U.S. Foreign Policy Final

Describe- Primacy I.D.

3rd Primacy- maximal realism interpretation of how realism works. Less worrired about counterbalancing and thinks should be heavily engaged. Aims at preventing the rise of a peer competitor. Maintaining u.s. hegemony (why would we go home why would we do anything that makes us weaker we need to stay ontop). Broad conception of national interests (want to stay on top prevent any challenges to it). U.s. should intervene wherever threat may arise. 3rd Policy Prescriptions- expand NATO into E EU countries that just left soviet bloc like Poland, Czechslovakia, Balkan states see this opportunity to expand NATO eastward to prevente a resurgent Russia decades down the line. Indiscriminate non-proliferation (none of smaller states can get nuclear weapons so can't later down line challenge u.s. authority in regions so stop it). Discriminate engagement to contain regional, ethnic, and humanitarian conflcits from spreading over since has broader interests. Secret containment of China (prevent rise peer competitor like China so prevent China's rise). Maintain multilateral organizations that support US. Promote mechanimsms of u.s. power: free-market economies, international law, and (maybe) democratization (some flirt with promoting democracy) 3rd Miltiary structure- want to be power so modernized and expanded military. Roburt two major regional conflict force capability stronger MRC. Esxpanded nuclear capabilities. Robust power-projection capability and navy (keep our bases abroad and built upon it keep cold war military infrastructure across world and build upon it). Critiques- it's impossible to maintain u.s. hegemony due to the diffusion of economic and technological capabilities so we are setting ourselves up for impossible goal. Also counter-productive strategy-> will cause states to balance against the US (if we stayed a little more back less ambitious expansionary states won't feel inclined to balance us. Actually undermining yourself by having states balance against you). More liberal critique insisting on hegemonic leadership undermines effectiveness of multilateral institutions (because institutions based on cooperation once those institutions we come in and have them reflect our interests they become less efficient and less stable). Constant risk of imperial overstretch (going to get involved in too many conflict smart for states to focus on key regions). Entails that the u.s. should be willing to launch preventive wars (ie to prevent state from gaining nuclear weapons to go to war to prevent the rise of a great power like China and other realists say they don't like fighting these preventive wars). Primacy- maximal realism/ unilateralism. Major problem the rise of a peer competitor. Preferred world order hegemonic, nuclear dynamics supports aggression. Conception of national interests- broad. Regional priorities- industrial Eurasia and the home of any potential peer competitor. Nuclear proliferation indiscriminate prevention. NATO expand. Regional conflict contain discriminate intervention. Ethnic conflict- contain. Humanitarian intervention - discriminate intervention. Use of force at will. force posture a two power standard force.

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- The Bush administration put forth multiple rationales for the Iraq War. What are they? 5 rationales The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- In your opinion, did the Bush administration make a persuasive case for invading Iraq? Why or why not? 5 counterargument rationales

5 main public rationales for intervention in Iraq (a lot of different reaons that were appealing to liberals and realists for different reasons can help explain widespread support initially for war) 1st Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) (strategic) 2nd saddam Hussein was a uniquely undeterrable aggressor (strategic) 3rd Iraq harbored and supported terrorists (strategic) 4th Iraq had committed human rights abuses (moral argument) 5th opportunity to spread democracy/ transform the middle esat/ dry up well for terrorism. (moral and strategic components) 1st weapons mass destruction- claims Persian gulf war revealed that Iraq was closer to developing WMD than thought (proponents war claimed Iraq was months away from getting bomb in 1991 analysts say probably 5 years away). U.s. soldiers inadvertently exposed to chemical weapons stock piles during the Persian Gulf War(led to all sorts of health problems for our soldiers). Claim that Iraq was trying to puschase yellowcake uranium in Niger (trying to expand their nuclear weapons program). Colin Powell presented evidence to UN that Iraq had aluminum tubes which could be formed and made to make centrifuges (looked like they were enriching uranium) and looked like had mobile weapons units. Quotes Wolfowitz "we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason" cia director tenet said evidence of Wmd WAS "SLAM DUNK" Rumsfeld "we know where they are, they're in area around Tikrit, and Baghdad, and." Also prewar polls on Iraq war 55-69 percent americans believed saddam already had nuclear weapons 90% believed that Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons 93% of americans believed that Iraq ahd facilities to create weapons of mass destruction 94% believed that Iraq had chemical or biological weapons. Counterarguments on WMD- UN weapons inspectors found no evidence of WMD but would need few more months to confirm disarmament (UN inspectors travelling around Iraq during this time problem was Iraq was dragging its feet and UN said need few more months to verify disarmament and u.s. decided to launch the war before it happened) also Joe Wilson was person who went to niger and wrote op ed in NY times and found yellowcake uranium story to be false afterwards there was this big scandal because his wife was undercover CIA agent and there's investigation that showed that cheney's staff leaked info on wife to reprimand her for wilson's action. DoE determines that aluminum tubes were not for centrifuges- probably for mortars instead (not right sizes for centifures more likely used for mortars size of mortars Iraq had been using for 15 years also would've been way to many centrigues if they had them would've been 120k of them). Biological weapons trucks-> gas generators for filling weather balloons they weren't biological weapon facilities at all. Intelligence wasn't nearly as strong as adminiatration presented it. Even if saddam was developing WMD no reason to assume that deterrence wouldn't hold. Big difference between nuclear weapons and biological/chemical weapons in terms of lethality generally chemical weapons not that much differnet from how many people they can kill they regular bombs so shouldn't be conflated as nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons don't buy you that much offensively. Hussein dragged feet because wanted prestige of having nuclear weapons he didn't have. 2nd rationale Saddam was undeterrable- claims- 2 key pieces of evidence- 1st he initiated the iran-iraq war, which was enormously costly to Iraq 2nd he invaded Kuwait in 1991 despite knowing that it would bring u.s. retaliation (he's reckless, risk acceptance he started wars so we can't trust someone like this with wmd) Pollack "one of the most reckless, aggressive, violence prone, risk tolerant, and damage toleratn leaders of modern history" 70-90 percent of americans believed that soonor or later Hussein would attack u.s. with wmd. Counterarguments Iraq had good reason to start Iran-Iraq War (Hussein isn't crazy namely iran was telling shia population in Iraq to rise up and overthrew Hussein it wasn't reckless it was rational giving what was happening. Also if iran Iraq war was so dumb why did u.s. actually back Iraq in the 1980s). many argue that the u.s. implicity gave Iraq a green light for the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 (that meeting he had with u.s. ambassador week before invasion where u.s. said "we have no opinion about invasion of Kuwait". also during Kuwait war Iraq didn't use chemical weapons on u.s. even during the war he didn't use the weapons so clearly was deterrable so could say he would be similarly deterrable from using nuclear weapons. If the standard for being irrational is starting a war that you lose the u.s. doesn't have a very good track record. 3rd rationale Iraq supported terrorists and may give them nuclear weapons claims- alleged meeting betwee mohammad atta (the lead of the 9/11 attackers) and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague in april 2001. Evidence that members of al-qaeda had met with the leader of an Iraqi terrorist group, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi throughout the 1990s Saddam provided financial assistance to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Cheney "we learn more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-qaeda that stretched back through most of the 1990s" 45-66 americans believed that saddam had assisted the 9/11 hijackers. Counterarguments- the meeting between atta and Iraqi intelligence was reported by a signle unreliable informant (Czech republic deemed this one Czech informant not credible) the claim had been rejected by the CIA and the FBI. Even if al-qaeda did meet with al-zarqawi that had nothing to do with saddam. Al qaeda opposed saddam (Hussein although he was sunni he was a secular sunni leader al-qaeda had religious orientation therefore not a fan of saddam.) who cares if he was supporting Palestinian suicide bombers? Big differences between terrorist organizations (that's israel's problem that's not the u.s.'s problem in the grand scheme of thigns not a horrible thing relevant enough to justify a war). Even if saddam did have wmd (nuclear weapons) why would he ever want to give them up to terrorists (the likelihood of giving away nuclear weapons seems crazy doesn't seem that advantageous to give it because would be pretty easy to track the al qaeda bomb back to Hussein so could threaten security) counter counter even one percent chance he do it that's too risky nuclear weapons. 4th rationale Iraqi human rights abuses claims saddam was an undeniably brutal dictator in 1987-1988 he had gassed a large number of Kurdish villages more than 50k noncombatants killed and 4,000 kurdhish destroyed long history of mass killing. In 1991 he brutally put down the uprisings against him another 150k people were killed then. Some also argued that a war was more humane for Iraqi people than continuing the sanctions on the Iraqi people (wouldn't be better to remove him from power and allow Iraq to have a free economy) Rumsfeld "Hussein is now taking his rightful place alongside hitler, stalin, lenin, Ceausescu in the panetheon of failed brutal dictators," Counterarguments- even though there were undeniable human rights abuses that does not mean that an intervention was justified on moral grounds. As bad as Hussein was there is more humanitarian suffering as a result of the war than unde rsaddam 3 million displaced Iraqi citizens from the war and somewhere between 175k-665k Iraqi citizens killed. Proponents of this case also ignore the fact that the vast majority of the saddam's crimes were in the 1980s when we supported him so if we didn't think they were serious moral reason to go to war then in 1980s why would we now. 5th spread democracy- claims saddam is an unpopular dictator and Iraqis will welcome America as liberators. Authoritarianism is the root cause of conflit and terrorism. Iraq could serve as a model for the rest of the middle east region (broader idea of regional transofratin) a democratic Iraq would be more prospersou and would have better relations with fellow democracies. Counterarguments- democracy in Iraq is too difficult given Iraqi demographics demographic breakdown shia arab 60% sunni arab: 20% sunni kurd 17% other 3% so saddam was sunni arab his administration was disproportionately filled with sunni arabs as well so if had democracy likely lead to shia government massive power shift just given these demographics. Sunni vs. shia dominant areas (a lot of shia in iran and Iraq so could argue could lead to benefit for iran) also kurds stateless ethnicity spread across 5 different states so if kurds given different power could affect thse other states as well. Sunnis will lose theirprivileged position in society they will be resentful to lose that position and won't go down easy without a fight. Historically, democratization is a long and complicated process. Democratization by force has a very poor track record (it's pretty much just Germany and japan every other time we have done it it hasn't worked out). Iraq has none of the precursors for democratization, didn't have any previous experience with democracy they were poor and were not ethnically homogenous. Democracy in Iraq would result in a shia government that would be sympathetic to Iran.

Containment- What is NATO? Describe the broad goals behind its creation. ID Remember these broad goals useful for today

6th North Atlantic Treaty Organization- NATO- collective defense pact. April 1949. Most important part treaty is Article V an attack on any one member is an attack on all way of doing external balancing against soviets not just one country but 12. U.S. securing the safety of 11 European countries. Only time NATO was ever used was after September 11th attack. 1952: Turkey and Greece. Few years later more ocuntires join NATO. Soviets create their own pact Warsaw Bloc- Bulgaria, Czech, Romania, Poland, basically the cold war line. NATO served two major purposes during the Cold War: 1st Deterrence- u.s. pledged to defend these countries everyone will attack if you attack so stop soviets expansion into western Europe 2nd "American Pacifier"- context Nazis had invaded many of these NATO country members. To get all these countries who just fought WWII to agree to NATO it would help prevent WWIII happening again from the Germans "to keep the Soviets out, the Americans, in, and the Germans down" Lord Ismay 1st Nato Secretary General. To make commitment of u.s. credible Americans in and keep germans down (u.s. still has troops in Germany to this day).

New World Order Speech ID

"New World Order" Speech- September 11 1990 " we have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful- and we will be- we have a real chance at this new world orde, an order in which credible united nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the u.n.s founders." We are americans apart of something larger then ourselves lead the world of threat against decency and humanity diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve freedom, peace, security, and the rule of law. Bush is framing america's response to Iraq not just containing saddam's expansion but maintaining a post cold war international order "new world order" an engaged role of the u.s. to gain stability and peace and work alongside the soviet union which hasn't collapsed yet.

Afghanistan and the War on Terror-What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Afghan Model? ID

"Afghan Model"- rooted in ideas of revolution in military affairs taking boots off the ground and using technology our strengths in conflict take advantage of qualitative military technology three part strategy 1st special operations forces (instead of sending huge army send limited number of special operations forces) who will team up with 2nd indigenous allies (who will carry out the bulk of the fighting anti-taliban forces predominately the northern alliance forces 3rd precision guided munitions. Special operations will imbed with northern alliance and when they get in conflict with Taliban forces they can call in missile strike so keep boots on the ground limited take advantage of our phenomenal air power. positive of reducing the costs of war on the United States putting less American troops in harm's way. It would also be a lot faster to mobilize the SOF and the Northern Alliance to attack the Taliban and Al-Qaeda thus reducing the threat of terrorist attacks on the United States as soon as possible. Also the United States would be far less likely perceived as a foreign occupier in Afghanistan since most of the fighting will be done by Afghani troops. In addition, it is a lot easier to withdraw the SOF and not get stuck in a protracted war then it would be if we committed tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of conventional forces. Furthermore, the Northern Alliance/ indigenous allies have fighting experience from the Cold War and satisfactory "competence" to attack the Taliban regime considering the Taliban's lack of air-force and limited military technology puts them in a very weak position against the United States. However, there are several factors that negatively affect this policy option. First, the CIA predicts that the Taliban has twice as many forces as the Northern Alliance so they would be outnumbered. Second, the Northern Alliance is not as united as their name projects considering it's made up of competing warlords with questionable loyalties to the cause and very well could be bribed by the Taliban during times of importance. Which leads to the final major concern that the North Alliance may not provide a coherent military front for the United States to capture Bin Laden increasing the likelihood that he could escape. A conventional military invasion of Afghanistan is not an acceptable foreign policy because there's too much risk we will end up in the same prolonged war the Soviet Union experienced in the 1980's which is too costly and ineffective. The Tajiks in northern Afghanistan are a very promising example of an ethnic group for us to ally with considering the Taliban's oppression and violence towards them when coming to power in the 1990s (Lansford, 26). The Taliban has created plenty of enemies for themselves when seizing power in the 1990s and we can use those recent schisms in Afghanistan for a strong indigenous opposition force to the Taliban. In-addition, the U.S. has developed phenomenal cruise missiles that more directly and precisely hit their given targets meaning the ineffectiveness of Cold War Operation Rolling Thunder campaigns are not the case today. October 7, 2001 U.S. led bombing begins- using the afghan model it's remarkably effective from nov-dec the Taliban retreat. December 5, 2001: Hamid Karzai named interim leader of Afghanistan December 9 2001 the Taliban officially collapses only 12 american soldiers died so at time seemed be real victory for afghan model. Afghan model used in second persian gulf war 3rd Afghan Model- fighting alongside Kurds in the north (special forces embedded with indigenous allies with close aerial support Kurds in northern part of Iraq with u.s. coming from south Iraq kurds coming from north to meet in center iraq war.

Nixon admin- what was detente? ID and its five components

Détente- relaxing of tensions French term. saw détente as a new combination of pressures and inducements to modify the behavior of the soviet union. try to convince the kremlin that it was in their own interest to be contained and to manage the 3rd world alongside the u.s. remember kennan had containment, ____< and behavior modification so Kissinger saying with détente maybe could have behavior modifications 5 components of detenete 1st negotiations with the soviet union 2nd linkages /behavior modification 3rd opening to china 4th Nixon doctrine 5th back-channel negotiation system

Nixon- what was SALT? ID

Strategic Arms limitation Talks (SALT)- limits the numbers of ICBM and SLBM "launchers" move to nuclear sufficiency. No limits on bombers where u.s. had advantage froze soviet missile strength at higher point then u.s. soviets: 1330 ICBMS and 950 SLBMS u.s. had 1054 icbms and 656 slbms but limiting launchers made largely irrelevant by MIRVs (missile can come up break apart and launch multiple warheads at once doesn't fundamentally change the amount of damage you could do). SALT do not survive the Nixon years. an arms control agreement (SALT). started in 1969

How can states acquire Uranium and Plutonium?

Uranium- relatively common element as common as tin but not evenly distributed around world Australia has about a third of uranium. only .7% of existing uranium in the world. then need centrifuge to separate this .7% high enriched uranium from the low enriched uranium takes awhile. Plutonium- Plutonium 239 does not exist naturally its man made created by scientists at Berkeley in December 1940. If Bombard uranium atom nucleus with a deuterium H-2 atom until it accepts it and turns into a neptunium which doesn't exist naturally either and is unstable so quickly turns to plutonium. You need a special type of nuclear reactor to make plutonium-239.

CMC- How close did the world come to nuclear war during the crisis?

Very close- October 26 U.S. tries to surface soviet submarines not attack them too risky. Highest tensions were during this submarine and one out of three people Vasili Arkhipov decided to not launch the nuclear missiles they didn't have communications with Moscow didn't know what was happening. One man could've made the decision with lack of communication ability from the Soviets to launch a nuclear missile.

Why does Nuno Monteiro believe unipolarity is not peaceful?

Why Unipolarity is not peaceful- main claim the post cold war era has not been peaceful wohlforth is wrong wrote it in 2011 at the time of his writing 13/22 (59%) years since cold war the us has been fighting a war updated to today that's 22/31 years (71%) if you consider america's involvement in afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria how can call this peaceful he argues. A lot of wars in short period of time aren't world wars but a lot of them. The reason why for them is unipolar strategy the unipole can try three different types of strategies each of which will end in conflict defensive, offensive, or disengagement all three lead to conflict.

CMC- Applying Schelling's model to the crisis: how did the U.S. try to place the Soviet Union in D3?

By not backing off but also not escalating the conflict by doing the more measured cautious blockade option it basically meant that the Soviet Union had to make the D3 decision as to whether to escalate the conflict the ball was in their court.

Origins Cold War-According to Leffler, what was America's immediate postwar response to the Soviet Union?

"Worries there were, but at the time of Roosevelt's death American officials did not regard the Soviet Union as an enemy and were not frigthened by Soviet military prowess. Soviet power paled next to that of the United States. The Soviet Union had considerable potential strenght, but its existing capabilities were severely circumscribed." In 1945 U.S. tried to do BUCKPASSING so since soviets would be weak after WWII thought could pass buck to France and Britain who were right in EU and U.S. can go back home u.s. troops in EU were brought back home pretty quickly may 1945 12 million july 1947 1.6 million (which shows we probably weren't intended to have a big cold war) defense expenditures went down to 44.7 billion to 13.1 billion this is not the behavior of balancing doing this because thought Britain and france could balance for us (buckpassing)

Osama Bin Laden ID

(1957-) Founder of al Qaeda, the terrorist network responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other attacks. 1988 osama bin laden (wealthy Saudi inspired by jihad) comes to afghanistan with a small group of islamist fighters about 15 of them to start called Al Qaeda. Bin Laden wanted to create a free independent Islamic nation. Did u.s. covertly aid bin laden in 1980s there is no clear evidence that we funded him no clear direct transfers to bin laden. Died in Pakistan 2011

Camp David Accords

(1978) were negotiated at the presidential retreat of Camp David by Egypt's Anwar Sadat and Israel Menachem Begin; they were brokered by U.S. President Jimmy Carter. They led to a peace treaty the next year that returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, guaranteed Israeli access to the Red Sea and Suez Canal, and more-or-less normalized diplomatic and economic relations between the two countries. This isolated Egypt from the other Arab countries and led to Sadat's assassination in 1981. A peace treaty between Israel and Egypt where Egypt agreed to recognize the nation state of Israel. Camp David Accords 1978- 12 days of secretive talks between Egyptian president anwar sadat and Israeli prime minister begin at camp david 2 agreements 1st Egypt Israeli peace treaty 1979 israel returns Sinai peninsula to Egypt inexchange for recognition and peace. 2nd framework for peace in middle east failed effort to resovle Palestinian dispute The Camp David Accords were a pair of political agreements signed by Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin on 17 September 1978,[1] following twelve days of secret negotiations at Camp David, the country retreat of the President of the United States in Maryland.[2] The two framework agreements were signed at the White House and were witnessed by President Jimmy Carter. The second of these frameworks (A Framework for the Conclusion of a Peace Treaty between Egypt and Israel) led directly to the 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty. Due to the agreement, Sadat and Begin received the shared 1978 Nobel Peace Prize. The first framework (A Framework for Peace in the Middle East), which dealt with the Palestinian territories, was written without participation of the Palestinians and was condemned by the United Nations. As a result of a series of compromises, notably a U.S. guarantee of Israel's oil supply, omitting references to a "special role" for Egypt in Gaza, and Israeli agreement to make a number of unilateral gestures to the Palestinians, the U.S. and Israeli delegations agreed to a treaty text on March 13. Sadat quickly assented to the agreement and the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty was formally signed on March 26.

Search and destroy ID

1) U.S. forces "search and destroy"- large units find fix and place fight and destroy enemy forces and their bases. Bait. Search and destroy exploration explore areas for days, weeks. Search and destroy tactics no front lines guerilla forces hiding in jungle stealing from villages so thought couldn't bomb them from the air have go after enemy on ground phase 2 westmoreland strategy search and destroy in areas where the nlf were thought to be operating u.s. arvn troops went in and checked for weapons if they found them they rounded up the villagers and burned the villages down "if they weren't Vietcong beore we got ther they certainly were when we left" was brutal and radicalized villagers. required u.s. troops on the ground.

"loss of china" ID

1927-49 was civil war Communist Party Mao Zedong vs. Nationalists Chiang Kai-shek. 3rd phase 1945-1949 after end WWII as war ending u.s. saying Japanese should surrender to nationalists while soviets are telling Japanese to surrender to communists not nationalists. U.s. not help China with Marshall Plan. U.s. backed nationalists which controlled most of country, soviets occupied north. But Communists expanded territorial control in late 1940s spring offensive in 1949. Nationalists retreat to Taipei city in Taiwan which sets up two Chinas two differnet forces claiming to be legitimate government of China. People's Republic of China Capital: Beijing Leader: Mao Zedong while Repbulic of China (Taiwan) Capital: Taipei Leader: chiang Kai-shek. For decades u.s. recognizes chiang kai shek in Taiwan as real authority in China and remains u.s. foreign policy until Nixon changes that. U.S. sees "loss of china" as an avoidable tragedy in Washington helps pave way for the second red scare and McCarthyism (if u.s. had backed Chiang Kai-shek more would have worked).

