in the distribution of power, withdrawals of great powers from internal conflicts, ethnic imbalances, and income inequality contribute to civil wars?

➢ Sources of the commitment problem in civil war (I) o Shifts in the internal distribution of political or military power • Potential sources of shift: withdrawal of support from external patron, democratization, emergence of social movement or political party (Communism) o Examples • American and Soviet withdrawal after Cold War • US withdrawal from Iraq ➢ Sources of the commitment problem in civil war (II) o Ethnic imbalances: ethnicity as a device to mobilize groups o Minority groups tempted to secede; majority groups fight to preserve unity and access to resources in entire territory o Risk of tyranny of majority: how majority commit to respect minority rights; and not exclude minority groups from positions of power in government and economy? ➢ Sources of the commitment problem in civil war (III) o Power imbalance along economic lines • Income inequality • State-owned resources o Commitment problem: poor majority cannot commit not to seize assets of wealth minority once in power through nationalization or taxation o Wealthy minority sides with military, government; supports repression o Examples: • Venezuela under Chavez • Oil in Iraq

MOD 13: How do great powers structure international politics after great power wars like World War I and World War II? Describe the main changes in the international system that occur in the aftermath of these wars and the peace settlement that follows.

➢ Structuring the peace: How do great powers influence international politics? o Victors write the rules of the new system and, as a consequence, shape its long term sustainability • 1. Set requirements for membership and redraw territorial boundaries: statehood and sovereignty • 2. Regime type of new members (US promotes democracy after 1919, 1945, 1991) • 3. Distribution of military power • 4. Enforcement mechanisms (reparations, League of Nations) • 5. 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

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

➢ THEN isolationist America failed to keep national order and contributed to the great depression as well as weakend Europe which made it easier for Hitler to come into power. o American policy played an important role, • Tight monetary policy (pushes interest rates up) by federal reserve in 1928 halts loans to Germany (big implications for reparations) • Smooth-Hawely (1929): High tariffs (taxes on imports) provoke reciprocal measures in world and global trade collapses • FDR (1933): Takes US off gold standard to offset deflation. • Damages international relations because American money is less valuable. • FDR took US off the map from competing. Unilateral policies to turn the economy around. • Brings brief period of isolationism before WWII. • The US was frustrated with Europe and wanted the president to focus on the homeland. • Congress passes a series of Neutrality acts to stop him from aiding Europe. • The economy is what produced the support of Hitler and the Nazi party.

What is the problem of credibility in nuclear deterrence? Explain why the effectiveness of deterrent threats depends on credibility. How does a state demonstrate credibility in nuclear deterrence? Explain how three aspects of credibility - capabilities, resolve, and protecting one's allies - affect the credibility problem.

➢ The Central Problem of Credibility o Stability in a nuclear world depends on credibility of coercive threats i.e. does your adversary believe you will execute them? o Credibility challenges: • Do you have the will (resolve) to execute these threats? • Do you have the capability to execute these threats? • Alliance complications: will you surrender your own cities to execute these threats?

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

➢ The Cold War as a Great Power Conflict o The Cold War was NOT a great power war • No direct military conflict between the U.S. and USSR o But, the end of the Cold War resembled the end of a great power war o State/territorial change: Killed states (Soviet collapse, Yugoslavia collapse, Czechoslovakia split), created new states (Soviet successor states), re-established states (Germany reunited) o Regime change (communist systems collapsed, democracies emerged) o Distribution of military power changed (bipolar to unipolar world) The US was the only one in power. Not two. o Enforcement mechanisms changed (Warsaw Pact collapsed, NATO and EU expanded) ➢ Russia as "loser" of the Cold War o Post- communist Russia as a "defeated" country after the Cold War: o Post-communist Russian "losses": • Territory - Soviet Union becomes 15 newly independent states. Russia + 14 others • Offered the benefit of independence of these states from the SU and before that the Russian empire. o For Russia, this was still viewed as a great loss. • Empire - loss of hegemony in Eastern Europe • They sphere of influence went to NATO. It was expanding but did not allow Russia in and made the situation worse. • Superpower status and influence ➢ U.S. and West as "winners" of the Cold War o 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 o Challenges maintaining the post-Cold War order

MOD 15: What is deterrence? What are the main elements of deterrence? How is deterrence different from defense?

➢ The Concept of Deterrence Deterrence-Definition: o To discourage attack through the threat of retaliation. "If you attack me, I may not be able to prevent your attack, but I can retaliate so powerfully that you will not want to attack in the first place." (Nye, p. 123) Severe conflict / assumption of rationality (self preservation > ideological goals) / retaliatory threat (second strike capability) / unacceptable damage / credibility / extended deterrence (US to protect allies in europe) / stability (meant to avoid war, not wage)

Compare and contrast the two ethical positions presented in lecture concerning practical ethics and nuclear deterrence. Why do some claim that morality would prohibit the use of nuclear deterrence while others claim the opposite that morality would require the use of nuclear deterrence? In what ways does nuclear deterrence violate principles of the Just War Theory?