Truman Doctrine ID

1947, President Truman's policy of providing economic and military aid to ANY country threatened by communism or totalitarian ideology, mainly helped Greece and Turkey. part of six policies in containment strategy. in Turkey and Greece there were civil wars between communist and anti-communist forces and Britain historically influential in this area was funding these anti-communist forces respectively but after WWII costs/ damages England can't afford this anymore so ask U.S. to fund these anti-communist forces. And truman goes to congress to get money for it and had to hype the conflict to get 400 million dollars to fund anti-communist forces in these coutnries. Bill passes 67 to 23. Truman Doctrine speech rhetoric was very liberal sells it in very liberal terms some might say it's a liberal policy defending democracies but also had a very strategic goal to make sure soviets don't expand any further south into Europe.

When did the United States first test a hydrogen bomb?

1952

Iran-Nuclear Deal- In broad terms describe U.S. Iranian relations since WWII

1953 Iranian coup- nationalize oil fields and u.s. and uk worked together to overthrow democratically elected gov. uk did it because of iran nationalizing oil and us worried about communism. They take the shah made him supreme authority assumes dictatorial powers. Relies on u.s. a lot for support about 1.2 billion in u.s. aid in first decade. during Iran-Iraq War we funded Iraq also Iran hostage crisis. Iran-contra affair. Also Iranian revolution Khomeini who didn't like U.S. and U.S. lost their ally the Shah which meant that Cold War tensions rose with Iran in second half. 1979 Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis- shah flees, Khomeini takes over dramatic reversal of u.s. foreign policy in iran shah was ally Khomeini adversary. Khomeini not interested in nuclear energy he stops Shah's program a lot of scientists who were working on it fled during revolution so would've been harder to keep it up anyway. 1986-87 Iran-Contra deal- u.s. secretly sell arms to iran release hostages in Lebanon and use that money to help rebels in Nicaragua. 1988 uss Vincennes shoots Iranian airliner (accidentally Iranian airliner since missiles software miscalculated assumed false threat) 1990s Clinton administration- first create unilateral sanctions on Iran- turns back to unipolar moment the threat of rogue states. As we sanction iran Russia steps in to provide aid to Iranian nuclear program. Bush administration- takes harder line on iran then Clinton in 2002 state union address refers iran as member of "axis of evil" 2003: Mujahedeen Khalq (MEK) shares details on Iranian nuclear program leaks documents to the u.s. basically shows that Iranian nuclear program was a lot larger then the u.s. thought it was. Iran had larger program then we thought iran said only for nuclear energy purposes which doesn't violate nuclear non-proliferation agrees to 2003 IAEA inspections but Iran prohibits them from taking samples iran continues to deny a nuclear weapons program keeps saying its for nuclear energy but a lot of people were skeptical. U.s. overthrew countries afghanistan and Iraq, iran's neighboring countries and u.s. calls iran member of axis of evil so iran has strong incentive to get rid of their nuclear weapons very strategic reasons for wanting bomb. 2005: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected president of iran very supportive of nuclear program continues enriching uranium in iran. In response UN begins a series of sanctions from 2006-2010 members doing it P5+1 (China, Russia, US, UK, France)+1 is Germany starts putting sanctions on iran escalate them down the line. Also during Obama administration start seeing some sabotage efforts on Iranian nuclear program in 2008 first one happens cyber sabotage known as Olympic games (basically what happens computer code known as stuxnet that they insert in computer system at centrifuge facility and it would occasionally have centrifuges spin randomly out of control and breaks does randomly ends up taking out 1,000 centrifuges but then stuxnet leaks online so people figure out what it was. Most likely u.s. and Israel working together on it. Another sabotage effort 2010-2012 assassination attempts of Iranian scientists- 2010 kills top two Iranian scientists 2012 another attack iran blames Israel and united states we deny it. 2012: P5+1 talks with iran fail- after it fails at this point that eu finally puts fully embargo in Iranian oil which is why you see big drop in irans gdp lost 700 million month in sale 20% drop in gdp after that Obama administration hoping have more leverage for secret talks 2013: Obama administration begins secret talks with Iran- keep it from P5+1 powers. and then under trump gets rid of iran nuclear deal that Obama agreed to.

Eisenhower Foreign Policy- What is the Eisenhower Doctrine ID

1957- "The administration's preferred method of opposing "third world" communism was to build up local forces of resistance, capable of acting on their own if adequately supplied by the United States. This approach had the advantage of relative economy; it also reflected Eisenhower's conviction that "no Western power can go to Asia militarily, except as one of a concert of powers including local Asiatic peoples. To contemplate anything else is to lay ourselves open to the charge of imperialism and colonialism or at the very least of objectionable paternalism. The idea was to strengthen indigenous forces by extending military and economic aid to such reliably anti-communist governments as the new one of Ngo Dinh Diem in South Vietnam, established with American support following the 1954 Geneva Conference as well as older ones like South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. This aid would be coupled with bilateral and multilateral secuirty pacts, as well as with unilateral statements designed both to show American resolve and to deter external attack." efforts to recruit members of SEATO. Trying to deter communism to use Eisenhower Doctrine to deter something as vague as communism. Under the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Middle Eastern country could request American economic assistance or aid from U.S. military forces if it was being threatened by armed aggression.[1] Eisenhower singled out the Soviet threat in his doctrine by authorizing the commitment of U.S. forces "to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international communism."[2] The phrase "international communism" made the doctrine much broader than simply responding to Soviet military action. A danger that could be linked to communists of any nation could conceivably invoke the doctrine.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- What is the basic deal of the NPT? What is the IAEA? Did Iran sign the NPT? ID

1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty- iran signs it international atomic energy agency IAEA-> UN Watchdog. That non-nuclear states would agree to not get nuclear weapons and be subject to inspections. Any of the state that don't currently have weapons and sign it agree to never have nuclear weapons for ever but can enjoy peaceful nuclear energy. Can develop civilian nuclear energy but problem hard tell difference between energy and weapons up to 20% centrifuge use is peaceful and 80% or more used for nuclear weapons. International atomic energy agency(UN Watchdog) inspectors can come into country to make sure only making nuclear energy not weapons. Iran signed this.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- When did Iran being to develop its nuclear program?

1970s Shah develops nuclear energy program u.s. also provides resources to make said reactor. nuclear program for nuclear energy originally not nuclear weapons and we were helping them and IAEA was checking their centrifuges.

War Powers Act

1973. A resolution of Congress that stated the President can only send troops into action abroad by authorization of Congress or if America is already under attack or serious threat. 60 day limit on future military deployments overseas without congressional approval (trying to limit that executive power) The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president's ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad. Among other restrictions, the law requires that presidents notify Congress after deploying the armed forces and limits how long units can remain engaged without congressional approval. Enacted in 1973 with the goal of avoiding another lengthy conflict such as the Vietnam War, its effectiveness has been repeatedly questioned throughout its history, and several presidents have been accused of failing to comply with its regulations. unintentionally gave president more power to initiate conflict which once initiated hard for congress to logistically approve removal of said military commitments hard to undo conflict president already started.

Persian Gulf War- Why did Iraq invade Kuwait?

1989- Iraq accusses Kuwait of exceeding OPEC (organization petroleum exporting countries by being member you agree to certain quotas you will sell basic idea no one state will flood the oil market everyone gets a better deal that way) oil quotas so oil becoming so cheap that Iraq couldn't recover from war and pay their war loans. Saddam also claimed that Kuwait was slant-drilling across Iraqi border beneath Iraq and Kuwait is big oil field going across border to draw from it no definitive study whether Kuwait did this or not but Iraq accused them of doing it. Estimated Iraqi loss of $7-14 billion per year so Hussein wanted to redress the situation. Tacit approval for Iraqi invasion?- july 25, 1989 saddam meets with u.s. ambassador to Iraq april glaspie: she said something that is controversial as to whether it gave Hussein approval or not "I know you need funds. WE understand that and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuilt your ecnomy. But we have no opinion on the Arab Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait secretary baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction first given to Iraq in the 1970s that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." Could be interpreted that u.s. would do nothing if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- Before 2015, describe some of the tactics used by the U.S. to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

1990s Clinton administration- first create unilateral sanctions on Iran. 2005: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected president of iran very supportive of nuclear program continues enriching uranium in iran. In response UN begins a series of sanctions from 2006-2010 members doing it P5+1 (China, Russia, US, UK, France)+1 is Germany starts putting sanctions on iran escalate them down the line. Bush administration- takes harder line on iran then Clinton in 2002 state union address refers iran as member of "axis of evil" Also during Obama administration start seeing some sabotage efforts on Iranian nuclear program in 2008 first one happens cyber sabotage known as Olympic games (basically what happens computer code known as stuxnet that they insert in computer system at centrifuge facility and it would occasionally have centrifuges spin randomly out of control and breaks does randomly ends up taking out 1,000 centrifuges but then stuxnet leaks online so people figure out what it was. Most likely u.s. and Israel working together on it. Another sabotage effort 2010-2012 assassination attempts of Iranian scientists- 2010 kills top two Iranian scientists 2012 another attack iran blames Israel and united states we deny it. closer to treaty Obama started negotiating secret talks.

Afghanistan and the War on Terror-Who are the Taliban? What were America's grievances with the Taliban government? Taliban I.D.

1990s civil war- following the collapse of the Najibullah's regime, the Afghan opposition forces splinter and a civil war breaks out as to who will rule. 1994 Taliban formed by Mullah Mohammad Omar, Islamists Pashtun fighters form the Taliban (Islamic fundamentalists, crackdown on crime/opium trade curtail education, employment and rights of women (women have wear burqa can't be employed. Taliban able to start getting some stability because they were so harsh Islamic law endorced via public exeuctions and amputations there country had been in horrible civil war they have been able to get some stability but due to horrible human rghts record u.s. refuses to recognize Taliban). In 1996 Taliban seize Kabul and control 2/3 of the country 1996 taliban gives sanctuary to bin laden and other al qaeda leaders who then establish training camps in afghanistan. December 5, 2001: Hamid Karzai named interim leader of Afghanistan December 9 2001 the Taliban officially collapses only 12 american soldiers died so at time seemed be real victory for afghan model. Grievances- not handing over Bin Laden, giving him sanctuary and other al qaeda leaders and allowing them to establish training camps in Afghanistan which were the camps that many of the September 11th hijackers used to train. Also brutal regime with terrible human rights violations inhumane practices of the Taliban such as amputation being a punishment for stealing, stoning to death a punishment for homosexuality, force women to live segregated and concealed from public society, etc. The Taliban is guilty of repressing their own people but also protecting and helping Al Qaeda commit global atrocities of terror

Operation Desert Storm

1991 American-led attack on Iraqi forces after Iraq refused to withdraw its troops from Kuwait. the United States and its allies defeated Iraq in a ground war that lasted 100 hours (1991). Persian Gulf War- 100 hours ground campaign u.s. lost 150 people Iraqis lossed 30k we decided not going to Baghdad (some people thought we should've gone there and remove Hussein and get rid of this problem at its source and George h.w. bush decided not to invade Iraq his rationale.) during second persian gulf war- Another side idea was that it's going to be cheap and easy to defeat Iraq both first Persian gulf war and the afghanistan invasion had very low u.s. casualties and how Iraq military has crumbled since Persian gulf war so if antying it should be easier we had a lot of confidence victory disease. also a lot of critics about H.W. Bush not going into Iraq from Kuwait during operation desert storm could've finished then and there. Persian Gulf War July 31 1990 jeddah talks fail august 2 100k Iraqi troops invade Kuwait un security council issues ultimatum for withdrawal (soviets and americans working together clear sign cold war over) united states and soviet union join condemnatnion of Iraqi invasion august 6 un security council authroizies economic sanctions and demand Iraq "immediately and unconditionally" withdraw from Kuwait. August 7: U.s. launches operation desert shield (preparations for war) August 8: Iraq annexes Kuwait. 4 Principles guiding Operation Desert Shield of u.s. to get involved- 1st the immediate and complete withdraw of Iraq from Kuwait 2nd restoration of the legitimate Kuwaiti government 3rd the stability and security of the middle east 4th the protection of americans abroad. Persian Gulf War- much quicker war. 1990 Iraq invades Kuwait within days u.s. prepares getting military equipment in place 700k troops assembling coalition January 17 1991: air war begins. 1st phase six-week bombing campaign (superior airforce to try to take out as many Iraqi military sites as we can focusing primarily on their communication capabilities tomahawk missiles etc.) part of the reason able have such a long bombing campaign was because of our precision guided munitions pretty new u.s. military development able to target Iraqi targets so much more effectively which inspired policy makers to think we wouldn't be stuck in the same quagmire as the Vietnam war. Iraqi defense- digging in along the border but keeping their best fighting forces tanks everything in Iraq to protect Iraqi territory. Coalition battle plans- u.s. marines from Saudi arabia to Kuwait and the u.s. army would travel through Iraq desert and try to cut them off when Iraqis heading back to Baghdad called the left hand punch. The u.s. troops moved really quickly Iraqi decided wanted to withdraw troops from Kuwait and head down to Baghdad. End of the ground campaign called the highway of death- all these Iraqis fleeing Kuwait on highway to get to Baghdad. Mission to stop retreating forces with u.s. airforce air attack was relentless hit head and rear of procession to make sure can't move and continue bombing. Every plane available on high way two days straight 3 mile long stretch of destroyed cars and thousands dead as the highway of death estimates death low hundreds but at the time it looked like thousands had died. But Bush didn't want bad international image from this highway so shortly after called for a ceasefire. Ceasefire- February 28 iraqis agree to ceasefire initial air phase 38 days and the ground phase only lasted 100 hours before the ceasefire so remarkable success in America perspective. Coalition casualties u.s. 148 killed in combat 145 noncombat 35 deaths caused by "friendly fire" Britain lost 24 9 by u.s. fire france lost 2 allied arab forces lost 39 deaths. Overall low cost victory for u.s. and coaltion. Why didn't the u.s. continue to Baghdad?- Bush decided not to go because "while we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple saddam, neither the u.s. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf." "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep", and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs." "we would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and in effect rule Iraq. The coaltion would instantly have collapsed the arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. under the circumsntacnes there was no viable exit strategy we could see violating another of our principles." "furthermore, we had been self-consciusly trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterlally exceeding the united nations' mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish." Going set up a lot of debates for second Iraq war. Persian gulf war considered a pretty popular war.

Iraqi Uprisings 1991

1991 Shia' Uprisings (we supported opponenets of saddam to fight against him try to take over government large popular uprisings both the shia and Kurdish regimes of Iraq Hussein cracked down on them brutally used gasses on them estimated 150 to 230k people killed in Iraq during these uprisings and 1.8 million refugees after this happened a lot neoconservatives criticized bush senior for not going into Iraq and essentially letting Hussein do this. saddam was an undeniably brutal dictator in 1987-1988 he had gassed a large number of Kurdish villages more than 50k noncombatants killed and 4,000 kurdhish destroyed long history of mass killing. In 1991 he brutally put down the uprisings against him another 150k people were killed then. The 1991 Iraqi uprisings were ethnic and religious uprisings in Iraq led by Shi'ites and Kurds against Saddam Hussein. The uprisings lasted from March to April 1991 after a ceasefire following the end of the Gulf War. The mostly uncoordinated insurgency was fueled by the perception that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had become vulnerable to regime change. This perception of weakness was largely the result of the outcome of the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War, both of which occurred within a single decade and devastated the population and economy of Iraq.[7] Within the first two weeks, most of Iraq's cities and provinces fell to rebel forces. Participants of the uprising were a diverse mix of ethnic, religious and political affiliations, including military mutineers, Shia Arab Islamists, Kurdish nationalists, and far-left groups. Following initial victories, the revolution was held back from continued success by internal divisions as well as a lack of anticipated American and/or Iranian support. Saddam's Sunni Arab-dominated Ba'ath Party regime managed to maintain control over the capital of Baghdad and soon largely suppressed the rebels in a brutal campaign conducted by loyalist forces spearheaded by the Iraqi Republican Guard. During the brief, roughly one-month period of unrest, tens of thousands of people died and nearly two million people were displaced. After the conflict, the Iraqi government intensified a prior systematic forced relocation of Marsh Arabs and the draining of the Mesopotamian Marshes in the Tigris-Euphrates river system. The Gulf War Coalition established Iraqi no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, and the Kurdish opposition established the Kurdish Autonomous Republic in Iraqi Kurdistan.

· What is Democratic Peace Theory? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not? ID

1st Democratic Peace Theory- democracies don't go to war with other democracies. No two democracies have historically had large scale war against eachother. Why? Norms: democracies share common liberal values and institutions so they treat one another with respect (all respect life liberty pursuit happiness). Political negotiation: democracies are more accustomed to resolving domestic disputes via compromise and negotiation-> this behavior extends to their international relations as well (democratic states so used to compromise for disputes have tools to successfully do it internationally as opposed to dictators who are used to getting their way) transparency reason too- policymaking in a democracy generates a lot of information so uncertainty of intentions is less of a problem (free press, journalism, elections have give platforms, congress debating about peaceful relations more transparent). 4th argument why democratic peace theory is public constraint: voters= soldiers so democracies less belligerent (political costs to soldiers/ voters dying. 5th selection effect- democracies may be better at choosing which wars to fight because they have a better "marketplace of ideas." Logically this means that two democracies couldn't opt to fight one another. I don't find it persuasive

· According to Liberals, how does economic integration foster interstate cooperation?

2nd Economic Interdependence leads to peace- states that have a high level of economic interdependence/ trade between them have a mutual incentive to maintain their peaceful relationship shared national interest in getting rich/ prosperity. Cooperation in one area (trade)-> fosters cooperation in other areas as we start trading a lot want more diplomatic relations have more people studying the other culture/ languages start studying other country's laws etc. improve communication reduce misunderstandings and promote cultural and institutional arrangements that can mediate conflict when they arise. In the modern era, trade may also a more efficient way for states to accumulate resources then war/ conquest/ colonialism.

George W. Bush Administration- What is the Bush Doctrine? 4 part strategy George W. Bush Administration- Be able to evaluate the pros and cons of the Bush Doctrine ID Bush doctrine

1st Preventive War 2nd Military Primacy and unilateral action 3rd war on terror 4th regional transformation (democracy promotion) 1st Preventive War- long term effort to prevent a state from mobilizing ie prevent them from getting gun at gun store. Bush says preemptive war but what really his policy was doing was prevention war. We need to act quickly prevent another 911 terrorist threat. "rogue states" and terrorism prevent the combination of a rogue state and terrorism emerging basically if terrorist gets nuclear weapons you can't deter them because they're crazy so need to use preventive war before can attack ie assume Iraq make nuclear weapons and then giving them to terrorists why would they do that? 2nd Military primacy and unilateral action- primacy routed on idea of efficacy of military power u.s. strongest military idea that primacy is really effective we will not hesitate to act alone not want to act unilaterally but we will if we can't get international support (burdensharing and legitimacy. Burdensharing (we don't need to work with other countries because we are so powerful and they don't bring that much to the table. Legitimacy- skeptical that multilateral agreements bring more legitimacy) 3rd War on Terror- broad conception of who we are fighting. All different enemies we are fighting. Expansive conception of the target of the war what constitutes a terrorist threat. The enemy is terrorism premediated violence against innocents so the enemy is terrorists not Al-Qaeda can see why all militant and terrorist groups can all be grouped together. making no distinction between terrorist groups and the states that harbor them going be big deal for war of afghanistan al-qaeda had bases in Afghanistan. Bush talks a lot about good vs. evil broad conception of it. After 911 there was this big idea of why do they hate us Americans? And big debate in American society why they did it 2 interpretations 1st hate us for who we are (hate us for our American values if we can change who they are make them more liberal then they will no longer hate us) 2nd hate us for what we do (hate our foreign policy support for Israel put troops in Saudi arabia) If you believe they hate us for who you are then foreign policy decision we can't change who we are the only way to deal with it is to deal with it with our predominate force. We showed weakness not going to Baghdad in 1991 we need to stop showing weakness. Regional transformation and military primacy and unilateral action are the two main of four bush doctrine ideas very prevalent in hate us for who we are solution if we make them more liberal democracy promotion they will stop hating us for who we are.

Origins Cold War- · We/the readings discussed three theories regarding the origins of the Cold War: 1) the orthodox/traditional view, 2) the revisionist view, and 3) the post-revisionist view. Briefly describe each position and explain which position you find to be the most persuasive.

1st The Orthodox/Traditional View- Orthodox view soviet union responsible for the cold war. The soviet union was an inherently aggressive state and u.s. responses were reasonable responses to an aggressor. Marxist/ Leninism doctrine advocates class struggle leading to revolution on the world state-> soviet union pursued inherently hostile policies towards capitalist states and recurrently sought to undermine the authority of non-communist governments. "stalin's character... a ruthless dictator determined to extend his totalitarian systems far beyond the strict requirements of soviet security." Orthodox analysis of u.s. actions- was that the u.s. tried to cooperate and entered post-peace negotiations with benign intentions but FDR and Truman underestimated how expansionist nature the USSR really was because they had no real post-WWII plan we made a lot of political concessions short term deals with them (recognized sham Polish provisional government and accepted moving polish border westward at Potsdam, tolerated economic exploitation e Germany, offered proposal to remove foreign troops from Germany in july 1946, invited ussr to join the marshall plan). Soviets acted aggressively- consolidated power in E EU also started doing the Iranian Crisis 1946 (soviets failed to take their troops out of iran after WWII), turkish crisis, communist led strikes in W EU, Czech coup, Berlin crisis (soviets becoming more powerful and trying to act in aggressive expansionist ideas). Problems with this view? Pays little attention to the legitimate security needs of the soviet union. minimizes u.s. actions and doesn't pay consideration to genuine soviet security need. Soviets wanted buffer zone from Germany didn't want germans to invade them a third time in 20th century, minimizes allied wartime promises. 2nd cause Cold War theory The Revisionist View-Main argument- u.s. expansionist and imperliast behavior caused the Cold War. Liberal capitalist system needs ever- increasing trade and investment opportunities, which causes capitalist powers to pursue open-door free-trading policies. Since the late 1800s the overarching goal of u.s. foreign policy was to promote the spread of capitalism and worldwide access to free markets to sell American goods (we were trying to become capitalist head of system) (soviets provided an alternative communist system we felt threatened). soviet union was near economic ruin in 1946/47 at the time as well (the soviets weren't that aggressive they were destroyed by the war), paid little attention to world communist revolution (soviets were prioritizing rebuilding the ussr not trying to create world order that was a u.s. dramatic mindset). Reviosionist analysis of soviet actions- soviets had good reason to want a buffer zone in E. EU and thought the americans agreed to this at the Yalta conference (u.s. agreed to soviets having a sphere of influence in e Europe so not inherently aggressive). Soviets wanted to take as many reparations as possible from Germany because need money to rebuild from devestation of war u.s. said that was not a good policy so refused to do that). Analysis of u.s. actions- jan 1945 u.s. ignored soviet requests for more credit more money even at the time we were war time allies at end of war canceled lend-lease immeidatley (which soviets saw as unfair since they had been so devastated) refused to provide the amount of german reparations necessary to rebuild soviet economy tried to use the baruch plan (hand over nukes to u.n. so anyone make weapons) was just a plan to maintain an atomic monopoly (u.n. headquarters were in the u.s. just a clever plan make sure no one else got to use nukes) marshall plan was designed to create an American empire in Europe (capitalist, imperialist move). 3rd cause of cold war viewpoint- the post-revisionist view- it's not all americans fault or all soviets fault can't blame either side this was something did together. "started to view the conflict as a result of a complex interaction between all the parties involved." It wasn't Marxism or capitalists faults. 2 variants: 1st historical accoutns (McCauley, Gaddis and Leffler) (emphasize conflicting interests between US and USSR both sides made mistakes-> interactive effect (where tensions escalated and things spiraled up into the cold war). They just wanted fundamentally different things and a lot thigns they wanted there was no compromise for it. 2nd variant idea is a neorealist accounts (Avey, Jervis)- their idea was that world became bipolar soviet union and u.s. was major powers left after wwii Britain and france devastated enough and Germany destroyed and when have bipolar system balance of power considerations going to try to balance the other becomes this security dilemma. Even do things solely for their own defensive security but security dilemma other side will find it aggressive (ie soviet attempt to make defensive buffer zone u.s. can interpret idea of expansion trying to create a communist empire communist growing influence). A world War II bargain? (united states and UK avoided major casualties in this bargain each lost half a million people and in exchange ussr paid the blood price to win the war-> 20-30 million people in exchange they took over E EU). U.s. did not open up second front not until very late in war that we opened second front and came on continent and reason we did this was didn't want to do heavy lifting of fighting the Nazis were content with soviets paying blood price but FDR understood implication of this decision that soviets would have to fight them all the way back to Germany and logically take E EU in the process.