➢ The Ethics of Nuclear Deterrence o Morality prohibits nuclear deterrence • Nuclear deterrence based on the hostage-holding scenario • threat to kill millions of innocent people whose freedom is wrongfully deprived • No goal is worthy enough to justify threatening to kill millions of innocent, non-involved persons o Morality requires nuclear deterrence • based on consequences (utilitarian) • bloodless strategy - no one ever killed • abandoning the policy would result in death = greater harm caused o Just War Theory and nuclear deterrence • Nuclear deterrence results in unjust conduct of war • Violates principles of proportionality and discrimination

How are terrorist groups different from other types of threats to U.S. national interests? Are terrorist groups rational? Compare and contrast the arguments for and against the idea that terrorist groups are rational political actors. How might this crucial point affect counter-terrorism tactics? According to Kydd and Walter (not assigned but cited in lecture), what five strategies do terrorist groups follow to convey costly signals to target countries?

➢ The Nature of the Terrorist Threat: How are terrorist groups different from other threats? o Terrorism and the differences in fighting states and non-state actors • Power differential • Goals • Deterrence • Strategies/tactics ➢ Are terrorist groups strategic? o No - Abrams: Terrorist groups do not display characteristics of rational cost-benefit analysis in their actions o Yes - Kydd and Walter: Terrorist groups are rational actors that use violence because it often works to achieve concrete goals o Terrorist strategies as costly signals to influence behavior • Attrition: Outlasting an adversary through war of wills • Provocation: Goading the adversary into conflict • Intimidation: Overthrowing a government through reign of terror • Spoiling: Sabotaging the peace • Outbidding: Competition between terrorist groups

What is the "ticking time bomb" scenario and the "slow fuse" scenario and how do they relate to moral considerations regarding the use of torture in counterterrorism? How do the ethical frameworks of utilitarianism and individual rights intersect with the discussion over the ticking time bomb scenario?

➢ The debate over torture: practical ethics and conflict over values o Does an utilitarian approach require the use of torture in the Ticking Time Bomb (TTB) scenario? • Harm done to one person can provide information that saves the lives of many • Moral liability: does a terrorist bring torture on himself? o Does a rights-based approach prohibit the use of torture even in the TTB scenario? • Torture of a person is never morally justified because it violates basic human rights • Experience of torture is worse than death • Moral liability: presumes guilt of the captured, could produce innocent victims ➢ The debate over torture: the ticking time bomb (TTB) and slow fuse scenarios o What is the Ticking Time Bomb scenario? • Known terrorist is captured • Terrorist attack that will kill multitudes is imminent • Captured terrorist has vital information that can prevent attack • Moral dilemma: do you use torture to extract information that may prevent the imminent attack? o What is the Slow Fuse scenario? • Known terrorist is captured • Terrorist attack is not imminent • Captured terrorist has vital information that can prevent future attack • Moral dilemma: do you use torture to extract information that may prevent a future attack?

What were the various forms of military intervention in the Third World during the Cold War? Why was containment so much more difficult in the Third World than it was in Europe?

➢ Third world interventions: Different type of military interventions. ➢ Types of third world Cold War conflicts o Proxy wars • U.S. - Korea, Vietnam • Soviet Union - Afghanistan o Covert actions: Consisted of secret CIA operations • Staging and/or Aiding Rebellions o Supporting Friendly Regimes that furthered economic interest • Foreign and military Aid • U.S. Support for anti-communist Dictatorships ➢ Why was containment easier in Europe than in the cold war? o Connections between US and Europe that made commitment easier for the American public to accept as well as the target nations as well. o Immediacy of external soviet threat: Made intervention there seem more vital. o Political, Cultural, and Historical ties to Europe. There was a special connection to the old country. ➢ Problems for containment in the Third World o Rejection of American intervention • The west as an imperial power. The U.S. had connections with these imperial countries like it did with the Philippines. • Communism as liberal ideology because of the imperial legacy of the U.S. and other European countries • Lenin's theory of imperialism o Inspired Ho Chi Min in Vietnam with his ideas o Domestic threat of communist insurgency • Lack of modernization and democratization • Civil wars in these developing countries stopped the U.S. from helping them because the wars stopped them from having a capitalist economy that the martial plan could help with. • Problems with military intervention • Issue of political will • Unconventional warfare

MOD 14: How did the peaceful end of the Cold War lead to more civil wars in the Third World?

➢ Transition: From international war to civil war o Peaceful end of Cold War and absence of great power war appears to prompting a change in locus of war: from interstate to civil war o Violence, death, and genocide from these conflicts of horrific scale • Great War of Africa, DRC, 1998-, 5+ million dead • Rwanda, 1994, 800,000 dead • Bosnia, 1992-1995, 100,000 dead • Liberian civil wars, 200,000(?) dead o Today's class: what role for the United States in influencing the course of these conflicts? ➢ What changes with the end of the Cold War? o Post 1964: Cold War moves out of Europe and into periphery • Both United States and Soviet Union support many autocratic regimes with foreign aid and military transfers o End of Cold War brings end of American and Soviet support for these regimes • Absence of foreign support and diminished expectation of great power intervention creates local incentives to challenge their rule o Internal collapse of Soviet Union, prompted in part by nationalism, creates many new states with mixed ethnic composition

What were the causes and implications of the Truman Doctrine?