Debaathification ID

1st debaathification of the regime (saddam was member of baath party decision remove members of this party from power). 1st debaathification of the regime- may 16 2003 coalition provisional authority decides remove baath party from new Iraqi regime (order 1) (1st order was remove baath party from new Iraqi regime so if you had been a member of his government you could not be a member of the new government) consequences: membership in the baath party was necessary for many jobs in the country including all high-ranking ones in military and government (in order to be any sort of figure in government you had to be part of party or professor at university probably had be member of baath party so even if moraly compromised so basically removing most of the most competenet administrators from power.) also consequence power reversal between the sunni and the shia because sunnis disproportionally in the regime in the first place.

What is the difference between a gun-type and implosion-type nuclear weapon

1st gun-type detonator split uranium into two one part being the uranium bullet need conventional explosives to push the uranium bullet to rest of uranium together and going to detonate. gun used for uranium Implosion type- have big plutonium bomb and have big sphere cover entire thing with fissile material and surround it with conventional explosives which blow up at same time forcing all plutonium to come together in center of sphere. implosion used for plutonium.

Containment- · What is the difference between strongpoint and perimeter defense? ID

1st perimeter defense- assumes all areas surrounding the Soviet Union are of EQUAL IMPORTANCE- put perimeter around soviet union and don't want them to expand anywhere. Maintain fixed lines that soviets can't spread beyond. Article X "confront the Russians with unalterable counter-force at every point where they show signs of encroaching upon the interests of a peaceful and stable world." 2nd Strongpoint defense- assumes some areas are MORE IMPORTANT than others. Concentrates defense of regions of geostrategic importance (e.g. Kennan's 5 centers). Idea is more about denial than control u.s. didn't have to dominate other power centers just make sure the soviets didn't either.

Containment- · Kennan advocated a three-part strategy for combatting the Soviet Union. Briefly describe each step.

1st restoration of the balance of power (aka containment)- through the encouragement of self confidence in nations threatened by soviet expansion." (with Europe and Japan being the main central players in this containment) 2nd exploit weaknesses in the soviet bloc (affiliated with rollback) 3rd behavior modification (can use diplomacy with the soviet union to help with balance of power if engage with them enough enough consistency might be able to shift the relationship to be more stable/ safer... this strategy didn't take off that much.)

Persian Gulf War- In broad terms, describe the U.S. strategy for defeating Iraq.

1st shock and awe (bombing campaign reminiscent of Persian gulf war designed to take out strategic targets (ie presidential palace 1700 sorties) airstrikes beinning in Baghdad at the presidential palace it was much shorter then first gulf war six week campaign 2nd invasion staged from Kuwait-> advancing toward Baghdad by second week 3rd Afghan Model- fighting alongside Kurds in the north (special forces embedded with indigenous allies with close aerial support Kurds in northern part of Iraq with u.s. coming from south Iraq kurds coming from north to meet in center. then anbar awakening and the surge.

Origins Cold War- Why did the U.S. begin to take a more assertive stance against the U.S.S.R. in 1946-47? 4 reasons

1st sluggish economic recovery in western Europe and Japan (originally u.s. thought they would bounce back quickly able to do buckpassing which proved be incorrect) 2nd soviet union consolidated control over E. Europe (soviets doing this effectively wiping out opposition on their side of the iron curtain really taking control). 3rd see growth of communist parties in W. Europe the appeal is growing. 4th growth of nationalism/communism in the cold war (in the global phase a lot of colonies getting independence of Britain and france india indep 1947 and many of them are sympathethic to Marxism). Idea buckpassing wouldn't work so result to shift to balancing. With shift of balance of power leading to shift in behavior.

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- What was the Anbar Awakening? Why is it important? ID

2006 Rise of al-qaeda in anbar province in Iraq (al qaeda is sunni gain more control in sunni region in Iraq many of their former members were people who left the Iraqi army so control a lot of territory in western part of country) anbar awakening- anbar province western portion known as sunni triangle population frustrated with al-qaeda rule don't like fundamentalist rule being subjected to it. Sunni leaders approach marines about working together to try to drive out al qaeda in Iraq. "Son of Iraq" program (we call it as awakening of them willing to work alongside us) one big policy u.s. decided to create was the sons of Iraq program more than 100,000 sunni fighters paid on u.s. payroll 300-400 dollars per month to put down their guns stop fighting to th extent they did work with us to drive out al-qeada 2008 u.s. turns program over to shia-led government also anbar awakening weakened ISI (later to become ISIS)- 2006-2014- ISI weakened by anbar awakening but gradually attracts members as more sunnis become disillusioned with Shiite government 2010 in fall 2006 a group of Sunni Sheiks in Ramadi rejected al-Qaeda and began to cooperate with the U.S. forces that they had long opposed. The "Anbar Awakening" and "Anbar Salvation" movements transformed Anbar from an insurgent stronghold into an area where US forces could conduct effective operations. The local population joined the Iraqi Security Forces in large numbers. U.S. and Iraqi forces cleared Ramadi and much of the Euphrates River Valley. These efforts denied al-Qaeda access to one of its most critical bases in Iraq. The Anbar Awakening represents the potential roles that joint U.S. and ISF counterinsurgency operations can play in the re-establishment of Iraqi government: a catalyst for negotiations between Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and Iraq's Sunni population, and a model for securing other provinces and developing their local governments.

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- Why did Russia intervene in the Ukraine in 2014?

2010 ukrainian election Viktor Yanukoych pro Russian vs. yulia tymoshenko (pro-west)- yanukoych wins with most votes from east where russian speakers are in Ukraine so moves Ukraine in more pro-russian direction 2013 decides not to decide major economic deal with eu and instead goes with 15 billion dollar Russian counteroffer which that decision sparks the 2013 Euromaidan protests (first was student movement more liberal elite movement of people more sympathetic to west but later have more nationalists support protests these protests continue all winter into 2014 february 20 2014 brutal 48 hour period government snipers open fire on the opposition kill 100 people theres counter protest fires the parliament reaches a deal with yanukoych saying there going to have new elections that night yanukoych flees into exile into Russia Washington says that yanukoych fled on his own accord Russia says it was a coup afterwards a new government was formed which was more pro-western looked like u.s. victory but didn't last long. leading to russia invading crimea.

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? What were the 2020 Normalization Agreements? Which Countries participated? 4 states participated

2020 normalization agreements- Abraham accords in 2020- are these peace deals or economic sweeteners characterized in multiples ways. with four states united arab emirates, bahrain, sudan, morocco. August 13 2020- 1st and strongest agreement formalized lonstanding isreali- emirati links UAE opportunity over trheat shows trumps quid pro quo israels qualitiative military edge the F35 fight jet and us arms sales investment and tourism Second normalization with Bahrain September 11 2020 2nd agreement 3rd strongest formalized moderate Israeli Bahraini links threat perception balancing against iran quid pro quo: unclear not clear by Bahraini agreed to this treaty without getting anything Normalization: sudan October 23 2020 3rd agreement weakest implementation change from the 1967 arab league summit's three no's opportunity (in past no negotiation with Israel period) quid pro quo: removal of sudan from the us state sponsors of terrorism list (very clear goal for signing the treaty) Normalization morocco 4th made but 2nd strgonest implementation morcoo has strong jewish community opportunity quid pro quo us recognition of Moroccan sovereignty over western sahara (w sahara colonized Spanish and morocco colonized by French but morocco has administered western sahara with 1 million man march to control it so contentious region. Conclusion- trump did not condition arab Israeli normaizatliatnion upon Israeli Palestinian peace. President trump pursued a very transactional and quid pro quo method of dealing with the Israel-palestine conflict he offered little incentive for Palestinian leadership to accept 2020 "deal of the century" he pursued arab-israeli normalization forcefully! Seeking electoral benefit? (if so we didn't really see it in the 2020 election).

Balancing vs. Bandwagoning ID

2nd External balancing- forming alliances with other states in order to join military forces against a common threat. states will balance the power of one another. neo-realism- the anarchic structure of the international system causes states to balance the power of one another to ensure their own survival. Bandwagoning- aligning with state that poses the biggest potential threat. Defensive rationale: appeasement (trying to not get in this states way) or offensive rationale: to share in the spoils of victory. Suggests that this is a strategy for minor states are attracted to power. primarily a strategy of weak states is bandwagoning and have no options to balance but most states do balancing. There is an argument from unipolar moment that the united states is or was militarily so strong post-Cold War that states were took wear to balance rather would be inclined to do the weaker state response of buckpassing, or bandwagoning.

Describe- selective engagement I.D.

2nd Selective Engagement- traditional balance of power realism- middle of the road what realists would predict should act. Aims at maintaining peace among the great powers. Since balance and deterrence may fail, US needs to stay engaged. Focus on regions of geostrategic importance (industrial powerhouses and the Middle East because of oil) 2nd Policy prescriptions- discriminate non-proliferation policy (try to prevent proliferation if going to alter balance of power but don't need to intervene everywhere in the world everytime there's a threat). Maintain NATO (to roughly what it was during cold war it keeps balance of power in EU if u.s. went home could potentially lead to upset in power in EU). Intervene in regional conflicts only if they could spark great power security competition (don't need get involved everytime there is a civil war but if in key region and involves great powers should consider). And since realism perception democracy promotion not necessary (its state power and geography that determines their behavior not regime type so democracy promotion irrelevant in their framework). 2nd Military structure (2 major regional conflicts force be able to fight 2 wars at once). Strong nuclear deterrent. Robust naval power projection capabilities. Potential Critiques- little idealism or commitment to principle (very realist enemy kind of thing a lot of people in 1990s thought we won cold war it was time to promote democracy intervene in conflicts inherently good thigns to save lifes and promote liberty). Does not provide enough guidance on which minor issues have implications for great power politics. Not really as selective as it claims to be (if we care about Europe, Persian gulf, east asia that's a lot of the world. We also generally care about western hemisphere Monroe doctrine so basically we don't care about some parts developing world but care about a lot of the world). Tension of have the US risk war for the purpose of preventing war (so we are taking uncessary risks with this stance). Selective-engagement- traditional balance of power realism major problem peace among major powers preferred world worder balance of power nuclear dynamics supports status quo national interests resetricted regional priorities industrial Eurasia nuclear proliferation discriminate prevention NATO maintain regional conflict contain; discriminate intervention ethnic conflict: contain humanitarian intervention discriminate intervention use of force discriminate force posture two-MRC force.

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- The United States expected an easy victory in Iraq. Why didn't this occur? The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- In your opinion, did the United States make any strategic mistakes during the planning of the Iraq War? If so, what?

3 bad decisions 1st debaathification of the regime (saddam was member of baath party decision remove members of this party from power) 2nd low number of ground troops for nation building 3rd dismantling the Iraqi Army 1st debaathification of the regime- may 16 2003 coalition provisional authority decides remove baath party from new Iraqi regime (order 1) (1st order was remove baath party from new Iraqi regime so if you had been a member of his government you could not be a member of the new government) consequences: membership in the baath party was necessary for many jobs in the country including all high-ranking ones in military and government (in order to be any sort of figure in government you had to be part of party or professor at university probably had be member of baath party so even if moraly compromised so basically removing most of the most competenet administrators from power.) also consequence power reversal between the sunni and the shia because sunnis disproportionally in the regime in the first place. 2nd low number of u.s. ground troops- immediate looting-> national museum of Iraq destroyed. Rumsfeld says freedom is messy in response to this. U.s. was to have only 30,000 troops in Iraq by September six months later didn't contain an adequate number of military police to control the streets after the war. Rumsfeld "stuff happens... its unitdy and freedoms unitdy and free people are free to make mistakes and to do bad things." 3rd dismantling Iraqi army- may 23 2003 second order CPA's order 2 disbands Iraqi army consequences- recently unemployed Iraqi soldiers went and joined insurgent militias, greatly strengthening the anti-government forces/ insurgencies (go figure and took their weapons with them) simultaneously strips the government of its military capabilities while simultaneously strengthening the opposition leading to crippling of power and low number of u.s. troops on the ground. Paul Brimmer. Rise of the Insurgency- first sign something going wrong in august 19th 2003 major car bombing that destroys un headquarters in Iraq and within it a heavy shia population so u.s. ability to get down to 30k troops not quite there but in December 2003 saddam is captured but april 2004 Abu Ghraib Prison Scandal (abu ghraib was prison that Hussein run that we start using to hold insurgents and then it comes out leaks photographs all these horrible pictures that indicate that u.s. soldiers engaging in torture leading to domestic opposition and within Iraq paints us in a bad light. 2005 election for transitional national assembly (any democratic election likely favor Shiite and many sunnis boycott the election so Shiite leader comes to power 2006 Nouri al-Maliki comes to power. 2006: Samara Shrine Attack (often point where many people say ethnic civil war began) this shrine one of holiest shrines in shia islam it's blown up. Rise of al-qaeda in anbar province in Iraq (al qaeda is sunni gain more control in sunni region in Iraq many of their former members were people who left the Iraqi army so control a lot of territory in western part of country) very intense religious-ethnic divisions within Iraq that made it very difficult to build a nation and stop the fighting. Background Iraq demographic breakdown shia arab 60% sunni arab 20% sunni kurd 17% other 3% Baghdad in the middle of sunni and shia split regions of Iraq and saddam was sunni so his government would likely lose a democratic election.

George W. Bush Administration- What are Neoconservatism's main underlying assumptions? 3 assumptions/ beliefs George W. Bush Administration- Be able to evaluate the pros and cons of Neoconservatism

3 big beliefs 1st American exceptionalism 2nd Universal Liberalism 3rd Efficacy of Military Power 1st American exceptionalism- u.s. was founded on constitution, democracy idea of liberal values embrace of democracy distinctive political institutions have unique position to help the rest of the world. Unique founding-> moral imperative to get involved in spreading liberal values. U.S. is force for good in the world we helped defeat imperialism in WWI defeated communism and fascism we have duty to promote freedom liberty and other good values. Some argue unipolarity of post-cold war allowed these American exceptionalism ideas to be passed on. "a foreign policy that impresses values... the success of liberty... America is nation not build on blood race but proposition". Implications of this belief- u.s. has benign intentions our intentions are to help people so we can exercise our power without fear of abuse we are acting benevolently for all states. 2nd implication u.s. is a model for other countries. 2nd Universal Liberalism- neo-conservatives think liberalism is strongest belief on earth like fukuyama thinks everyone wants to be a liberal. Liberalism is most powerful ideology democracy will flourish if given opportunity. Very black and white terms of the world liberal states vs. nonliberal states. "no people on earth want to be oppressed." Think that everyone wants to be a liberal you think its not that hard to create it's evident in our planning or lack of planning in government state building in Iraq (which 2000 bush would say was very difficult to do but really shifted thinking could do it in a few months). Democratic Peace Theory- if create world that is populated by democracies then world would be safer. Neo-conservatives thought heart of terrorism problem post 911 was lack of liberal values in the middle east so if can make them follow a u.s. model of liberalism the terrorism problem would go away. 3rd efficacy of military power- RMA. Unipolar moment we are the preponderant of power combination of that with RMA we are qualitiatively and quanitatively the strongest state in the world undeniably U.S. strongest military. We are so strong that states will bandwagon with us instead of balance against us were just so powerful can't help but to do it. If you have such a strong military if use that power to take advantage of unipolar moment then virtually all states in system will be forced to align with u.s. interests ie 2003 libya gave up nuclear weapons because u.s. forced them to.

War on Terrorism ID

3rd War on Terror- broad conception of who we are fighting. All different enemies we are fighting. Expansive conception of the target of the war what constitutes a terrorist threat. The enemy is terrorism premediated violence against innocents so the enemy is terrorists not Al-Qaeda can see why all militant and terrorist groups can all be grouped together. making no distinction between terrorist groups and the states that harbor them going be big deal for war of afghanistan al-qaeda had bases in Afghanistan. Bush talks a lot about good vs. evil broad conception of it. After 911 there was this big idea of why do they hate us Americans? And big debate in American society why they did it 2 interpretations 1st hate us for who we are (hate us for our American values if we can change who they are make them more liberal then they will no longer hate us) 2nd hate us for what we do (hate our foreign policy support for Israel put troops in Saudi arabia) If you believe they hate us for who you are then foreign policy decision we can't change who we are the only way to deal with it is to deal with it with our predominate force. We showed weakness not going to Baghdad in 1991 we need to stop showing weakness. Regional transformation and military primacy and unilateral action are the two main of four bush doctrine ideas very prevalent in hate us for who we are solution if we make them more liberal democracy promotion they will stop hating us for who we are. War on Terror- Bush administration objectives- war on terror "the united states of America is fighting a war against terroirsts of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime the enemy is terrorism premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated agiainst innocents. 1st global war on terror 2nd going end state sponsorship of terrorism make no distinction between the states that harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves. 3rd reduce the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit- if we can make countries more liberal democracies that would reduce the appeal of terrorism 4th protect u.s. citizens security

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? What would you describe as the main tenets of Trump's foreign policy?

4 Pillars of national security strategy- 1st protect the American people, the homeland and way of life (immigration, enforce borders, terrorism) 2nd promote American prosperity (fair-not free- trade deal. Free trade lets other country rise like China at the U.S.'s expense). 3rd preserve peace through strength (deter adversaries via strong military) 4th advance American influence (but instead of precedent of international institutions etc. strengthening influence he proposes private sector-led economic growth). Less liberal tone and more nationalistic tone (America first obviously nationalistic). "strengthening our sovereignty the first duty of a gov is to serve the interests of its own people." Trump's two tenets- 1st trump did not condition arab-israeli normalization agreements on Palestinian statehood 2nd trump took a transactional approach to arab-israeli relations (personal ties between advisors and foreign officials quid pro quo) being compensated fairly by allies, not being cheated economically (china currency), show u.s. strength (don't pull a Gorbachev be more like Putin :) ) make sure u.s. keeps respect. skepticism of liberal world order (free riding allies, free trade agreements) military interventions semi hawkish but also evidence of some moderation.

Persian Gulf War- Why did the United States decide to intervene in the Persian Gulf War?

4 Principles guiding Operation Desert Shield of u.s. to get involved- 1st the immediate and complete withdraw of Iraq from Kuwait 2nd restoration of the legitimate Kuwaiti government 3rd the stability and security of the middle east 4th the protection of americans abroad. "New World Order" Speech- September 11 1990 " we have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order- a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations. When we are successful- and we will be- we have a real chance at this new world orde, an order in which credible united nations can use its peacekeeping role to fulfill the promise and vision of the u.n.s founders." We are americans apart of something larger then ourselves lead the world of threat against decency and humanity diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve freedom, peace, security, and the rule of law. Bush is framing america's response to Iraq not just containing saddam's expansion but maintaining a post cold war international order "new world order" an engaged role of the u.s. to gain stability and peace and work alongside the soviet union which hasn't collapsed yet.

Marshall Plan ID 3 Main Goals

A United States program of economic aid for the reconstruction of Europe (1948-1952) one of six containment policies. Marshall Plan 1948-1952- aka European Recovery Act- Marshall said "u.s. shuld do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health in the world, without which there can be no political stability and no assured peace." Very large aid plan to make west European a separate world force that can stand up to soviet union if necessary strong enough to maintain their sovereignty. Three Main Goals Marshall Plan- 1st signal to EU that the Americans cared about their suffering (especially when compared to the Soviets in E. Europe) (u.s. wanted to be perceived as more reliable partner) 2nd psychological victory for moderate governments (can strengthen center and right wings of EU governments). 3rd Expanding liberal system: to receive aid, participating states would have to integrate their economies with free trade. Have to be representative gov. democracy to receive aid.

Containment- · What is the Domino Theory? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not? ID 4 assumptions of domino theory

A theory that if one nation comes under Communist control, then neighboring nations will also come under Communist control. domino theory five assumptions let one country fall to communism entire region turns to communism. In Southeast Asia, the U.S. government used the now-discredited domino theory to justify its involvement in the Vietnam War and its support for a non-communist dictator in South Vietnam. In fact, the American failure to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam had much less of an impact than had been assumed by proponents of the domino theory. With the exception of Laos and Cambodia, communism failed to spread throughout Southeast Asia. By 1950, makers of U.S. foreign policy had firmly embraced the idea that the fall of Indochina to communism would lead rapidly to the collapse of other nations in Southeast Asia. In Eisenhower's view, the loss of Vietnam to communist control would lead to similar communist victories in neighboring countries in Southeast Asia (including Laos, Cambodia and Thailand) and elsewhere (India, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, and even Australia and New Zealand). "The possible consequences of the loss [of Indochina]," Eisenhower said, "are just incalculable to the free world." 4 bedrock assumptions of domino theory- 1st Leftwing revolutions are sponsored by expansionist international forces. 2ndRevolutions create conditions for revolutions in neighboring states. 3rd Early action is imperative to prevent spread. 4th Even if an individual state is unimportant, the loss of an entire region is important.