➢ Truman Doctrine o Landmark policy statement where Truman said the US needed to support Greek Nationalists in a civil war against Greek communists. ➢ Causes and implications of the Truman Doctrine o Diminished power of Great Britain causes power vacuum o Established Anti-Communism as Basis of American FP o Establishing American Global Leadership o Set precedent of US Intervention o Introduced seeds of Domino Theory o Economic dislocation would cause European publics to be attracted to communism. Economic growth was the best antidote to this.

MOD 12: What is politics (as defined in lecture)? What are the two central components of this definition?

➢ What is politics? o Use of authority to allocate scarce resources • Means of coordinating social behavior o Two elements • 1: 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) • 2: Allocation of scarce resources: implies some degree of competition or social conflict over that allocation

According to the Byford reading and lecture, what are the complications associated with defining terrorism? What are some of the common bases for defining what is and is not a terrorist group?

➢ What is terrorism? o Byford: What is terrorism? - Potential Defining Characteristics A. Non-state actors using violence B. Instilling terror - using force to intimidate C. Methods - suicide missions D. Targets - intentionally killing civilians E. Tying Means and Goals Non state actors that use violence: he says this is problematic because it could make terrorists out of those who might be in opposition to an authoritarian state using violence to bring down the Iraqi government but would not bring the same amount of terrorism to the state that used chemical weapons against its population. This excuses states that do exactly what terrorist organizations do often confusing because rebels against a dictatorship could be seen as terrorists Instilling terror - using force to intimidate; terror is used in all kinds of war; Sherman (from Civil War) used a slash/burn campaign Methods - suicide missions and other non conventional sporadic methods; Byford notes that in war, soldiers of states often go on suicide missions but they aren't terrorists Targets - intentionally killing civilians; Problem: targeting civilians happen in war too; idea that only terrorists kill civilians is hard to defend Tying means and goals- Byford argues that we can't divorce means from goals... we excuse a lot in terms of means if we agree with the goals. Byford argues that you have to take into considerations the goals. We need to shift away from the idea that the US is fighting a war on terror... it's actually a war on something else.

Why do states fail to come to a peace settlement even though it will make all parties better off than if they continue fighting? What is the role of private information and overestimation of one side's bargaining leverage? What is the commitment problem and how does it contribute to continuation of conflict?

➢ Why does war occur? o Bargaining model of war • An assumption: all wars costly • A puzzle: if all wars costly, then why can't parties reach some peace settlement that would leave all participants better off than fighting? o Explanations for why wars occur should focus on why states fail to reach and/or sustain this mutually beneficial settlement ➢ Bargaining failures and war o Two key explanations for bargaining failure to reach a political settlement • Private information coupled with incentives to misrepresent lead one side to offer insufficient concessions; other side opts to try and secure greater division of issue through war • Commitment problem: difficulties associated with contracting over time ➢ The commitment problem o Commitment problem: Inability of side with rising power to promise or commit to abide by the terms of any settlement indefinitely in the future o Organizations fight if think adversary will demand (in the future) revisions to terms of any pre-conflict settlement • Fight rather than face a future of repeated concessions through extortion • Concern that growing power will enable such demands for revision o Often due to shifts in distribution of military power • Creates expectations that agreement not self enforcing, more powerful will demand more concessions in the future o Example: the challenge to securing peace in 2020 while the side that is growing weaker worries about what concessions it might have to make in 2025

MOD 10: 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?

➢ Woodrow Wilson and the Treaty of Versailles ➢ The US could NOT set the terms of peace unilaterally. o The US, Britain, and France, went through an extensive mission to reshape Europe. o US had to lean in a lot with the dealing ways of European nations. Imperial rights in France that went against his League of Nations aka anti imperial. ➢ Components of the Versailles treaty (sets up the war in Europe WWII) o It was not a negotiable treaty. Germany's new democratic government was forced to agree. • Germany lost a lot of shit. o Economic components. • Huge economic cost on Germany. • Reparations first set out for 60 years. • When America is going through the depression and pulls out from financing the reparations, Germany pulls out too because it doesn't have the money it was getting from America to give to Britain, France and Belgium. o How did the treaty of Versailles contribute to WWII? • Destabilizing the new (Weimar) democracy in Germany • Result of democracy was undermined by the people and opened the door for Hitler

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

➢ jus ad bellum - Just resort to war o A just war has a just cause like self-defense o A war is just only when armed conflict is taken as a "last resort" and all other means have been exhausted. o A just war can only be undertaken by a legitimate authority - a state. o A just war requires a "right intention" (motivated by defense, not aggression) o A just war has a reasonable chance of success o Proportionality: the ends of war must be proportional to the means of war. ➢ jus in bello - Just conduct in war o Discrimination: There are legitimate and illegitimate targets of war. • Must be able to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Not permissible to kill those not engaged in fighting. o 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 o After war, victors should achieve the goals of war but not pursue vengeance. o Principles of discrimination and proportionality apply. Civilians should not be harmed. Punishments for the conquered should not be severe. Rights should be protected. o 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.