What is the most difficult part of building a nuclear bomb?

Acquriing or making enough of the fissile materials (Uranium and Plutonium) for the supercritical mass necessary for a chain reaction. The actual material of bomb encassing and how activate the bomb not all that complicated.

What is Charles Krauthammer's argument in the Unipolar Moment? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not? ID

After the cold war the would would revert to multipolarity have Russia, Europe, china, u.s. but he says immediate post cold war is unipolar "the center of the world power is the unchallenged superpower the united states attended by its western allies." Definitely a unipolar world. What do we do now? He says there will be new threats : is weapons states (the emergence of new strategic environment small aggressive states with WMD makes coming decades a time of heightened not diminished threat of war... the central truth of the coming era is that... relatively small, peripheral and backward states will be able to emerge rapidly as threats not only to regional but to world security such as Iraq, Libya, north korea) solution? "we are in abnormal times our best hope for safety is in American strength and willing the strength and will to lead a unipolar world, unashamedly laying down the rules of wolrd order and being prepared to enforce them. Compared to the task of defeating fascism and communism averting chaos is a rather subtle call to greatness it is not a task we are any more eager to undertake than the great twilight struggle just concluded." U.s. needs take advantage of this moment and be leader of the world to promote security u.s. embrace role of unipolar instead of going back home. Krauthammer said should take this opportunity to lead. Kind of imperialist rhetoric world police also very much military leverage emphasis not economic and diplomatic powers.Krauthmaur u.s. should take advantage of there position in the world and weapon states are new streatgic enemy No I don't find it persuasive- contradiction between suggesting post-cold war will go to multipolarity but yet our policy should essentially be to cling to unipolarity world police to the best of our ability that strategy seems within his own framework unsustainable but also makes the inevitable transition to multipolarity that much more harmful for U.S. prestige and institutions.

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? What's new about "America First?" How does Trump's foreign policy differ from the Washington consensus? In what ways is it similar?

America first: national security strategy less liberal more nationalistic tone. de-emphasizing u.s. role in the world role in maintaining the post-wwii liberal international order in favor of an explicitly "America First" foreign policy. . Key institutions: un, Bretton woods, WTO, NATO, European Union, etc. idea that we work with our allies. Trump America first thinks should put ourselves first rather then putting this order first which in a way is pushing the u.s. back. America First refers to a policy stance in the United States that generally emphasizes nationalism and non-interventionism In Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaigns and presidency (2017-2021), Trump used the phrase as a slogan, emphasizing the United States' withdrawal from international treaties and organizations. "America First" was the official foreign policy doctrine of the Trump administration.

Containment

American policy of resisting further expansion of communism around the world. coin termed by Kennan. restoration of the balance of power (aka containment)- through the encouragement of self confidence in nations threatened by soviet expansion." (with Europe and Japan being the main central players in this containment)

Credibility Gap

American public's growing distrust of statements made by the government during the Vietnam War. Credibility gap is a term that came into wide use with journalism, political and public discourse in the United States during the 1960s and 1970s. At the time, it was most frequently used to describe public skepticism about the Lyndon B. Johnson administration's statements and policies on the Vietnam War.[1] It was used in journalism as a euphemism for recognized lies told to the public by politicians. Today, it is used more generally to describe almost any "gap" between an actual situation and what politicians and government agencies say about it.[2][3] The term "credibility gap" came against a background of the use of the term "missile gap", which the Oxford English Dictionary lists as first being used by then-Senator John F. Kennedy on 14 August 1958, when he stated: "Our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the missile gap."[4] "Doomsday gap" and "mineshaft gap" were the imagined post-apocalyptic continuations of this paranoia in the 1964 Cold War satire Dr. Strangelove. fter the Vietnam War, the term "credibility gap" came to be used by political opponents in cases where an actual, perceived or implied discrepancy existed between a politician's public pronouncements and the actual, perceived or implied reality. For example, in the 1970s the term was applied to Nixon's own handling of the Vietnam War[10] and subsequently to the discrepancy between evidence of Richard Nixon's complicity in the Watergate break-in and his repeated claims of innocence.

Nixon- What was the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty? What did the Soviet Union and United States each decide to protect? Why?

Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty- ability to build missiles that could shoot down any nuclear strikes shoot down any incoming missiles. Potential problem- could push us out of mutually assured destruction world so ABM each side only allowed to build 2 ballistic missile shields using 100 ballistic missiles Soviet Union: Moscow but United States: did North Dakota ICBM field so guarantee second strike capability. 1974 each side had built one so they limit it there. These abm technologies aren't really that reliable though even not 100% reliable today U.S. North Dakota to protect second strike capability protect u.s. nuclear missiles stationed there and USSR Moscow to make sure to defend this very important city.

Pusan Perimeter

Battle of Pusan Perimeter (August-September 1950). Location of the Battle of Pusan Perimeter. Defined by the furthest advance by North Korean forces during the Korean War. American and South Korean forces halt North Korea's advance to the South. a defensive line around the city of Pusan, in the southeast corner of Korea, held by South Korean and United Nations forces in 1950 during the Korean War; the line where U.N. troops stopped the advance of North Korea in 1950. UN forces, having been repeatedly defeated by the advancing KPA, were forced back to the "Pusan Perimeter", a 140-mile (230 km) defensive line around an area on the southeastern tip of South Korea that included the port of Busan. The UN troops, consisting mostly of forces from the Republic of Korea Army (ROKA), United States, and United Kingdom, mounted a last stand around the perimeter, fighting off repeated KPA attacks for six weeks as they were engaged around the cities of Taegu, Masan, and Pohang and the Naktong River. After six weeks, the KPA force collapsed and retreated in defeat after the UN force launched a counterattack at Inchon on September 15 and the UN forces in the perimeter broke out from the perimeter the following day. The battle would be the furthest the KPA would advance in the war, as subsequent fighting ground the war into a stalemate.

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- In your opinion, how should the Biden administration respond to Russia amassing troops on Ukraine's border?

Be firm and transparent in intentions really use diplomatic process to explain why Russia should be careful to not invade cross into Ukraine. continues to arm and train ukraine's military but at the same time don't have Ukraine and Georgia join NATO because that's something Putin really doesn't want which would could provoke him into invading. Also don't interfere too much in Ukraine promote their defense security training but don't interfere much in whose elected, in government, policies in Ukraine.

How did Carter's foreign policy goals evolve over time?

Became more aggressive less idealistic such as having u.s. not partake in Moscow olympics, increased defense spending in response to Soviets in Afghanistan, kills the Salt II treaty not reducing nuclear missiles etc.

· Why did Kennedy increase U.S. commitment to Vietnam?

Because flexible response basically requires that when things get escalated need to respond to the particular situation at any capability. "ability to match soviets at any level of capability shouldn't have to escalate hostilities because of lack of options." so with diem coup instability in south vietnam and rise of vietcong north vietnamese forces start having to strengthen south vietnam ARVN and infrastructure using 12k u.s. troop advisers and a lot of money to boost their defense. also because he believed in the domino theory like Eisenhower and saw an importance in keeping south vietnam non-communist.

George W. Bush Administration- According to Bin Laden, why did the 9/11 terrorists attack the United States?

Because gives list of grievances of u.s. actions but also says u.s. needs to change their ways to stop being the "the Devil's army". · Bin Laden- Reasoning that because U.S. already fighting them in Palestine through Israeli support. U.S. supported the establishment of Israel which was a huge crime in Bin Laden's perspective. Attack Muslims in Somalia by supporting Russian atrocities, and supporting Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir and supporting Jewish aggression in Lebanon. Also used strong sanctions in Iraq that resulted in 1.5 million Iraqi children dying. Fund bombings in Afghanistan. · Bin Laden Argues that American civilians are equally guilty because they vote in the politicians who approve of these foreign policy decisions therefore reason Muslims should attack U.S. soldiers and civilians alike. Support the military funding and soldiers make up the American populace. · Bin Laden Demand Americans convert to Islam · Bin Laden Demands Americans stop being immoral with "fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury." Stop being secular society. Exploits women encourages trade of sex, spread disease such as AIDS and destroyed the environment. · Bin Laden Demands u.s. stop supporting Indians against muslims in Kashmir, Philippine Government against Muslims in southern islands, supporting Israelis against Palestine, Russians against Chechens, etc. · Al Qaeda Takes extreme route that anyone who doesn't worship Allah will be attacked as an enemy. · Al Qaeda Has a list of grievances with Americans supporting Israel against Muslims, attacking Iraqis in the First Gulf War trying to reduce Saddam Hussein's influence, U.S. trying to keep Arab nations divided to reduce their influence. · Al Qaeda Claims that Allah orders Muslims to kill and steal wealth from Americans "the Devil's army" and that Muslims will find great comfort and happiness in the afterlife as a reward for killing Americans. so in short list of grievances with Americans and critiques of our ways of life could provide justification for Bush saying that bin laden attacked us because of what we do foreign policy but also because of who we are there is evidence in Bin Ladens writings of declaration of war on america and also why were fighting america for both aspects of motivation.

In your opinion, why did the Soviet Union collapse? How important of a role did Reagan play in ending the Cold War? Why?

Because long term socio-economic strain forced Gorbachev to attempt new reforms that ultimately undermined the soviet union such as free speech allowed enabling widespread dissent the renunciation of the brezhnev doctrine basically allowing e eu states to fight for indep sort of let it happen. Situation facing gorbachev knew that the ussr would have to change if it was to survive spending 25% of soviet gdp spent on defense compared to 7% of u.s. gdp on defence they had inefficient central economic planning had generation of workers with significant higher education but few career prospects wasteful investment declining life expectancy rising alcoholism econ growth rate slightly above 0% corruption computer technology not incorporated into production systems the factory management system provided little incentive to make technological improvements and every incentive to hid factory capacities to ensure low quotas leading to inefficiency, low standard of living for population, ussr dependent on imported grain and technology from the west. Gorbachev knew this was a dire situation. Did reagan play role in ending cold war yes- Reagan helped to facilitate the collapse of the soviet union with his second term with his cooperative foreign policy not the first term aggressive policy it was cooling diplomacy of second term that allowed gorbachev to do everything he did.

Rollback: Why did U.S. covert regime change operations in Eastern Europe fail?

Because our intel was infiltrated, the Soviets had an extensive counter response measures made they were well prepared for u.s. covert operations and were able track down most of the Pixies very quickly. Soviet spy Kim Philby (british intelligence liason in Washington to the OPC, FBI, and CIA and he was revealing to his Soviet handlers precise coordinates of every u.s. and british infiltration) in 1951 he was caught and he defected to Soviet Union and u.s. decides to continue operations and that domestic groups claiming to be Pixies asking for arms that we gave but turned out to be KGB all 13 covert offensive operations in Eastern Europe fail disastrously

Why did Detente ultimately collapse?

Because the U.S. under President Carter started transitioning into the second cold war. 1979- the year that it all went wrong (also period a lot of people call the start of the second cold war) Iranian revolution and hostage crisis (Shah acted as dictator a lot of resentment in Iran against his regime February 1979 shah left the country after protest and doesn't return. Khomeini had been living in exile in Paris comes back and takes over assumes power in Iran. Shah was part of u.s. key strategy of containment in the 1950s so big blow. Take 52 hostages so long negotiations try to secure releases of hostages), 1979 oil crisis (long lines for oil big increase for it), soviet invasion of afghanistan (soviets had puppet regime communist in afghanistan so they intervened to try to get someone they wanted back in power), three mile island disaster.

What is mutual assured destruction? ID

Belief that if one superpower used nuclear attack, the other would respond in kind. Mutual assured destruction (both states have a second strike capability both states could retaliate after being struck by their opponent it would assure destruction on both sides.) Mutual assured destruction potentially a force for peace between nuclear powers. Once mutual assured destruction is achieved the exact balance of power calculations become less relevant Defense now being impossible (can't defend yourself from nuclear attack) the superpowers deter their adversaries not by threatening them militarily (denial) but by raising the cost of the conflict to unacceptably high levels (going to threaten them with punishment) deterrence via punishment.

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- In broad terms, describe the process of NATO enlargement since the end of the Cold War. ID Term NATO expansion

Believed that the united states had promised not to expand NATO if they allowed Germany reunification (big historical debate- many historians say we made an explicit deal but not codified). 1999 1st round of NATO expansion with u.s. Poland, Czech republic, and hungary join NATO (Russia protests that u.s. is violating their deal but relations still pretty positive overall). 2004: Russia opposes second round of NATO enlargement (now in Baltic states NATO is sharing a border with Russia again Russia objected to this). 2008: NATO begins to debate admitting Georgia and Ukraine to join Bush supports but Germany and france oppose this move saying uncessarily provocative to Russia. Nato insteads issues statement endorsing their aspiratiosn to membership of Georgia and Ukraine. 3rd round of NATO expansion. 2016 interview will the us uphold its article V nato commitments if Russia invades Baltic states trump "have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their oblitionations to us yes I'm saying there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us." How should we deal with Baltic states since Russia has huge advantage in the terrain should we defend them could we even defend them? 1st nato enlargement (we reneged on our deals that we made in 1990 we had multiple roudns of expansion and talked about having Georgia and Ukraine join direct threat to Russia many realists rejected to nato enlargement as well like Kennan

How feasible is SDI? What are the different challenges that it faces during the Boost, Mid-Course, and Terminal phases?

Boost phase- advantages that the missile is its largest, slowest moving, and very hot which makes targeting easier disadvantages of targeting it during boost phase ground based interceptions must be very close to launch pad within 100 miles of the launch pad and they must act very quickly automated surface to air missile systems exist but run risk of accidents (1988 u.s. aegis system shot to Iranian airliner killing 290 people thought passenger plane was missile same thing happens in 2020 iran shoots down ukranian passenger plane. Potentially very risky have fully automated but also too slow if not fully automated. Mid-course phase- flying through space 15-20 minutes advantages longest intercept time and mid course ssyetms could potentially cover the largest geographic territories maybe use lazers and mirrors problem with this phase when missile goes up that mid course system could easily be overwhelmed by decoys like balloons and non ballistic missile interceptors do not yet exist bunch balloons travelling alongside missiles decoys are so easy to make as of yet still don't have way to prevent them from easily being overwhelmed. Terminal phase- reentering atmosphere coming down to earth shortest phases advantges of better radar and more efficient targeting decoys do not reenter atmosphere so not overwhelmed there disadvantages shortest interception time and small geographic coverage travelling very fast at this point hard to hit. Today have different types of radars and interceptors throughout u.s. and some allies effectiveness of current u.s. sytems boost phase our aegis missile defense had 35 out of 42 tests successful mid-course ground based midcourse defense 18 tests 10 successes 8 failures weren't dealing with problems with decoys. Terminal phase 11 tests 11 successes 0 failures patriot missile 25 successes 4 failures 86% so terminal phase as of now best way to do it most successful.

Persian Gulf War- Why didn't the United States go to Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War?

Bush decided not to go because "while we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple saddam, neither the u.s. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf." "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep", and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs." "we would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and in effect rule Iraq. The coaltion would instantly have collapsed the arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. under the circumsntacnes there was no viable exit strategy we could see violating another of our principles." "furthermore, we had been self-consciusly trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterlally exceeding the united nations' mandate would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish."

George W. Bush Administration- What was George Bush's foreign policy platform during the 2000 election? When/why did it change?

Bush ran on campaign that u.s. was too interventionist during Clinton years (obviously doesn't take that route post 911) really critical of nation building and doing anything with the UN stuff that Clinton did. Called on u.s. to scale back commitments and reinvigorating cold war alliances. Changed post-911 because the U.S. had been attacked by a terrorist organization that declared war on America Al-Qaeda so u.s. security concerns had changed drastically and so too did U.S. foreign policy. First nine months of bush policy pursues selective engagement no major policy developments content with having just sanctions on Iraq but 911 changed everything.

Korean War? In your opinion, what lessons can U.S. policymakers learn from the Korean War?

But how compelling is the analogy? Differences as well as similarities between the two wars- every American president during Vietnam War repeatedly refer to Korean war as to how to fight Asian limited war. LBJ escalated Vietnam war then any other presidency didn't want to follow Truman's footsteps kept tight leash on military (prevent Macarthur). Almost all Vietnam war policy tried to prevent China's intervention (didn't bomb near Chinese border up north) learned from Korean war. LBJ understood from Korean war shouldn't go to far don't try take whole country. Johnson strongly believed in civilian led military. Tight leash LBJ had on military make it clear he was in charge. LBJ said Truman had mistaken to not ask congress about going into war. LBJ thought his war was legitimized due to Tonkin resolution implications of congress giving him military autonomy (misread perhaps). Didn't have UN in south Vietnam. South vietnam's government wasn't stable like north Koreans was. Offensive NK more clear rapid Vietnam war offensive a lot slower less blatant. Korean war no one won but U.S. was defeated in Vietnam. also learn that containment is less risky then rollback and more likely to succeed.

Nixon- according to Gaddis, why was Detente difficult to implement?

Challenges to Détente- Did behavior modification really work? Kind of patronizing to assume that you can "train" another state soviet union doesn't seem all that contained following détente ie ussr supported egypts surprise attack on Israel, fuding communists in Portugal revolution, don't stop north Vietnamese takeover of south Vietnam, expansion in angola, ehtiopia, Somalia, etc. soviet union didn't see it as their interest to mange crises with the u.s. in the third world that simply was not their goal still considered their relationship with the u.s. as fundamentally competitive also extremely difficult for either superpower to manage the third world. Linkages seem good in theory but difficult to push through a complex bureacrayc link (ie example of trade over grain, Vietnam-Congress wanted to limit the President's ability to make war by defunding it. War powers act (1973): 60 day limit on future military deployments overseas without congressional approval (trying to limit that executive power) during 3rd world crises the optiosn were often to ignore or escalate (Nixon relied too heavily on escalation ie defcon 3 lowering our military nuclear readiness level in the 1973 yom kippur war and 1976 tree trimming incident Nixon doctrine approach by withdrawing u.s. troops through nuclear weapons makes us more reliant on this risk reactionary approach to third world crises.

The Rise of China- In broad terms describe the evolution of U.S. policy towards China since 1945.

China civil war we supported the nationalists who lost and fled to Taiwan and we didn't recognize the Chinese mainland government as government of China for decades. We also fought China in Korean War which led to stalemate and we were concerned about Chinese interference in Vietnam War and China provided a lot of aid to the North Vietnamese until Nixon visited China recognized the country. 1972 nixon visits china- shanghai communique both sides will work towards normalization of relations neither side would seek to establish "hegemony in the Asian-Pacific region." U.s. commits to a one china policy with "constructive ambiguity"-> recognize the PRC (Beijing) as the leader of China. We would defend Taiwan if attacks but wouldn't support Taiwan doing anything aggressive wouldn't be obligated to defend them. recognize china.

Xi Jinping

Chinese politician who has been serving as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) since 2012, and President of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since 2013. Xi has been the paramount leader of China, the most prominent political leader in China, since 2012. Xi has often been described as a dictator or an authoritarian leader by political and academic observers,[9] citing an increase of censorship and mass surveillance, a deterioration in human rights, the cult of personality developing around him[10] and the removal of term limits for the leadership under his tenure.[a] Xi's political thoughts have been incorporated into the party and national constitutions.[25][26][27] As the central figure of the fifth generation of leadership of the People's Republic, Xi has significantly centralised institutional power by taking on a wide range of leadership positions, including chairing the newly formed National Security Commission, as well as new steering committees on economic and social reforms, military restructuring and modernization, and the internet.[28]

Humanitarian Interventions- Why didn't the United States pursue any humanitarian interventions during the Cold War? Humanitarian Interventions- Why is the United States more willing to pursue humanitarian interventions in the post-Cold War?

Cold War Humanitarian Crisis- whenever u.s. intervened never really humanitarian motives it was strategic considerations also in most cases of the world u.s. did not intervene in humanitarian crisis. Interventions governed by cold war dynamics u.s. allies committing mass killings: Guatemala, angola, Indonesia, and el Salvador u.s. provided military and economic assistance to that government perpetuating the mass killing (because often groups that were being killed were leftist). In some cases it was soviet allies committing mass killings (china, Iraq, afghanistan, and Ethiopia) and when we did intervene we provided covert assistance to groups targeted during the mass killings we can argue that main interest wasn't in helping them defend themselves rather to curb soviet allies powers. But in Post Cold-War security environment- becomes a lot more common less strategic soviet dynamics. because cold war ended security concerns are less rampant and security concerns didn't dominate u.s. foreign policy the way it use to giving room for humanitarian intervention efforts. But in Post Cold-War security environment- becomes a lot more common less strategic soviet dynamics. security environment stopped.

What is the relationship between crisis stability/ instability and the number of nuclear weapons that each side has? Why? ID

Crisis Stability/ Instability- key point- crisis instability goes up as the number of weapons goes down. Crisis might be more stable when have more weapons because both sides no going have path of mutually assured destruction. Mutual assured destruction potentially a force for peace between nuclear powers. If mutually assured destruction is ever undermined by things like SDIs then it would result in decreasing our nuclear crisis stability.

Arms Race

Cold war competition between the U.S. and Soviet Union to build up their respective armed forces and weapons. Cold War arms race- 1945 first American atomic bomb test 1949 first soviet atomic bomb test 1952 first American hydrogen bomb test 1953 first soviet hydrogen bomb test. It was controversial to build the hydrogen bomb to be able to kill unprecedented numbers of people. a lot of people argue that it was the arms race that soviets couldn't keep up with was a major factor as to why the soviet union collapsed. Harder line on soviet union increases in military budget- "Capitalism had given us a powerful weapon in our battle against Communism- money. The Russians could never win the arms race; we could outspend them forever." Communism inefficient economic system more money they have to spend on guns in soviet union instead of butter will hurt their soviet government popularity.

Describe- cooperative security I.D.

Collective Security/ Cooperative Security- more liberal mindset out of the four. Based on liberalism (democratic peace theory, economic cooperation, insitutions foster peace cooperation). Sees the u.s. as maintaining peace via international institutions (build upon this want us to work multilaterally to make peace in the future with these institutions). High level of strategic interdependence. Value in promoting democracy, international law, and free trade all parts of their worldview of how to make a more cooperative international system. global regional priorities (global interventions something should work together with all of our allies to remake the world order in a new better way) 4th policy prescriptions- transform and expand NATO (transform the alliance when call on other states to join NATO should demand they embrace free trade, democracy in order to join so it would be a way to promote liberalism in eastern Europe). Indiscriminate prevention of regional, ethnic and humanitarian conflicts (we have ability to make world better place we should do that). Indiscriminate prevention of nuclear proliferation. Strengthen multilateral mechanisms of security (alliances, arms control regimes, confidence-and-security-building measures all things we do with other states strengthen them). 4th military structure- military force needs to be capable fo intervening broadly and multilaterally (more vague as to what military structure is). Robust MRC and power projection capabilities. Particular focus on reconnaissance strike ability for multilateral actions (really focus on airforce capability) 4th critiques of cooperative security- multilateral actions generally not effective because of defectors and free riders (in any alliance there are often parties that don't spend enough on their own military because know u.s. will protect them like in NATO so u.s. shouldn't plan military on multilateral engagements because will tie us down entanglements). Democracies are problematic partners for interventions because their publics must favor action as well (public can vote out leaders if don't like a policy so worry about public opinion variable ie Iraq war a lot of our key allies public opinions were against Iraq war). Democracies are extremely casualty sensitive. Washington's benevolent intentions will not be viewed as kindly by others (promote free trade, promote democracy may seem as imperialistic, meddling, fundamentally a lot of states won't see us the way we see ourselves). Risks imperial overstretch shouldn't think the entire world is important only certain regions are more important then others. Cooperative Security- liberalism, major problem- the indivisibility of peace. Preferred world order interdependence. Nuclear dynamics supports aggression, conception national interests- transnational, regional priorities- global, nuclear proliferation- indiscriminate prevention. NATO regional conflict- transform and expand. Regional conflict- intervene. Ethnic conflict- nearly indiscriminate intervention. Humanitarian intervention- nearly indiscriminate intervention. Use of force- frequent. Force posture- reconnaissance strike complex for multilateral action.

Which of the four grand strategies most closely aligns to Clinton's grand strategy?

Cooperative Security, (engagement and enlargement) emphasized nato expansion, free trade, NAFTA, etc. remember cooperative security is the one with the liberal worldview out of the four.

Rollback: Briefly describe U.S. policy in Eastern Europe in the late 1940s and early 1950s

Covert Regime change- foreign interventions to replace the leadership of another state where intervening state does not acknowledge its role publicly (coups, assasinations, manipulating elections, secretly supporting dissident groups.) Rollback operations at beginning of cold war- Kenan "to encourage and promote the gradual retraction of undue Russian power and influence from the present perimeter areas around traditional Russian boundaries." U.S. going to intervene in areas Soviets had expanded into WWII and encourage the immersion of new independent governments indep of soviet union. idea was to splinter the soviet bloc by encourageing the emergence of indep states not allied with ussr. U.s. launches 13 covert rollback operations behind the iron curtain in the late 1940s. 5% of Marshall Plan funding went to these covert oeprations $685 million dollars in total. Idea Soviets weren't in these areas that long so should be vulnerable to weakening soviet control of these regions.

Monroe Doctrine- What was the Good Neighbor's Policy? ID

Created by FDR in 1933- In the field of World Policy, I would dedicate this nation to the policy of the good neighbor, the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others, the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors. originally term introduced by Hoover but really introduced by FDR. Roosevelt really supported the good neighbor policy even if he didn't create it. This policy rests, then, on the simple principles that nations should not intervene in the affairs of other nations and that their relations should be to the benefit of both.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- What are the main arguments for and against the deal? In your opinion, should the Obama administraiton have signed the Iran nuclear deal? Why or why not?

Critics (many republicans, Israel, Saudi arabia, some democrats, influential lobbying groups)- 1st the deal did not go far enough (iran continues to be allowed to have some centrifigues there are clauses that aren't going to last forever think iran needs be fully disarmed since big threat 2nd sunset clauses too problematic (the fact this deal doesn't last forever) 3rd deal only focused on nuclear program the deal should've been more extensive in addressing iran aggressive behavior in region (has been helping rebels, terrorists in other countries made deal to deal with these deeper problems) 4th only a military solution will work on a state like Iran (can't trust them to uphold deal) 5th encourage iran's regional rivals will go nuclear as well because the deal was so weak. 6th by lifting the economic sanctions and unfreezing bank accounts we gave money to an aggressive and untrustworthy state (idea this was strengthening iran really hurting our ally Israel) Supporters (many democrats, many academics, our European allies)- 1st we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (yes it would be awesome to have perfect deal but iran has leverage as well we have to concede something be realistic it's hard enough to reach any deal and we did reach one so we should support it) 2nd significantly increases iran's breakout time for developing a nuclear weapon 3rd inspections arrangement makes secret enrichment unlikely yes there is this 24 day thing could deny inspections but our inspection regime covers every step of process mining it, enriching it, storing it and with all these places of oversight it would be really hard for iran to secretely enrich uranium. 4th if u.s. unilaterally rejects agreement our allies/ Russia/ china will not maintain sanctions (it was amazing we got all of them to agree to deal probably difficult to get them to rescind it). 5th rejecting deal would complicate arms control efforts elsewhere (want other states to feel like they can negotiate work with the u.s. to make arms deals) 6th critics are blinded by magical thinking (critics always want a deal where iran gives up everything but they don't really have a viable plan to do it too difficult to destroy nuclear sites with bombs difficult get them not care about region) 7th could pave way for future cooperation with Iran (ie in Syria dealing with isis and maybe some of those regional conflicts we can resolve tensions). Yes I definitely think we should have signed the Iran nuclear deal especially with the power of hindsight to know that Iran actually was following it pretty well and didn't rapidly increase their nuclear capabilities and efforts until shortly after we got rid of the deal.

What is the Reagan Doctrine? ID

Defense spending increase, intermediate range nuclear force (INF) treaty. the belief that Communism should be stopped before it can attack and enslave a country. Reagan doctrine- united states switches from containment to rollback. 1985 state of union address starts switching to proxy wars again. It was a strategy implemented by the Reagan Administration to overwhelm the global influence of the Soviet Union in the late Cold War. The doctrine was a centerpiece of United States foreign policy from the early 1980s until the end of the Cold War in 1991. Under the Reagan Doctrine, the United States provided overt and covert aid to anti-communist guerrillas and resistance movements, many of which perpetrated acts of terror,[2] in an effort to "roll back" Soviet-backed pro-communist governments in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

· What is the difference between an Offensive and a Defensive Realist?

Defensive realists vs. offensive realists they differ on severity of uncertainty of intentions. Defensive realists say it is a manageable problem while offensive realists uncertainty of intentions is an insurmountable problem. Defensive realists- think manageable because states can signal their intentions to one another. Offense-defense balance/ distinguishability also "costly signaling" to show intentions (idea is talk is cheap but if did something that unilaterally made state weaker why would they take those costs unless they meant it) states typically are security maximizers (over expanding can promote counterbalancing just try to expand until they are secure as possible there is a point where it's too much so defensive realists more optimistic about arms control easier). SECURITY MAXIMIZERS Offensive realists- uncertainty intentions insurmountable problems- states make worse case assumptions. States are power maximizers as opposed to defensive idea of security maximizers (states will expand as much as they can and says that ultimate goal is global hegemony but likely impossible because of the stopping power of water so the next best thing is regional hegemony a state so powerful that it dominates all other in a geographic region (Mearsheimer argued U.S. really only state to ever accomplish regional hegemony). U.s. strategy now: prevent other states from gaining a foothold in the W. Hemisphere and prevent the rise of a "peer competitor" aka another regional hegemon specifically China. POWER MAXIMIZERS

· How do Realists respond to Democratic Peace Theory?

Democratic Peace Theory- regime type does not determine state behavior. Democratic peace theory is an empirical anomaly (democracy is relatively rare wars are relatively rare) there are other explanations for peaceful relations between democracies (ie W. Euoprean and E. Asian democracies unified against Soviet threat during Cold War had bigger fish to fry unified against Russia and China respectively today so unified against common threat external balancing). Unitied states acts as a regional pacifier-> u.s. hegemony in w. hemisphere, u.s. troops stationed throughout western Europe, Japan, and South Korea. democracies make up majority states that own nuclear weapons and deterrence from mutual destruction driving force hear. Norms are overstated: democracies don't treat eachother with respect (u.s. overthrow six democratic governments during the Cold War if they really respected democracies why would they do that). Institutional rationales break down because democracies are no less belligerent than other states. Authoritarian leaders also face pressures not to start risky or unpopular wars (can be killed by people). Marketplace of ideas argument is questionable. Are democracies really better at choosing which wars to fight? (look at u.s. recent history in the middle east, Korea, Vietnam).

What is the difference between deterrence and coercion? Which is generally considered easier to accomplish? Why? ID term

Deterrence vs. Coercion- deterrence- persuade your opponent to not take an action goal=make them do nothing maintain the status quo. Coercion- persuade your opponent to change its behavior goal= make them take a new course of action, revisionist strategy. Deterrence generally considered easier to pull off out of the two. Type 1 and Type 2 Deterrence NATO served two major purposes during the Cold War: 1st Deterrence- u.s. pledged to defend these countries everyone will attack if you attack so stop soviets expansion into western Europe Type 1 Deterrence has just two actors ie u.s. vs. ussr and soviets trying to deter attack from u.s. u.s. trying to deter attack from soviets. Nuclear monopoly (only one state has nuclear weapons). First strike capability (state can attack its opponent with nuclear weapons). Nuclear superiority (splendid first strike or nuclear primacy one side can take out all nukes on other side in one strike state could take out its opponenets entire arsenal in one strike). Second strike capability (ability to retaliate after you have already been hit state could retaliate after being struck by a nuclear attack from its opponent they move first now you're moving second). Mutual assured destruction (both states have a second strike capability both states could retaliate after being struck by their opponent it would assure destruction on both sides.) Type 1 Deterrence can make Type 2 Deterrence more difficult ie Why would the United States risk Washington for West Berlin? (it becomes a question of credibility) How can the United States credibly threaten to do something irrational?

Monroe Doctrine- What role did the U.S. play in Guatemala's 1954 coup? Why?

Dictator of Guatemala 1931-1944 Supports oligarchic system US Ally. But 1944 Revolution- October revolution: Ubico overthrown Juan Jose Arevalo (1945-1951) First democratically elected president of Guatemala Left-leaning, but avoids directly challenging the U.S. 1947 Labor Code: Guatemalans granted the right to strike and unionize. October revolution: Ubico overthrown U.S. Role- Operation PBFortune- Authorized by Truman in September 1952 Called for armed invasion of Guatemala using CIA-trained troops from bases in Honduras, El Salvador and Mexico Two-part strategy: Psychological warfare designed to give the impression of widespread opposition to Arbenz Voice of Liberation . Paramilitary invasion 480 CIA-trained Guatemalan exiles and mercenaries Led by former Guatemalan Army Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas "Liberation Air Force" against Guatemalan cities June 18, 1954 5-pronged invasion from Honduras and El Salvador 480-man invasion slow and greatly outnumbered by 6,000-man Guatemalan Army June 27, 1954 US-led airstrikes on Guatemalan targets Guatemalan Army officers fear U.S. intervention Arbenz resigns Why we did it? Guatemala had Weak ties to Soviet Union Controversy over role of UFCO (united fruit company and their own economic interests) The Communist infection is not going to spread to the U.S. but if it should in the fullness of time spread over much of Latin America it would impair the military security of the Hemisphere and thus of the U.S."

What are fissile materials?

Discovery of fission- 1939 3 german scientists figured it out otto Hahn, fritz Strassman, and lise Meitner discover that if they bombarded uranium with neutrons the uranium would change form they realized that the uranium was splitting into smaller atoms and named the process fission. Lots of heavier atoms can fission but only a few will do so with neutrons of any energy level not very many will split easily. Fissile materials: are isotopes whose nucleaus fission after capturing a neutron of any energy level. Uranium 235 and Plutonium 239 are highly fissile materials this is why they're so important they fission very easily making them very good nuclear fuel.

What is the difference between massive retaliation and flexible response? Both terms are IDs

Eisenhower: Massive Retaliation- in the event of an attack from an opponent B, State A retaliates massively by using a force disproportionate to the attack. If the Soviet Union attacks American allies with conventional weapons the United States will respond with a massive nuclear retaliatory strike. The thought was even if the credibility was really low but the costs were so high we shouldn't do it. To work, all parties must know about the strategy the soviets need to know that we want to respond with everything and make it massive it works on the same principels of mutual assured destruction except that a minor offensive could spark it. morality and believability flaws to this strategy VS. Kennedy: decided to create a new strategy Flexible Response 3 stage plan designed to counter Soviet attack: 1st direct defense using conventional weapons to stop soviet attack 2nd deliberate escalation: nato would considered limited use of nuclear weapons 3rd and if that didn't succeed escalated to all out nuclear war on soviet union. Challenges is it ever really smart to start a limited nuclear war? Kennedy said this would be more credible then massive retaliation. used taylors idea of conventional forces and nuclear weapons and forces appropriate to situation concept really influenced JFK "intended have wider choice then humiliation or all-out war." Ability to match soviets at any level of capability shouldn't have to escalate hostilities because of lack of options.

Nikitia Khrushchev

Emerged as a leader in Soviet Union after the death of dictator Joseph Stalin. In 1956, he advocated reform and indirectly criticized Stalin and his methods. He became the Premier of the Soviet Union fron 1958 to 1974. really important during Cuban Missile Crisis. 1) Stalin has recently died; Khrushchev and Malenkov want to promote "peaceful coexistence" with the West- hellish dictators came to end and Khrushchev wanted to distance himself from Stalin détente term appeared around this time. Détente "peaceful coexistence" wanted improved superpower relations. Khrushchev champions "wars of national liberation"- speech promising communist victory. JFK saw this as threat on free world

Pivot to Asia

Events in the Middle East limited the president's planned "pivot" to Asia. The Obama administration realized that America's future would be closely tied to the Pacific Rim because within two decades the economies of Asia would soon be larger than the U.S. and Europe combined. Trump continued- Continued and strengthened obama's "pivot to asia" Additional focus was placed on the region with the Obama administration's 2012 "Pivot to East Asia" regional strategy,[2] whose key areas of actions are: "strengthening bilateral security alliances; deepening our working relationships with emerging powers, including with China; engaging with regional multilateral institutions; expanding trade and investment; forging a broad-based military presence; and advancing democracy and human rights." Though other areas of the world remained important to American foreign policy, Obama pursued a "pivot" to East Asia, focusing the U.S.'s diplomacy and trade in the region TPP was major part of this economic pillar of obama's in the pivot to asia which trump got rid of the tpp.

What were Ronald Reagan's foreign policy objectives when he took office? How did Reagan attempt to achieve those foreign policy objectives?

Evil Empire Speech- Reagan very forceful in anti-communism March 8, 1983 Harder line on soviet union increases in military budget- "Capitalism had given us a powerful weapon in our battle against Communism- money. The Russians could never win the arms race; we could outspend them forever." Communism inefficient economic system more money they have to spend on guns in soviet union instead of butter will hurt their soviet government popularity. With the second cold war and the reemergence of rollback as a policy- national security decision directive 75 (January 1983) "to contain and over time reverse soviet expansionism by competiting effectively on a sustained basis with the soviet union in all international arenas including nukes, conventional weapons, aggressive promotion human rights, overt and covert support for anti soviet resistance movement (basically to tire out and overwhelm the soviet union)

Difference between first and second strike capabilities?

First strike capability (state can attack its opponent with nuclear weapons). Nuclear superiority (advanced splendid first strike or nuclear primacy one side can take out all nukes on other side in one strike state could take out its opponenets entire arsenal in one strike). Second strike capability (ability to retaliate after you have already been hit state could retaliate after being struck by a nuclear attack from its opponent they move first now you're moving second).

Korean War- Who are the permanent members of the UN Security Council? Which members were actively participating at the start of the Korean War?

Five permament members of the UN security council 1st United States 2nd UK 3rd France 4th USSR 5th China (Taiwan). However, only three were actively participating at the start of the Korean War which was the U.S., UK, and France which meant that U.S. got the UN Security Council condemnation of the invasion. Council approves Resolution 82 and 83 (United Nations Security Council Resolution 83, adopted on June 27, 1950, determined that the attack on the Republic of Korea by forces from North Korea constituted a breach of the peace. The Council called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and for the authorities in North Korea to withdraw their armed forces to the 38th parallel.)

In broad terms, describe Gerald Ford's foreign policy goals.

Ford decides to maintain a smooth transition of power maintain continuity with Nixon administration so keeps Kissinger and Kissinger's foreign policy goal was Re-embracing realism- Kissinger wants states with different ideologies could share similar geopolitical interests (realists don't care about regime types of states involved rather care about their military capabilities and national interests) washingon does not have constant friends or enemies just constant interests. Difficult for the u.s. to simultaneously balance power in multiple regions-> let other states do some of the balancing ie buck passing (allowing other state to do balancing for you). Need to return to asymmetric response a loss in one area could be compensated for in other areas. U.s. needed to accept that conflict and disharmony are basic facets of the international order and the u.s. cannot and should not try to resolve all issues (going back with idea of American exceptionalism optimism something we keep falling into trap of doing eu leaders are generally more pessimistic about doing thigns abroad as opposed to americans who think we can change international behavior).

Nakba

From Arabic, meaning the "disaster," "catastrophe" or "cataclysm." the Palestinian Arab Exodus from Palestine/Israel in 1948 after the state of Israel had been established. Arabs were forced out of the country violently and through civil war by the newly-born Israelis Nakba- aplestinian exodus from Israel between 1947 and 1949 "catastrophe" or "cataclysm" 700k Palestinians left state of Israel and went to refugee camps primarily in west bank and gaza 80% of arab inhabitants of what became Israel "right of return"(idea of being able to return back to land they had to flee). 16% of Israel state is Arabic speakers. Also a lot of Palestinians went to Kuwait and the united states.

What is Francis Fukuyama's argument in the End of History? Do you find it persuasive? Why or why not? ID

Fukuyama says 20th century was a 3-way ideological battle: 1st fascism 2nd communism 3rd liberalism- individual rights, private ownership, democracy, free market capitalism, transnational identity (all individuals throughout the world have these inherent rights) (liberalism is the only thing that's survived everyone can agree on one ideology) "the 20th century... seems at its close to be returning full circle... to an unabashed victory of economic and political liberalism. The triumph of the west, of the western idea, is evident first of all in the total exhaustion of viable systematic alternative to western liberalism." "What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the cold war, or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such: that is the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of human development." Other challenges to liberalism? Religious fundamentalism? (not much appeal outside of the middle east Other challenger nationalism? Can come in many forms many of which are compatible with liberalism so doesn't think it's a real challenge Conflict between states in history will continue." But says "the end of history will be a very sad time." Here is going to lay out argument that if fighting is from ideologies says once get past that "the struggle for recognition, the willingness to risk one's life for a purely abstract goal, the worldwide ideological struggle that called forth daring, courage, imagination, and idealism will be replaced by economic calculation ,the endless sovling of technical problems, environmental concerns... there will be neither art nor philosophy (little hyperbole here don't take too seriously)... I can feel in myself and see in others around me a powerful nostalgia for the time when history existed perhaps this very prospect of centuries of boredom at the end of history will serve to get history started once again." Fukuyama give idea liberalism victorious and spread of democracy way to bring peace to rest of world to make them get to end of history I don't find it persuasive. some nationalism may align with liberalism but a lot of it doesn't. furthermore, communist sentiments shouldn't be considered "historical" if they are still found in contemporary times also religious fundamentalism seems to be more influential in the 21st century then Fukuyama gave credit for.

Korean War- Who was Douglas MacArthur? Describe his disagreements with President Truman. In your opinion, who was correct? ID

General who led U.S. troops in the pacific during WWII famous for saying he would return after having to leave from Japanese expansion. He now was leading the u.s. and UN military effort to expel north korea from south korea. Also came up with the Inchon campaign. Late March: MacArthur publicly criticizes Truman for offering ceasefire to Chinese Attacks across 38th parallel Truman reasserts that he's seeking a negotiated settlement April 11, Truman fires MacArthur MacArthur was trying to have higher military influence in civil-military relations which is highly problematic generally considered necessary to have supremacy in civil government to make final war decisions to make sure don't lose sight of political ambitions goals of conflict in first place prevent needless escalation and bloodshed. Need to ensure that the military's behavior aligns with the state's overarching political objectives. Belief that military leaders can be too myopic by focusing narrowly on battlefield victories. Clausewitz: "War is an extension of politics by other means." also disagreement about using nuclear weapons and whether military douglass can make that call I believe they shouldn't use nukes in korea and that douglass shouldn't be making that judgment only the President commander in chief can.

What are the Geneva Accords? What effects did they have on Vietnam? ID

Geneva Accords July 1954 (work out dynamics how vietnma, laos, and Cambodia would get independence from france decided to divide Vietnam along 17th parallel temporarily into two countries "cooling down period" before permanent solution thought have 300 day period for Vietnamese citizens to settle in their preferred region move to north or south. Scheduling of all-Vietnam elections and reunification for July 1956—as opposed to a six-month delay, which will avoid much of the crystallizing of separate southern and northern national identities- elections in both north and south Vietnam.

Henry Kissinger

Henry Kissinger was secretary of state of Nixon and Gerald ford. Controversial history. Born in Germany family jewish fled to u.s. during hitler reign. Kissinger brought European style of diplomacy like address directly enemies and blunt balance often called geopolitical or realpolitik- diplomacy based on power not ideals and u.s. background rhetoric generally idealistic. Kissinger strayed from that precedent. "spare me the sermons" less moral compass in this quote from Chile. Realism power politics not sentimental idealism many americans embraced this at the time got into a lot of trouble trying to save the world he recognized the united states limits. Kissinger's approach was refreshing for the time. during nixon administration it's really him and nixon only ones making foreign policy major influence.

Containment- · Who is George Kennan? Why was he important? Was he a Realist or a Liberal? Containment and Kennan both ID terms

George Kennan- "father of containment" "the long telegram" coined term containment. Kennan was director of policy planning staff (internal think tank in state department) in charge figuring out what should do about ussr. Very influential for setting u.s. cold war foreign policy. Long telegram was crucial for increasing tensions warning of soviet threat after wwii. Systematic and strategic thinker (able think in broad terms). He was a realist. 1950 he was ambassador Yugoslavia and USSR. Later became critic of u.s. foreign policy. Realist. Not a liberal he believes universal liberalism is naiive idealism. Less we talk about ideas more we talk about power the better". Very concerned about military power the currency of international relations. U.s. security is dependent on maintaining a balance of power in Europe he thought if anyone overran Europe be strategic threat for u.s. a European hegemon that would become very serious threat. Kennan background- graduated Princeton fought WWI served in Nazi Germany and Soviet Union diplomatically speaking German Russia fluency language why gov. reached to Kennan to make long telegram. Long telegram- February 1946 escalated tensions by recognizing there was a threat Kennan known for changing his mind looking at hard cold facts and admitting when he was wrong and being a very influential diplomat in the future decades of foreign policy.

What is Glasnost ID? What is Perestroika ID? What does it mean to renounce the Brezhnev Doctrine?

Gorbachev's five point plan- key pieces to plan 1st glasnost (openness)-greater freedom of expression- instead of relying on authoritarianism give them a voice in system come up with new solution be able to improve country glasnost 1st amendment like 2nd Perestroika (restructuring)- decentralization of the soviet economy with gradual market reforms (that can expand and grow out ie factory could make a surplus and sell it on their own sort of what china has been doing) pseudo-communist economic reform like china 3rd renunciation of the Brezhnev doctrine Brezhnev doctrine 1968 soviet union will militarily intervene whenever external and internal forces hostile to socialism try to turn the development of a given socialist country in the direction of the restoration of the capitalist system. Gorbachev said if uprising in eastern Europe soviet union isn't going to invade Glasnost- made it possible for people to more freely critizie the government's policies. Long-standing problems in soviet union publicly discussed corruption food and consumer shortages alcoholism decreasing life expectancy pollution inefficiency poor housing when people realized it was safe to speak out the calls for change became more insistent soviet union decreased censorship of the media which sparked further calls for reform because heard other people speaking out Perestroika- was based on the diea that the socialist economy could be reformed with limited market like reforms to make it better meet the demands of soviet consumers the gradual market reforms and decentralization of the economy were too slow and failed to keep pace with the crisis and his people's demands. Led to increased exposure to western goods, which increased dissatsification with soviet made goods Ending Brezhnev doctrine- released e eu states from soviet domination populations throughout eastern eu realized could protest without soviet intervention

Hamid Karzai

He became the head of the Afghanistan government in Kabul with the U.S. backing. However, Afghanistan remained unstable and divided by the Taliban insurgency and tribal conflicts. December 5, 2001: Hamid Karzai named interim leader of Afghanistan December 9 2001 the Taliban officially collapses only 12 american soldiers died so at time seemed be real victory for afghan model. Hamid Karzai had ties to the united states dating back to the 1980s we considered him more so a diplomat then a warlord with no blood on his hands relatively speaking he was also educated he also was fluent in English had 6 out of 8 brothers are in the u.s.. He has strong political credentials (relative of former afghan king father was head of powerful popalzai clan had served as deputy foreign minister before the Taliban came to power. He was Pashtun unlike most of his contemporaries Karzai was an acceptable choice to other war lords governments throughout the region he also shared America's vision for Afghanistan wanted women rights and democratic government for U.S. perception he was considered the ideal candidate to replace the Taliban. Karzai comes to u.s. congress in 2002 and April 2002: Bush pledges to rebuild and there's initial period excitement that it's going very well even in 2003 relationship Karzai and U.S. was still quite positive. 2004 hold election and Karzai wins election with 55% of the vote and then things start to go wrong the Taliban in 2001 when they were being driven out of country but a lot of them crossed into Pakistan across the border that Pakistan doesn't really have sovereignty or control over so Taliban starts regrouping across the border and 2005 2006 Afghans relaunch the insurgency Karzai's regime struggles to fight back against them able to sustain themselves by increasing opium production and start seeing this growing movement battles Bush administration frustrated with Karzai want him to crack down on Taliban more Karzai counterargument only way he can maintain political control is through patronage corruption to keep those wheels turning which doesn't create strong central state allowing for Taliban to attack

Who was Ho Chi Minh ID? Who was Ngo Dinh Diem ID?

Ho Chi Minh- born nguyen sinh cung, adopted Ho Chi Minh or he who has been enlightened around 1940. 1911-1923 lives in u.s. uk and france 1919 unsuccessfully petitions u.s. president Wilson to support Vietnamese independence from france at the Paris Peace Talks. 1923-1941 lives in Russia, china, and hong kong collaborated with u.s. government during wwii (because common enemy Japanese). OSS document "whatever else he was, Ho was a leader and organizer par excellence, an astute manipulator of men" (u.s. compliments him during WWII). Ngo Dinh Diem- 1955 wins heavily rigged referendum over bao dai and assumes presidency staunchly anti-communist popular with the u.s. increasingly autocratic ruler suppresses opposition in Saigon arrests thousands of communist sympathizers (kind of like sygman rhee in south korea) he is also catholic in a predominately Buddhist country relies heavily on family support didn't have big party he's representing brother: Ngo Dinh Nhu and sister in law Madame Nhu (she kind of serves role of first lady) tight innercircle. Cancels 1956 elections to reunite country with u.s. support. 1955 basically saying no one else is better then Diem "today U.S. must support Diem wholeheartedly" primary Eisenhower policy goal to stabilize diem's government and gain support in the south large scale aid program to south Vietnam

What were Jimmy Carter's foreign policy objectives when he took office?

Humanitarian vision: (pardoned all Vietnam war draft dodgers in his 2nd day in office, improved u.s. human rights record, minimize relations with dictators, reduce u.s. military presence abroad, unilaterally remove u.s. nuclear weapons from south korea, cut back arms sales, activist diplomacy in third world). wanted to continue detente wanted drastically reduce arms race firm commitment towards human rights.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- In your opinion, do you think it's likely that Iran and the U.S. will reach a new nuclear deal?

I don't it's likely but it's certainly possible the main issue is that Iran wants to change the terms which I'm not sure Biden's administration was willing to do. Also the new Iranian leader is more hardline making negotiations more challenging then they already were. We are also in the dog house a bit where other UN members are making the deal directly with Iran while we are coordinating through their diplomats to Iran making the whole thing way more complicated then it previously was.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- What is Maximum Pressure

If we have given up our leverage by leaving the deal trump's alternative was "maximum pressure" on Iranian regime reinstituting and escalating economic snactions on Iran bar u.s. companies from trading with iran and foreign firms that do business with iran (make businesses pick or choose want to do business in iran or with largest economy in the world u.s.) incrementally adding additional santions (many new sanctions not formally tied to nuclear program but in response to Iranian actiosn in the region or human rights abuses the idea being it would be more challenging for future president to take off. Maximum pressure seems to work it has been hurting their economy What's Trump's goal? Choke off revenues to the regime that it uses to fund regional proxies 2nd cripple the Iranian economy until iran is forced to make greater concessions (Trump claimed he could get a better deal out of iran we would have even more leverage on them so iran would have to give in) 3rd some argue it might be motivated by goal to have regime change? Some argue could be pathway for bringing Iranian gov out of power.

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? Many American presidents have supported a "Two State Solution" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Historically, what have been some of the key impediments to reaching a Two State Solution? two state solution ID

Impediments (Israeli settlements, Palestinian security, right to return of Palestinian refugees (families that left in 1947 48 do they get integrated as Israeli citizens), question of Jerusalem, water, aid, political divisions between the Palestinians (fatah vs hamas vs Marxist vs islamist groups) today many on the Israeli right are pushing for Israel to unilaterally annex territory within the west bank. Israeli settlements- Israel took setllers out of gaza strip. Some settlements in cabins not sanctioned by state of Israel but also have some more recognized, affluent, more infrastructure of this settlements in west bank. Allocation of mountain aquifer water: 87% Israeli vs. 13% Palestinian.

Iranian Hostage Crisis ID

In 1979, Iranian fundamentalists seized the American embassy in Tehran and held fifty-two American diplomats hostage for over a year. The Iranian hostage crisis weaked the Carter presidency; the hostages were finally released on January 20, 1981, the day Ronald Reagan became president. Iranian revolution and hostage crisis (Shah acted as dictator a lot of resentment in Iran against his regime February 1979 shah left the country after protest and doesn't return. Khomeini had been living in exile in Paris comes back and takes over assumes power in Iran. Shah was part of u.s. key strategy of containment in the 1950s so big blow. Take 52 hostages so long negotiations try to secure releases of hostages),

Afghanistan and the War on Terror-Describe the deal that the Trump administration made with the Taliban in February 2020.

Included in the deal is the phased reduction of United States and coalition troops stationed in Afghanistan, a mutual prisoner swap between the United States and the Taliban, a commitment on the part of the Taliban to cease being a safe haven of terrorist activities against the West, and the expectation that the Taliban will soon begin to engage in further peace negotiations and cooperate with the Afghan civilian government of Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. However, that last element of the deal—the assumption that the Taliban and Ghani's government will be able to successfully engage in productive negotiation—brings to focus the crux of Afghan's political reality, and highlights the naïvité of the deal's scope and goals. the deal is really a formalized roadmap for ending the US presence in Afghanistan, shifting responsibility for further peace negotiations to the Taliban and the civilian government. The move is based more on false optimism than a true understanding of the power dynamic within Afghanistan. It is unclear what future Taliban-government cooperation would even look like; the deal does not, for example, make any specific demands of the Taliban or the Afghan government regarding the rights of Afghan women, an issue which has been of central concern due to the Taliban's record of extremely harsh treatment of women and girls. February 2020 trump agress for a full withdraw by may of 2021 an issue he or his successor would have to confront Taliban agreed would not attack u.s. at this time. U.s. public opinion was split on withdrawal.

Linkages ID

Institutions allow for "issue linkages" (UN everyone can go to the UN have established norms and values). one of five components of detente linkages/ behavior modification. attempts to modify soviet behavior would not succeed if the u.s. approached each issue independently Kissinger :great issues are fundamentally interrelated." Stop approaching everything bilaterally-> need deep cross-issue negotiations to achieve significant cooperation asymmetric response. Linkages with different issues tool of crisis management bargaining chip moscow's priorities wanted gain advantage over u.s. nuclear arsenal decrease u.s. trade barriers to allow western food and technology in country wanted recognition of soviet sphere of influence in e eu advance soviet interests in the third world .washingtons priorities negotitionated Vietnam settlement acknowledgment western berlin strategic arms agreement limiting soviet buildup management of crises in the third world (need to have some back and forth linkages of multiple interests)

ICBM

Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, long-range nuclear missiles capable of being fired at targets on the other side of the globe. part of second leg of nuclear triad the land based missiles.

· What is the difference between internal and external balancing?

Internal balancing- everything you can do inside of your own state to make you more powerful build up your military, developing nuclear weapons, conscription, war planning etc. building up the military power of one's own state. External balancing- forming alliances with other states in order to join military forces against a common threat.

IAEA

International Atomic Energy Agency; responsible for monitoring global nuclear activities. IAEA inspects NPT member states' (signatories not grandfathered it) nuclear programs to determine whether they are designed for nuclear energy or nuclear weapons. UN Watchdog. That non-nuclear states would agree to not get nuclear weapons and be subject to inspections. Any of the state that don't currently have weapons and sign it agree to never have nuclear weapons for ever but can enjoy peaceful nuclear energy. Can develop civilian nuclear energy but problem hard tell difference between energy and weapons up to 20% centrifuge use is peaceful and 80% or more used for nuclear weapons. International atomic energy agency(UN Watchdog) inspectors can come into country to make sure only making nuclear energy not weapons. Iran signed this

Humanitarian Interventions- In broad terms, describe the U.S. intervention in Somalia. ID Intervention in Somalia

Intervention in Somalia occurred 1992-1995 initiated by H.W. Bush but sought out under Clinton. Somalia- background rival warlords fight for power in the south Mohammad Farad Aidid vs. Ali Mahdi (two particularly powerful warlords in the southern part country). War led to famine 300,000 civilians killed with warlords confiscating food and closing off roads. Warlords interdict 80% of foreign food aid sent for civilians (warlords take aid for themselves using it to consolidate power giving it to people who supported them or using it to sell to purchase weapons) UN response- 675 million in humanitarian aid to Somalia in 1992 authorized "all necessary means" to create safe environment for aid delivery. H.W. Bush authorizes 28k u.s. troops also special operation groups deployed solely dedicated to capturing war lords. U.S. does intervene 1992. so basically two military efforts one to capture warlords (which was more problematic/ discrete) and second to protect the humanitarian food aid supplies being given to Somalians. Blackhawk down- Mogadishu (October 1993) Special operations intervention to capture aided warlord goes awry. Two black hawk helicopters get downed over Mogadishu firefight occurs and 18 u.s. army rangers are killed and when this happens the bodies are dragged through the streets and some Americans are taken hostage. U.s. starts drawing down number of troops in Somalia decides time to come home. Consequences of Somalia- Clinton took big hit for this americans being dragged through streets like that not good PDD-25: The Clinton Administration's Policy on Reforming Multilateral Peace Operations (1994) more rigorous standards for u.s. support for u.n interventions 7 factors for u.s. to support u.n. intervention without u.s. soldiers 6 additional factors if u.s. were to participate 3 final factors if u.s. soldiers were expected to engage in combat reduce u.s. costs in un peacekeeping operations from 31.7% to 25% by January 1996. President also promises will never relinquish control on u.s. troops during un missions.

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- What have been the consequences of the Iraq War on the broader Middle East? Which Middle Eastern countries have benefitted or been hurt as a result of the war?

Iran benefitted considering that it's mostly Shiite and been trying for a long time to make Iraq shiite and since Saddam's sunni minority regime has been destroyed and defeated by the United States and nation building has led to shiite governments that is favorable to Iran. Saddam Hussein was Iran's greatest regional enemy, and the two sides fought a bitter 8-year war in the 1980s. But Saddam's Sunni-dominated regime was now replaced with Shiite Islamists who enjoyed close links with the regime in Shiite Iran. Iran is today the most powerful foreign actor in Iraq, with extensive trade and intelligence network in the country (though strongly opposed by the Sunni minority). Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, etc. were not happy with this turn of events where Shiite influence in the middle east has grown. While the Kurds don't have their own state they have benefitted by having the hussein regime that committed genocide on them removed and the new shiite iraqi government giving them relatively more autonomy.

Mohammad Mossadegh ID

Iranian nationalist leader; established a state owned company created to take control of Anglo-Iranian assets, he was anti-British and was a nationalist. When he went to world market, he couldn't sell any of the oil. There was a worldwide boy cot on Iranian oil. Eventually fled when US stepped in, kicked out to contain communism. a) Mossadegh nationalizes the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, breaks diplomatic relations with the British, and forces the Shah to flee Teheran b) The Eisenhower administration, viewing Mossadegh's movement as communist-inspired, inaugurates Operation AJAX- Eisenhower publicly said indifference but was anti mossadegh though he was communist. British in weird spot of wanting control over Iran but wanted maintain monopoly but needed u.s. help. c) After a few minor glitches, a CIA-orchestrated demonstration drives Mossadegh from office and restores the Shah to power- 1953 uses CIA money at least five million dollar to hire mob to throw down mossadegh. Important to note mossadegh was a nationalist not communist not crazy just eccentric (frequently weeped in public but in Iran entirely culturally acceptable even admirable but u.s. ideas of masculinity really different perspective). Truman saw mossadegh as eccentric nationalist somewhat charmed by him Eisenhower saw him as tool of Moscow.

Saddam Hussein ID

Iraq next door led by saddam Hussein largely secular sunni leader but Iraq has 3 major ethnic groups sunni 30% kurds 20% more then half population is Shiia very brutal human rights offender authoritarian ruler of Iraq who was killed during the second persian gulf war. he invaded kuwait which started the first persian gulf war. Saddam formally took power in 1979, although he had already been the de facto head of Iraq for several years. He suppressed several movements, particularly Shi'a and Kurdish movements which sought to overthrow the government or gain independence, respectively,[11] and maintained power during the Iran-Iraq War and the Gulf War. Saddam's rule was a repressive dictatorship[12] notorious for its severe human rights abuses. The total number of Iraqis killed by the security services of Saddam's government in various purges and genocides is conservatively estimated to be 250,000.[13] Saddam's invasions of Iran and Kuwait also resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. In 2003, a coalition led by the United States invaded Iraq to depose Saddam. 2006 dead

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? Who are the Israeli settlers and why are they controversial?

Israeli settlements- Israel took setllers out of gaza strip. Some settlements in cabins not sanctioned by state of Israel but also have some more recognized, affluent, more infrastructure of this settlements in west bank. West Bank- population 3 million 430k Israeli settles in west bank and 220k settlers in east jersualem led by Palestinian national authority. are civilian communities inhabited by Israeli citizens, almost exclusively of Jewish ethnicity,[4][5] built in violation of international law on lands occupied by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.[6] Israeli settlements currently exist in the Palestinian territory of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and in the Syrian territory of the Golan Heights. East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been annexed by Israel, so residents are treated equivalently to the rest of Israel under Israeli law. Although the West Bank settlements are on land administered under Israeli military rule rather than civil law, Israeli civil law is "pipelined" into the settlements, such that Israeli citizens living there are treated similarly to those living in Israel.

What is the Rapid Deployment Force? ID

It was first envisioned as a three-division force in 1979 as the Rapid Deployment Force, or RDF, a highly mobile force that could be rapidly moved to locations outside the normal overseas deployments in Europe and Korea. Its charter was expanded and greatly strengthened in 1980 as the RDJTF. It was inactivated in 1983, and re-organized as the United States Central Command (USCENTCOM). The aim of the RDJTF was that of deterrence - against possible Soviet or proxy invasion, conflict among the states of the area and subversion and insurrection within the states and thus "help maintain regional stability and the Gulf oil-flow westward". [note 6] The RDJTF was designed to be flexible - it was not designed to have specific forces but to draw in times of crisis from a central pool of resources depending on the nature of the threat, geographical location and time available for deployment

Humanitarian Interventions- What do you think about Valentino's argument in "The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention: The Hard Truth about a Noble Notion?" Humanitarian Interventions- What are some of the potential risks of humanitarian interventions? When are humanitarian interventions more likely to succeed?

It's a strong argument Although humanitarian intervention has undoubtedly saved lives, Americans have seriously underappreciated the moral, political, and economic price involved. This does not mean that the United States should stop trying to promote its values abroad, even when its national security is not at risk. It just needs a different strategy. Washington should replace its focus on military intervention with a humanitarian foreign policy centered on saving lives by funding public health programs in the developing world, aiding victims of natural disasters, and assisting refugees fleeing violent conflict. Humanitarian Intervention Arguments For- moral imperative, international law/ humanitarian norms (things we have signed says we should do that to uphold those things in general should do it), powerful states can often stop mass killing quickly, might have deterrent effect for future conflicts Arguments Against- in many conflicts, protecting civilians means empowering other armed factions (not black and white who to help so stopping one side is promoting the other), the unavoidable costs of military interventions (u.s. to protect our troops we would kill a lot of civilians in the process we use a lot of aerial shooting to defend our soldiers so destructive tactics), makes victims viewed as powerful and traitorous enemies to the government, moral hazard problems, opportunity costs Abandoning humanitarian intervention in most cases would not mean leaving victims of genocide and repression to their fate. Indeed, such a strategy could actually save far more people, at a far lower price. To begin with, aiding defenseless civilians has usually meant empowering armed factions claiming to represent these victims, groups that are frequently responsible for major human rights abuses of their own. Although advocates of humanitarian intervention in the 1990s frequently compared the atrocities of that period to the Holocaust, the moral calculus of intervening in these conflicts was inevitably more problematic. The Tutsi victims of Hutu genocidaires in Rwanda and the Bosnian Muslim and Kosovar Albanian victims of Serbian paramilitaries in the former Yugoslavia were just as innocent as the Jewish victims of the Nazis during World War II. But the choice to aid these groups also entailed supporting the less than upstanding armed factions on their side. Another set of moral costs stems not from the unsavory behavior of the groups being protected but from the unavoidable consequences of military intervention. Even if the ends of such actions could be unambiguously humanitarian, the means never are. Using force to save lives usually involves taking lives, including innocent ones. The most advanced precision-guided weapons still have not eliminated collateral damage altogether. Many Americans remember the 18 U.S. soldiers who died in Somalia in 1993 in the "Black Hawk down" incident. Far fewer know that U.S. and UN troops killed at least 500 Somalis on that day and as many as 1,500 during the rest of the mission more than half of them women and children. Although military interventions are calculated to increase the costs of human rights abuses for those who commit them, perhaps interventions' most perverse consequence has been the way they have sometimes actually done the opposite. If perpetrators simply blame the victims for the setbacks and suffering inflicted by the intervention, the incentives to retaliate against victim groups, and possibly even popular support for such retaliation, may rise. The United States' humanitarian interventions have won the country few new friends and worsened its relations with several powerful nations. The United States' long-term security depends on good relations with China and Russia, perhaps more than any other countries, but U.S.-sponsored interventions have led to increasing distrust between Washington and these nations. A less tangible political cost of these interventions has been their corrosive effect on the authority of international organizations such as the UN. opportunity costs humanitarian intervention expensive. These costs are considerable, since military intervention is a particularly expensive way to save lives. Each of the more than 220 Tomahawk missiles fired by the U.S. military into Libya, for example, cost around $1.4 million. In Somalia, a country of about 8.5 million people, the final bill for the U.S. intervention totaled more than $7 billion. Scholars have estimated that the military mission there probably saved between 10,000 and 25,000 lives. To put it in the crudest possible terms, this meant that Washington spent between $280,000 and $700,000 for each Somali it spared. in many conflicts, protecting civilians means empowering other armed factions (not black and white who to help so stopping one side is promoting the other), the unavoidable costs of military interventions (u.s. to protect our troops we would kill a lot of civilians in the process we use a lot of aerial shooting to defend our soldiers so destructive tactics), makes victims viewed as powerful and traitorous enemies to the government, moral hazard problems, opportunity costs Argument proposes three other strategies that would be more effective then humanitarian intervention- Three strategies offer the prospect of helping more people with a much lower moral, political, and economic cost: investing in international public health initiatives, sending relief aid to victims of natural disasters and famines, and assisting refugees fleeing violent conflict. Millions more lives could be saved if the billions of dollars spent on humanitarian interventions were instead spent on these efforts. when could be more successful? when humanitarian intervention helps promote things like assisting refugees fleeing violent conflict ie Such was the case in Rwanda, where Hutu genocidaires set up roadblocks to prevent Tutsis from crossing into Burundi, Congo, Tanzania, and Uganda. In cases like these, the use of limited military force may make sense. In Rwanda, a relatively small military intervention, perhaps with airpower alone, could have destroyed roadblocks and secured key escape routes, helping tens of thousands reach safety. By one estimate, this strategy might have saved 75,000 lives. The millions of easily preventable deaths that still occur every year are evidence that much more is needed (need put more money into tropical diseases, health concerns, AIDS, natural disasters, etc.) a foreign policy based on them would not mean simply standing by in the face of atrocity and injustice. Indeed, efforts such as helping refugees could save thousands of lives even when a major military intervention is out of the question. Equally important, these strategies would do much to allow Americans to wholeheartedly embrace a less militarized foreign policy, restoring the United States' image as a force for good in the world and providing Americans with an alternative perspective on the use of force, something that has been absent from U.S. foreign policy debates. U.S. foreign policy has always sought to promote the values of its citizens, as well as protect their material and security interests abroad. The country should not abandon that noble impulse now. It simply needs a better way to act on it.

Iranian Nuclear Deal/ JCPOA

JCPOA- Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action April-july 2015: U.S. - iran negotiations- 17 days of nonstop negotiation finally a deal is made july 14th 2015 joint comprehensive plan of action signed what we call the Iran Nuclear Deal- The actual deal what it contains- Iran gives up most of its centrifuges (about 2/3 of them). Iran agrees not to use its more advanced centrifuges for at least 10 years (make it harder for them to enrich) iran agrees to rebuild one of its nuclear plants (Arak heavy reactors) so that it cannot product weapon's grade plutonium. Agree to no new reactors for 15 years. Spent fuel sent from country. Iran is only allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% (at the levels for nuclear energy way below the levels you need for nuclear weapons) only allowed to have 202kg limit on total uranium iran agrees to give up 98% of its stockpile of uranium. Iran agrees to give IAEA inspectors immediate access to nuclear sites and 24 days access to any other site that IAEA demands (ie if make another new site in 24 days iran has to let them in there). Some provisions last 10 years, some as much as 25. In exchange, the economic sanctions are lifted on iran. We also unfroze some bank accounts from 1979 iranian hostage crisis. Controversy surrounding the deal Critics (many republicans, Israel, Saudi arabia, some democrats, influential lobbying groups)- 1st the deal did not go far enough (iran continues to be allowed to have some centrifigues there are clauses that aren't going to last forever think iran needs be fully disarmed since big threat 2nd sunset clauses too problematic (the fact this deal doesn't last forever) 3rd deal only focused on nuclear program the deal should've been more extensive in addressing iran aggressive behavior in region (has been helping rebels, terrorists in other countries made deal to deal with these deeper problems) 4th only a military solution will work on a state like Iran (can't trust them to uphold deal) 5th encourage iran's regional rivals will go nuclear as well because the deal was so weak. 6th by lifting the economic sanctions and unfreezing bank accounts we gave money to an aggressive and untrustworthy state (idea this was strengthening iran really hurting our ally Israel) Supporters (many democrats, many academics, our European allies)- 1st we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good (yes it would be awesome to have perfect deal but iran has leverage as well we have to concede something be realistic it's hard enough to reach any deal and we did reach one so we should support it) 2nd significantly increases iran's breakout time for developing a nuclear weapon 3rd inspections arrangement makes secret enrichment unlikely yes there is this 24 day thing could deny inspections but our inspection regime covers every step of process mining it, enriching it, storing it and with all these places of oversight it would be really hard for iran to secretely enrich uranium. 4th if u.s. unilaterally rejects agreement our allies/ Russia/ china will not maintain sanctions (it was amazing we got all of them to agree to deal probably difficult to get them to rescind it). 5th rejecting deal would complicate arms control efforts elsewhere (want other states to feel like they can negotiate work with the u.s. to make arms deals) 6th critics are blinded by magical thinking (critics always want a deal where iran gives up everything but they don't really have a viable plan to do it too difficult to destroy nuclear sites with bombs difficult get them not care about region) 7th could pave way for future cooperation with Iran (ie in Syria dealing with isis and maybe some of those regional conflicts we can resolve tensions). When deal made only 1/3 americans supported Trump administration- strongly condemned the deal- "My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran secretary defense james mattis in favor of it "an imperfect arms control agreement it's not a freidnship treaty when America gives her word needs to keep it." Trump got rid of it and Biden's administration hasn't had successful negotiations to reinstate the deal.

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- What is the Free Syrian Army? ID

Janurary-July 2011 protests in Syria began (anti-authoritarian anti-assad protests) July 2011 government escalates crackdown on opposition opposition forces begin to militiarize free Syrian army founded. in 2015 idlib free Syrian army capture regions in south along Jordanian border. The Free Syrian Army is a loose faction in the Syrian Civil War founded on 29 July 2011[18] by officers of the Syrian Armed Forces whose goal is to bring down the government of Bashar al-Assad.[17][18][19] A formal organization at its founding, its structure gradually dissipated by late 2012, and the FSA identity has since been used by various opposition groups. In late 2011, it was considered the main Syrian military defectors group.[24][25] It had success against vastly better armed government forces. From July 2012 onward, ill-discipline, infighting and lack of funding weakened the FSA, while Islamist groups became dominant within the armed opposition.[26][27] The Free Syrian Army aims to be "the military wing of the Syrian people's opposition to the regime",[1] and it aims to bring down the government by armed operations, encouraging army defections and by carrying out armed action.[28] As the Syrian Army is highly organized and well-armed, the Free Syrian Army adopted guerrilla-style tactics in the countryside and cities. The FSA's military strategy is focused on a dispersed countrywide guerrilla campaign with a tactical focus on armed action in the capital of Damascus. September 2011 organized rebel militias were regularly engaging in combat with government troops in cities around Syria. The Free Syrian Army, a rebel umbrella group formed by defectors from the Syrian army in July, claimed leadership over the armed opposition fighting in Syria, but its authority was largely unrecognized by the local militias. Late 2011 and early 2012 saw a series of ill-fated efforts by international organizations to bring the conflict to an end.

· What is the Kantian Triangle? ID

Kantian triangle is combination of international organizations, democracy, and economic interdepdence all three together collectively foster cooperation/ peace. part of the collaboratory factors that liberalism uses to explain how peace comes from states with these shared institutions and ideologies.

Origins Cold War- · What is the "long telegram" and why was it important? ID

Kennan "Long Telegram"- 8,000 word telegram sent to the state department on February 22, 1946. Kennan was assigned in Moscow soviet expert analyzing these states after war he was key person who had been in soviet union who was trying make sense of what to make of the soviets. Kennan lays out idea of soviets being aggressive "USSR still lives in antagonistic capiatliast encirclement with which in the long run there can be no permanent peaceful coexistence... at bottom of kremlin's neurotic view of world affairs is traditional and instinctive Russian sense of insecurity... it was no coincidence that Marxism caught hold and blazed for first time in Russia. Only in this land which had never known a friendly neighbor or indeed any toleratn equilibrium." He was really amplifying this threat "governments willing lend themselves to Soviet purposes in one degree or another" China, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia etc. all these communist states are going to work together so he advocates we need to work together in a response to the soviet threat. . Kennan was director of policy planning staff (internal think tank in state department) in charge figuring out what should do about ussr. Very influential for setting u.s. cold war foreign policy. Long telegram was crucial for increasing tensions warning of soviet threat after wwii.

Containment- · According to Kennan, what are the five centers of industrial/military power in the world? Why did he think these centers were important? ID Kennan's 5 Centers of Industrial Power

Kennan made this in 1948 so at this time China undergoing Civil War and wasn't really considered one of five centers of power and WWII mindsets still pervasive. only five places that really can constitute a influential player in international system/ a threat. 1st United States 2nd United Kingdom (more powerful in 1940s when saying this) 3rd Germany and Central Europe 4th Soviet Union 5th Japan. What would happen if the Soviet Union took over another center of power?- March 1948 National Security Memorandum "between the united states and the ussr there are in Europe and Asia areas of great potential power, which if added" If soviet union able to take over one of these regions/ groups of 5 centers they would be come a real regional hegemon.

Nixon- Why did Nixon decide to pursue closer relations with China?

Kissinger sees all this so sees huge diverging interests between ussr and china advoacated taking advantage of sino-soviet split drive a wedge between the soviet union and china considered it "triangular diplomacy" use better relationship with china as leverage in Vietnam war. Also because there was idea of five great powers the one different from Kennan's one was that China was included and U.S. realized if had better relations with China soviet union would be really isolated and major powers would have dominate influence over ussr.

· In your opinion, why did Johnson escalate in Vietnam?

LBJ had serious doubts thought unwinnable situation also had important great society domestic ambitions priority. International level explanations: domino theory (thought if lose Vietnam lose southeast asia could lose south asia as well make all asia communist shifting balance of power) also perimeter defense style containment demonstrate credibility of u.s. commitments thought all of our threats were interconnected more important strategic places make allies question our commitment and incentive communist ambitious expansion. One challenge facing security oriented international level explanations many realists objected to Vietnam war didn't think it was a threat Vietnam in and of itself State level explanations- James Thomson: How could Vietnam happen?- u.s. didn't really have robust marketplace of ideas to determine if should go into Vietnam or not inertia, sunk costs, and a curator mentality (u.s. been involved in Vietnam since 1949 have people in state department who it's just their job and it's one of our major commitmetns u.s. government lacked expertise on Vietnam and china really wasn't robust Vietnamese language or chiense language experts who didn't really understand situation also shadow of the "loss of china" thought if lose Vietnam would have same effect LBJ thought would be labeled "communist appeasers". "domestication of dissenters" were people who were skeptical of escalation in Vietnam but they were domesticated didn't try to escpae the system just tried work with status quo rubric didn't really do anything to change the overall policy. "effectiveness trap" policymakers thought if going be relevant to Vietnam shaping policy had to buy into that existing rubric in order to be an effective policymaker had to continue make that policy going could lose the war but could lose all your political factor wouldn't be able to shape actual policy. Bureaucratic detachment from policies able adovate this continued expansion to war because didn't see the costs of it. Individual- level explanations: Fredrik Logevall: choosing war- LBJ decided escalate his psychology as a leader tendency to personalize all issues. Intolerance of dissent. Machismo quintessential texas cowboy type thought there were weak and strong men strong men were the doers tough never refused to back down. Lack of Intellectual flexibility compared to JFK (Kennedy might not have wanted get into war change his mind while Johnson didn't handle things same JFK ivy league debates back and forth Johnson more of brute force sort of way). Johnson didn't have foreign policy experience and dind't have ability to push back to policymakers in debate same way kennedy did.

Who is Mikhail Gorbachev? ID

Last Soviet leader who met with U.S. president Ronald Reagan.Mikhail Gorbachev 1985 general secretary of the communist party of the soviet union new generation of soviet leadership (54 years old) he said "we can't go on living like this. The very system was dying away." new generation that seemed more willing to work with Reagan on reducing tensions which was why Reagan in his second term rapidly transitioned away from "evil empire" to something more diplomatically constructive.

What was operation Linebacker (I and II)? Why did it succeed? ID

Linebacker I- May 8-october 23 1972 different kind bombing attack u.s. strategic air interdiction campgin designed to halt north Vietnamese advances during the Easter Campaign (north Vietnamese coming in with conventional forces tanks trucks and unlike previous bombing campaigns linebacker I is successful against conventional forces conventional forces more clear targets reason likely more successful. North Vietnamese import capacity decreased by 80%. Aid from china reduced from 160k to 30k tons per month operation successful because it targeted conventional forces as opposed to guerilal forces of previous campaign and at this point October 22, 1972 north Vietnam agrees to a ceasefire. Linebacker II- after initial peace negotiatiosn fail u.s. laucnes a second round of airtstrikes also known as Christmas bombings December 18-30 1972 similar campaign going after conventional forces and again this one is successful coerces Hanoi to agree to peace negotiations. Succeeded because bombing more conventional forces easier to target.

Korean War- · Why did North Korea invade South Korea in 1950?

March 1949: Kim first approaches Stalin for support 🡪 EVENTUALLY APPROVES June 25, 1950: North Korea Invades Why invade in 1950 instead of 1949 because got approval from Soviet Union to do it. Wanted unification north korea did. Also 1) The communists are encouraged by Truman's "Europe-first" strategy and neglect of South Korea. Soviets didn't think u.s. would come defend south korea because u.s. had withdrawn troops Truman withheld substantial military aid.

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- According to Mearsheimer, why was the Ukraine crisis the West's fault? Do you find Mearsheimer's argument persuasive? Why or why not? 3 major things we did

Mearsheimer west was in fault leading to conditions that led Russia to act this way 3 major things we had done that was unnecessarily provocative 1st nato enlargement (we reneged on our deals that we made in 1990 we had multiple roudns of expansion and talked about having Georgia and Ukraine join direct threat to Russia many realists rejected to nato enlargement as well like Kennan) 2nd EU Eastward Expansion (in 2008 EU had plan to integrate Ukraine and other economies into the eu instead of a more Russian economic union) 3rd western backing for pro-democracy movements was unnecessarily provactive u.s. gave a lot of aid to Ukraine about 5 billion aid a lot of which went to democratic institution infrastructures we were just trying to create a democracy Russia says trying to get pro-american leaders to win elections more about getting u.s. leaders in power. Mearsheimer we shouldn't be surprised that Russia had invaded.

George W. Bush Administration- What does it mean to pursue military primacy?

Military primacy and unilateral action- primacy routed on idea of efficacy of military power u.s. strongest military idea that primacy is really effective we will not hesitate to act alone not want to act unilaterally but we will if we can't get international support (burdensharing and legitimacy. Burdensharing (we don't need to work with other countries because we are so powerful and they don't bring that much to the table. Legitimacy- skeptical that multilateral agreements bring more legitimacy)

Korean War- · Briefly describe Soviet and American actions in North and South Korea between 1945 and 1950. Who are Kim Il-Sung and Syngman Rhee?

Moscow Conference: USSR & USA promise to grant reunification and independence after 5-year trusteeship. 1948: U.S. decides to hold elections under U.N. auspices to create independent Korea Soviet Union and Korean communists refuse to participate 🡪 boycott in the North Widespread fraud & violence August 15, 1948: South Korea (Republic of Korea - ROK) declared Syngman Rhee as President U.S. provides economic aid September 9, 1948: North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea - DPRK) declared Kim Il-Sung as leader Soviets provide significant economic and military aid. 1948: Soviets withdraw 1949: Americans withdraw The United States and the Soviet Union eject the Japanese from Korea in 1945, divide the peninsula at the 38th Parallel. 1) Kim Il-sung heads the communist People's Democratic Republic of Korea in the North- totalitarian regime 2) Syngman Rhee heads the anti-communist Republic of Korea (ROK) in the South (older, very academic (was actually a student of teacher Woodrow Wilson). Wasn't democratic but less brutal. Civil war rages in Korea from 1945 to 1950—long before America's "Korean War"

MIRV ID

Multiple Indepentely Targetable Reentry Vehicle. Nuclear warheads that sit atop a variety of missiles in the US. inventory, and can hit multiple targets simultaneously. developed MRV (multiple reentry vehicles have more then one warhead on each missile and can detach) more sophistaceted MIRV multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles (MIRV each warhead on it could target on a different city can break off from same missile and target different things).

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? What is Trump's criticism regarding free trade?

NAFTA, China, and Japan- world treating us without respect we do't have free trade talking about china currency making unfair trade. Other countries have protectionist policies so shouldn't lie to ourselves that there is free trade disadvantages us in markets.

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- What are some of the main sources of disagreement between Russia and the United States in the post-Cold War era?

NATO Enlargement, Iraq War, Interfering in U.S. Elections, Human Rights concerns in Russia, Russia objects to U.S. leaving the ABM treaty- bush admin had plan to put anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and Germany to deal with Iran but Russia/Putin upset because close to Russia could shoot down their missiles. U.S. democracy promotions in color revolutions and in Ukraine later are considered western encroachments by Russia since a lot of the non-democratic governments have stronger allegiances to Russia. U.S. Russia disagree over Russias choice to invade in Crimea. U.S. also disapproves of Russia assassination attempts on Ukraine leader candidate.

Korean War- · Under what conditions would Truman authorize operations north of the 38th parallel?

NSC 81/1: Truman authorizes MacArthur to attack above the 38th parallel: "at such time of such operation there was no entry into North Korea by major Soviet or Chinese Communist forces, no announcements of intended entry, nor a threat to counter our operations militarily..." allow rollback into north korea if there was no indication that the chinese or soviets would interfere. Problematic because there were signs that China was going to interfere that Douglass ultimately ignored made a very bloody miscalculation. Chinese warnings go unheeded;

Rollback: What was NSC-68? How did it influence U.S. national security strategy? In your opinion, was NSC-68 justified by the Soviet threat at the time?

NSC-68 April 7, 1950 United States objecives and Programs for national security (moved u.s. policy away from containment defensive to a more aggressive policy). NSC-68 Rhetorical Tone- written in very hardline stance more romantic terms not as measured and cold hearted as most documents. Using buzz words. Rhetorically captures the red scare fears of the time. Perception of the threat- Kennan viewed USSR as overextended and its intentions as limited (opportunistic power that won't willy nilly expand on a dime) but NSC-68 in contrast saw USSR as rising (with atomic bomb and loss of china) and argued that intentions change with power and with rising power comes more aggressive soviet intentions. Soviets are spending more gdp percentage on their military than U.S. (ignoring the fact that the U.S. GDP is much larger than the Soviet GDP so soviets were spending a larger piece of a small pie u.s. gdp was four times larger). NSC-68 Policies- move from strongpoint to perimeter defense (now idea to keep soviets from expanding everywhere china wasn't on Kenan's five central powers list and we lost it can't lose stuff like that again). Shift from asymmetric response using a variety of foreign policy tools (economic, military, and political) to a primarily military response Dramatically increase size of conventional military forces. Increase defense budget. Build hydrogen bomb (a lot bigger). I don't like it- very political rhetoric to justify the aggressive policy as opposed to the more factual emotionless statements in most memos. very flawed it assumed the worst when in reality soviets weren't that aggressive right away determined by hypothetical moves not actual diplomatic logistics. Approach to put out fires across world becoming u.s. imperial overstretch. No clear indication that large soviet defense would change in 1950 u.s. allies must stronger more nukes more gdp wealth.

What was Operation Cyclone? In your opinion, was it a long term success? ID

Proxy Wars: Afghanistan- 1979-1989 operation cyclone (covert operation carter started that Reagan expanded) u.s. provides from than 6.6 billion (2018 dollars) in arms aid to afghan mujahideen to overthrow soviet backed government including stinger anti-aircraft missiles. Soviets forced to commit over 120k soldiers to afghanistan and lose around 15,000 soldiers spending 5 billion dollars per year by the end of the 1980s soviet union's Vietnam. 850,000-1.5 million afghan civilians killed 5 million refuggees 1989 soviet union withdraws from afghanistan. Yes it was a long term success doing to soviets what they did to us in vietnam give taste of their own medicine and learn from our past mistakes.

Describe- Neo-isolationism I.D.

Neo-isolationism- generally called restraint today. Minimal defensive realism (realists disagree of what's threatening and what needs be balanced in power comes to different conclusion about how to balance powers) think u.s. is remarkably safe country strong conventional and nuclear military have atlantic and pacific and weak neighboring countries and realized were not really that threatened and when we do get involved we often get entangled in affairs of other states so neo-isolationism aims at avoiding u.s. entanglement in the affairs of others. Sees US role as offshore balancer. Defends Status-quo don't need to remake the world order in our favor we should just maintain our domestic safety. Has narrow conception of u.s. interests (objective of foreign policy is to keep the u.s. safe stay away from entanglements) 1st Policy prescriptions- the military should only be used in self-defense. Don't care much about nuclear proliferation (if north korea iran Iraq get nuclear weapons it would be suicidal for them to attack the u.s. so we don't need to make these threats). US should withdraw from NATO (the cold war is over what are we doing positioning all these troops in EU and maintaining these alliances what are we doing when the thing it was built for balancing USSR is no longer necessary). Abstain from intervening in ethnic and humanitarian conflicts (even if strong moral argument these thigns aren't solved with military can make things worse). Don't promote democracy abroad. 1st Military structure- minimal self-defense force. Less than 2% of GDP (instead of 3-5% normally spend). Secure second nuclear strike capability, good intelligence, and a competent navy (to make sure we stay secure). Potential critiques- disengagement-> would not make US less secure (instead would foster regional conflicts and nuclear proliferation). NATO keep U.S. in germans down and Russians out if we left it would make Europe less stable. Difficult policy to revert if trouble arises. Annual savings of 2% of GDP not commensurate with loss in power/ prestige that the strategy would entail. Neo-isolationism- minimal, defensive realism, major problem (avoiding entanglement in the affairs of others) preferred world order distant balance of power nuclear dynamics supports status quo. Narrow national interests. Regional priorities north America. Nuclear proliferation not our problem. Nato regional conflict abstain ethnic conflict abstain humanitarian intervention abstain use of force self defesne force posture minimal self defense force.

Nixon- what was the Nixon doctrine?

Nixon Doctrine- problem u.s. needs to cut down its military commitments following Vietnam aspects of Nixon doctrine- u.s. will keep its existing treaty commitments (a lot of countries were defending) but u.s. will provide a nuclear shield to threatened states that are vital to American national interests (to help remove u.s. troops from the ground) in other cases of aggression u.s. will provide military and economic assistance BUT it's up to the threatened state to assume primarily responsibility for fighting (not going have another half million troops in country like Vietnam only going provide aid) also shift from a 2.5 war posture to a 1.5 war posture (can fight one great power like soviet union and hold down minor conflict at same time instead of holding down 2 major powers) defensive expendtirues of gdp shrink from 8.1% in 1980 to 4.9% in 1977

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- In broad terms, describe the U.S. plan for overthrowing Iraq. 3 stages shock and awe ID

Operation Enduring Freedom (enduring freedom implies to entire war on terrorism both in afghanistan and iraq-) Unilateral action-> unable to pass UN security council (france, Russia, china, and Germany strongly opposed the war). Second Iraq war just british, poles, Australians, but mostly us. Relatively light force-> partly based on the Afghan Model (at this point Afghanistan is looking pretty good). 1st shock and awe (bombing campaign reminiscent of Persian gulf war designed to take out strategic targets (ie presidential palace 1700 sorties) airstrikes beinning in Baghdad at the presidential palace it was much shorter then first gulf war six week campaign 2nd invasion staged from Kuwait-> advancing toward Baghdad by second week 3rd Afghan Model- fighting alongside Kurds in the north (special forces embedded with indigenous allies with close aerial support Kurds in northern part of Iraq with u.s. coming from south Iraq kurds coming from north to meet in center.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- In your opinion, did the Trump Administration make the correct decision withdrawing the United States from the deal?

No definitely not. didn't really accomplish anything. Weren't able to get better terms really only accelerated Iran's nuclear program and increased tensions with U.S. and Iran. Also Iran had been following the rules of the previous agreement we are the ones who back pedaled our ability to maintain an agreement is undermined lose a sense of reliability/ credibility because of it and pissed off a lot of our European allies. Also U.S. iranian tensions have ramped up under administration of using maximum pressure as an alternative- May-october 2019 u.s. Iranian tensions ramp up over attacks on oil tankers (not u.s. tankers allied tankers) September 2019 iranian backed forces strike saudi oil facilities with drones November 2019 iran resumes nuclear enrichment at fordow (where they shouldn't have been doing enrichment at all at that location in accordance with deal if still being applied) December 29, 2019 us airstrikes kill Iranian backed militia in Iraq and Syria December 31 2019 pro Iranian militia members attack us embassy in Baghdad (starts to feel like Iranian hostage crisis all over again they leave after few days) January 3, 2020 u.s. kills general qassem soleimani (very high up in Iranian regime flys to Baghdad when assassinated killing such high official leads to massive protest within iran want retaliation January 8 2020 iran strikes bases holding u.s. soldiers with 20 ballistic missiles (missiles land hundred yards away so none americans killed the bases were in Iraq. January 9 2020- iran worried u.s. will strike counter attack Ukrainian passenger airliner shot down outside Tehran (thought it was an upcoming attack mistaken Ukrainian plane for u.s. plane attacking) when this happens temporarily cools that crisis iran vowed retaliation

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- In your opinion should the United States continue to pursue an interventionist policy in the Middle East? Why or why not? `

No we often create more problems then solutions, create more enemies, power vacuums, use up a lot of resources (hundreds of billions of dollars)

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- In your opinion, should the United States continue to expand NATO by admitting Ukraine and Georgia? Why or why not?

No, too provocative Russia has 100k troops right now on the border of ukraine if we did something like that we would be asking for Russia to invade and frankly they would have a huge geographic advantage and I'm not sure there would be that much we could really do to stop them since they would probably be done invading before we could really do anything also would be a european war which seems unwise. It does seem that us not admitting them is one of our few pieces of leverage against Russia for them to not invade and therefore we should keep it that way not use and play our hand so to speak.

· Why didn't the United States - with its technological superiority and far greater wealth - win in Vietnam?

North Vietnamese had really strong commitment to unification of vietnam willing to take a lot more losses then we were willing to take. We were less committed also our conventional warfare strategies don't work as well against guerilla forces we can't identify, target, and kill especially when hundreds of thousands come in to replace them continuing communist forces coming down to south vietnam or growing with local population. In regards to wealth we needed to spend a lot more per one of our troops then one of theirs in south most supplies got from riading hamlets villages communist forces in south Vietnam never needed more than 380 tons a day while u.s. division 750 to 2,000 tons for one maerican infrantry division also failed because geography of jungle was very dense diffiuclt to take out these soldiers even destroy bridge can find another place to go or rebuild bridge very simple structures to fix.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- In your opinion, should the Biden administration try to reenter the JCPOA with Iran?

Not if they have to get more concessions then they have already given but if Iran insists on having it be a congressional treaty so another president can't change it we can try going down that route I'm not sure it's going to work and if it doesn't I don't think Biden should pursue it any further. Also might be too little too late at this point if Iran already has nuclear weapons.

CMC Considering that the Soviet Union already had ICBMs, did the missiles in Cuba pose a new threat to the United States? Why or why not?

Not really. Mutually assured destruction was already secured to a point with second strike capabilities that the Cuban missiles wouldn't change that reality substantially it did make some of the soviet missiles that were more regional more strategically valuable by placing them in Cuba but it didn't prevent the u.s. from having a substantial second strike capability.

What is the nuclear triad? Why is it important? ID

Nuclear Triad- ICBMs, Bombers, and SLBMs. 1st air (bombers B-47 and B-52 bombers from u.s. strategic air command led by Curtis LeMay (was in charge for firebombing japan) 2nd leg Land based missiles (ICBMs and IRBMs Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile and Inter-Regional Ballistic Missile) land ones overtime made more sophisticated ones at first only single warhead on missiles then developed MRV (multiple reentry vehicles have more then one warhead on each missile and can detach) more sophistaceted MIRV multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles (MIRV each warhead on it could target on a different city can break off from same missile and target different things). 3rd Sea (SLBMs) submarine launch ballistic missile very difficult to find submarines under ice so very likely nuclear submarines would be safe for second strike. Important because it helps ensure U.S. and Soviet Union has second strike capability could use counterforce on the land missiles but would probably miss some of the submarine water ones also by having traditional bombers available would be able to really do serious systematic offensive damage if necessary so just more diversity of military tactic options and covering ones bases from adversary wiping out your nuclear arsenal.

Son of Iraq Program

Obama announces 18 month withdrawal window (Obama campaigned about getting u.s out of Iraq) as part of u.s. withdrawal deal, al-maliki promised to form an inclusive government (as part of this deal al-maliki promised bring more sunnis into ministries and bring "sons of Iraq" fighters and and bring them back into the national army negotiate oil revenue sharing agreements with sunni districts (oil is predominately found in Shiite area so sunni wanted some kind of oil revenue sharing agreement) political strategy designed to alleviate the grienvances leading to the civil war. Problem maliki criticized for backpedaling on these commitments (ie disbands sunni militias before turning to shia militias-> therby allowing shia groups to take over city and have disproportionate power. Ie he had promised to incoproate 100k sunni sons of Iraq fighters into the army-> only incorporated 17k. better provision of services to shia areas in Iraq. Iraq ranked 8th most corrupt government in the world (doesn't have long standing institutions) replaced by haider al-abadi in September 2014. The Sons of Iraq (Arabic: أبناء العراق‎ Abnāʼ al-ʻIrāq) were coalitions between tribal Sheikhs in the Al Anbar province in Iraq as well as former Saddam Hussein's Iraqi military officers that united in 2005 to maintain stability in their communities. They were initially sponsored by the US military. The Sons of Iraq were virtually nonexistent by 2013 due to former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's unwillingness to integrate them into the security services. Sunnis formerly serving with the group were faced with options including becoming unemployed or joining the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.[4]

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- Describe the evolution of U.S. policy in Syria

Obama handles this initial u.s. response- may 2011 u.s. imposes economic sanctions on Syria august 2011 obama condemns bashar al-assad and expresses support for uprising begin covert operation to support moderate Syrian rebels. August 20 2012 obama says that the u.s. will reconsider military intervention in Syria if assad uses chemical weapons or biological weapons spring 2013: Washington authorizes 250 million in covert aid to Syrian opposition. From obamas perspective he had campaigned from withdrawing saw it as messy conflict august 21 2013 assad uses chemical weapons killing 1,429 civilians Obama "we have been very clear to the assad regime but also other players on the ground, that a red line for us if we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized that would change my calculus" (many repulbicans thought u.s. should intervene) September 9 2013 kerry rhetorically suggests that Syria could avoid military confrontation if it turned over all of tis chemical weapons within a week Russia borkers deals to get Syria to turn over its weapons Syria accepts deal to relinquish its chemical weapons (Obama said stands by decision to not intervene the conditions on the ground didn't warrant it). 2014: u.s. increases covert aid to moderate Syrian opposition to at least 500 million dollars. U.S. strategy in iraq/ Syria- august 7, 2014 u.s. launches air campaign against ISIS. August 15, 2014 encourages maliki to resign in favor of haidar al-abadi. September 3, 2014- u.s. increases troops in Iraq to 1,200 increased by an additional 500 a few days later. Sept 2014 obama's 6 point plan for dealing with isis 1st significantly expand the bombing campaign in Iraq 2nd train and equip the Iraqi army and Kurdish pershmerga stand up against isis so u.s. troops sent to Iraq to train Iraqi security forces 3rd begin bombing campaign in Syria to disrupt isis supply lines administration estimates that it will take 3 years 4th increase efforts to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels 5th work with Saudi arabi and European allies to combat the flow of foreign fighers to Syria. 6th keep u.s. troops out and stay away from Syrian and Iranian governments. Cold War policy in syria- U.s. wanted to contain the soviet union and saw Syria as client state of soviet union. Saw Israel as potent u.s. cold war ally. Syria against Lebanon, jew against arab. revolution in yugoslavia worked with syria II) Desert Shield- operation desert shield morocco, Egypt, and Syria joined u.s. soviet forces. These actions seemed to be turning point in world history that un was finally meeting it's potential it can finally do what it needs to do since cold war was no longer a variable. UN bound to be more effective no u.s. or soviet veto. u.n. however was largely irrelevant in revolution in Yugoslavia. With u.s. being only superpower left un couldn't beable to enforce what they said. Also Clinton tried to get a Syria-Israel peace agreement but failed to do so.

CMC What was Kennedy's response during the crisis? Why?

October 21st decided to go with a blockade. October 22nd kennedy writes to Khrushchev laying out u.s. position kennedy tells nation his plan for blockade and quarantine. Did this because although it probably wouldn't work to get concessions it was also less likely then then the other options to escalate the conflict into a war with the Soviets which could kill millions of Americans. At same time couldn't do nothing since month beforehand JFK but line in sand saying unacceptable for soviets to have nukes in cuba so would lose international foreign policy credibility to a certain extent.

Afghanistan and the War on Terror-In broad terms, describe the war in Afghanistan during the Bush, Obama, Trump, and Biden presidencies.

October 7, 2001 U.S. led bombing begins- using the afghan model it's remarkably effective from nov-dec the Taliban retreat. December 5, 2001: Hamid Karzai named interim leader of Afghanistan December 9 2001 the Taliban officially collapses only 12 american soldiers died so at time seemed be real victory for afghan model. December 7, 2001 Battle Tora Bora (pretty controversial because bin laden and his deputies were there and at the time we had intelligence they were there we didn't get them we bombed but there was a delay and as a result he was able to sneak away into Pakistan but within the U.S. seen as missing big opportunity and some argue if we had another strategy more boots on the ground we would've gotten him. Bush pledges to rebuild and there's initial period excitement that it's going very well even in 2003 relationship Karzai and U.S. was still quite positive. Taliban starts regrouping across the border and 2005 2006 Afghans relaunch the insurgency Karzai's regime struggles to fight back against them able to sustain themselves by increasing opium production and start seeing this growing movement battles Bush administration frustrated with Karzai want him to crack down on Taliban more Karzai counterargument only way he can maintain political control is through patronage corruption to keep those wheels turning which doesn't create strong central state allowing for Taliban to attack Obama Years: 2009-2014 obama decides to escalate in afghanitan which was seen as the "Good War" compared to Iraq (Obama campaigned against war in Iraq but considered afghanistan the good war) Obama sends 17k troops on top of 36k NATO soldiers already there ultiamtley 100k u.s. troops in the country Obama brings in gen Stanley mcchrystal also may 2, 2011 U.S. kills Bin Laden in Pakistan. Simultaneously, Obama administration puts a deadline on the decision to withdraw (republicans praised him for escalation in afghanistan but Obama didn't want open ended commitment to afghanistan but republicans said this was foolish because gave Taliban a timeline to just wait out so Obama begins withdrawing troops twice pushes back deadline but ultimately decides leave small number few thousand troops Trump- as a candidate trump pledged to make a full withdrawal from afghistan but once president with a divided cabinet he outsourced decisions to pentagon said can't leave because conditions on ground made exit impossible appoints Khalizad with heading talbian negotiations excluding afghan's and ghani from talks 2019 trump invited then rescinds invite to camp david to continue negotiations Taliban gains steam and caries out several attacks. February 2020 trump agress for a full withdraw by may of 2021 an issue he or his successor would have to confront Taliban agreed would not attack u.s. at this time. U.s. public opinion was split on withdrawal. Biden inherited this situation withdrawal when elected 2500 troops remained when biden took office final deadline of full u.s. evacuation moved from may 1st to august 31st Taliban began to topple afghanistan in the early summer they seize Kabul by august 15th president ghani flees. The Taliban never back down from their firm august 31st deadline and a chaotic evacuation ensues the u.s. relocates over 100k people in a one month span, in addition to numerous shootings and a suicide bombingthat killed 12 marines 70 civilians (most people thought Taliban would win if u.s. left but timeline was debateable u.s. thought Taliban wouldn't win that quickly). Biden speech- never good time for u.s. to leave aghanistan "we gave them every chance to determine their own future we can't give them to will to fight in that future."

National Liberation Front (NLF)

Official title of the Viet Cong. Created in 1960, they lead an uprising against Diem's repressive regime in the South. 1959 major fighting begins communist forces begin infiltrating supplies into south Vietnam along "ho chi minh trail" fall 1959 2,500 assassination in south vietnma sabotage and violence becomes widespread December 1960 vietnminh and "stay behind" fighters form the national liberation front NLF.

Universal Liberalism

One of the three tenets of neo-conservatism. 2nd Universal Liberalism- neo-conservatives think liberalism is strongest belief on earth like fukuyama thinks everyone wants to be a liberal. Liberalism is most powerful ideology democracy will flourish if given opportunity. Very black and white terms of the world liberal states vs. nonliberal states. "no people on earth want to be oppressed." Think that everyone wants to be a liberal you think its not that hard to create it's evident in our planning or lack of planning in government state building in Iraq (which 2000 bush would say was very difficult to do but really shifted thinking could do it in a few months). Democratic Peace Theory- if create world that is populated by democracies then world would be safer. Neo-conservatives thought heart of terrorism problem post 911 was lack of liberal values in the middle east so if can make them follow a u.s. model of liberalism the terrorism problem would go away. used as reason to invade afghanistan and iraq- Neoconservatism- American exceptionalism-> model for reform and moral imperative for action. 2nd universal liberalism-> Iraqis want to be free and it wouldn't be that difficult to start a democracy once Hussein removed 3rd efficacy of American power-> RMA and Afghan Model

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- What was the surge? In your opinion, was it effective? ID

One of the two explanations as to why Al-Qaeda lost a lot of control and decrease in number of civilian casualties from 2006-2008. the surge bush ordered he deployment of around 30k additional soldiers into Iraq 5 additional brigades most of which went to Baghdad goal: expand security on the ground to give the government the ability to consolideate control they thought once got enough boots onteh ground and the population felt secure that would allow Iraqi government to take over. I think it was effective in stopping the violence in Baghdad bringing security there but it had limited to no influence outside the capital meaning that Al Qaedas influence in the western region of Iraq was not challenged by the surge.

CMC-What deal was made to end the crisis?

Soviets would remove missiles out of Cuba publicly u.s. would remove jupiter missiles out of turkey secretely put publicly commit to not invading Cuba in the future thus preventing another Bay of Pigs.

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- What is ISIS? ID

Origins of ISIS- Islamic state of Iraq and Syria Islamic state of Iraq and the levant Islamic state daesh all names for it. 2004: abu musab al qarqawi establishes al-qaeda in Iraq (AQI) 2006: peak in AQI activities AQI gains significant control in Anbar province al-zarqawi killed in u.s. airstrike in anbar province anbar awakenings happenings too aqi leadership announces establishment of a new group the Islamic state in Iraq ISI. 2006-2014- ISI weakened by anbar awakening but gradually attracts members as more sunnis become disillusioned with Shiite government 2010: abu bakr al-baghdadi becomes ISI leader July 2011: ISI joins Syrian civil war so rebrands itself ISIS (last s standing for Syria). June 29 2014: ISIS announces the creation of the caliphate that erases all state borders making al-baghdadi the self-declared authority over 1.5 billion muslims in the world. . ISI spreads into western portion of Syria rebrands itself ISIS. Al-Qaeda renounces ISIS (splitting off from them because of number of reasons different in priorities al qaeada interested in attack far enemy u.s. foreign powers isis more interested in near enemy having control over the state. Also how to deal with moderate muslims isis was more fundamentalist then al qaeda thought moderates need be treated really poorly isis known for particularly brutal tactics beheadings mass executions sexual slavery emphasis placed on apocalypse in ISIS al qaeda says isis is too hardcore for them and denounces them). was able to control a lot of territory in iraq and syria and actually create their own government with it's own budget (which was surprisingly big). "isis is the best funded terrorist organization we've confronted." At prime 1 million plus per day in sale of oil on the black market some estimates as high as 3 million per day foreign donations, extortion, kidnapping, etc. all ways to make money at peak power estimated to have 2.9 billion dollars in revenue. Leading to expansion of isis back into Iraq

Korean War- · Describe U.S. policy in Korea in the summer of 1950?

Phase 1 uly 1950: Fighting Begins Battle of Taejon (July 14-21) Battle of Pusan Perimeter (August-September) June 27, 1950: Security Council approves Res. 82 & 83 21 countries 88% of all soldiers were American in this "UN" effort Led by Douglas MacArthur II) Truman's "Police Action": The Inception of the Imperial Presidency- UN security council approved u.s activity as unified force in korea and soviets stupid boycotted event could've vetoed the decision. a) Truman (cabinet) does not consult with members of Congress before ordering air and naval forces to South Korea—or before committing American troops to the land mass of Asia. Thinks it's same case as Greece tough talk need to stop them now. Increased American aid to French Indochina at the same time. Quickly expanding foreign policy/ resources in Asia. Although termed a U.N. "police action," (Roosevelt Corrolary term) the conflict is clearly a war in which Americans and South Koreans do the lion's share of fighting and dying- misleading to call it a UN initiative.

· What was operation Rolling Thunder? Why did fail? ID

Phase 1- spring summer 1965 schelling strategy calibrated attacks threatening north Vietnamese industrial targets to coerce Hanoi into stopping its support of the nlf insurgency increasing escalate attakcs on their industry create enough pain so will want to stop helping nlf. Phase 1 failed because north vietnam's industrial base was small and not a prized asset in comparison to its desire to reunify Vietnam industry only 12% of north vietnam's gnp and north Vietnam able to compensate for their losses with substantive aid from and the soviet union Rolling thunder phase 2- BOMB HO CHI MINH TRAIL summer 1965 to winter 1966 denial strategy air interdiction attacks designed to disrupt north vietnam's ability to infiltrate men and supplies into south Vietnam. difficult to implement against an opponent using guerilla warfare north Vietnam needed to provide only about 10 ounces of provisions per day for soldiers in south most supplies got from riading hamlets villages communist forces in south Vietnam never needed more than 380 tons a day while u.s. division 750 to 2,000 tons for one maerican infrantry division also failed because geography of jungle was very dense diffiuclt to take out these soldiers even destroy bridge can find another place to go or rebuild bridge very simple structures to fix. Rolling Thunder Phase 3- spring fall 1967 douhet punishment strategy destroy north vietnam's industrial base punish civilians and weaken population's resolve inflict so much punishment that it will make population less supportive of conflict and maybe even turn on north Vietnamese government. If make conflict hurt enough they will be forced to stop phase 3 failed because the Why failed communist really strong resolve also predominately fighting as guerilla forces meaning they can hide in the jungle which is difficult for u.s. to hit them or hide in cambodia and laos which u.s. couldn't bombard heavily due to neutrality of those two countries or they could retreat to north vietnam where u.s. couldn't bomb to heavily and close to China border without potentially instigating another Korean war where China comes down to secure their border buffer zone which in this case is north vietnam.

Korea War- What was the Inchon Campaign? ID

Phase 2 of the Korean War September 10-19 1950 Inchon Invasion- aka operation chromite. 75k men and 250 plus military vessels relieve pressure from Pusan. Tank landing ships unload at Inchon on September 15, 1950. Troops of the 31st Infantry Regiment land at Inchon Harbor, Korea, aboard LSTs on September 18, 1950. Macarthur's ambitious idea- a) Scores the greatest triumph of his storied career at Inchon (amphibian battle), turning the war around and restoring the prewar border at the 38th Parallel- most advisors told him unwise battle idea. September 15 1950 15k marines overwhelmed weak NK garrison Inchon fell quickly. September 26 1950 Seoul in UN hands. October 1st UN forces back at 38 parallel. May have been highpoint of Macarthur's career huge success.

The Rise of China- Explain the competing logics of Engagement vs. Containment approaches to China's rise. ID engagement

Policy prescription: engagement (more optimistic liberal take)- 1990s this was u.s. foreign policy to china try engage with them h.w. bush "commercial contacts lead.. to this quest for more freedom." After Tiananmen square protests bush argued we needed to continue engagement with china and that engagement will foster democracy in china. 1991: renewed china's "most favored nation" trade status. Clinton "intensify and broader u.s. engagement with china 2000s George w. bush trade with china will promote freedom" 2001: china was formaly granted membership in WTO and Obama also continued this "since I've been president, my goal has been to consistently engage with cina in a way that is constructive to manage our difference and maximize opportunities for cooperation." Liberal optimists- democraziation- as rising per capita incomes climb it will create a growing Chinese middle class that will demand political liberalization (so china isn't democracy now but will be later) Interdependence- between United States and China-> high u.s. imports from china 450 billion dollars worth of goods from china u.s. exports to china 164 billion trade deficit 285 billion but since we trade so much with one antoher it really gives each of us a stake with the other which is likely to maintain cooperative relationship. China has also bought a lot of u.s. debt 1.06 trillion (about 5% of u.s. foreign debt) we each keep both of our economies functioning International instituitons china is thriving within u.s.-led liberal world word UNSC, WTO, etc. Ikenberrgy scholar has said this is a really good thing on why the liberal order is primed to accept china's rise (unlike other international orders this is best on rules and orders which is more primed to allow state to rise within it). Liberal Pessimists- democratization: china is an authoritarian regime with a poor human rights track record an increasingly worrisome surveillance state on own population not free speech not open journalism free press they're just not a liberal state if economic growth falters china will have to rely more heavily on nationalist appeals (brought tens of millions people out of poverty they were able to starve off criticims on their regime the question is what would happen if the growth falters then china is going to need to use something else to justify their power which would likely be nationalism or stricter crackdown) and liberal IR theorists states that are in transition from authoritarian to liberal gov. are more likely to go to war vs if china was all out liberal gov or all out authoritarian gov. Interdependence between u.s. and china has become increasingly contentious post-2016 (both trump and Hillary Clinton took a more protectionist approach to china even Hillary changed position on TPP. International intsitutions- china is splitting from u.s. led liberal order. China creating alternative political institutions new development bank (NDB), Asian infrastructure investment bank (AIIB), created the belt and road intiative (2013) create conenctions between china and other parts of eastern hemisphere building ports all throughout it. Made in china initiative (2015) about producing own military productions. Regional comprehensive economic partnership 2020 15 country free trade agreement in s.e. asia. Ambitious foreign policy outreach in global south, Africa, etc. (can argue china is creating own order that isn't a liberal order). Realist optimists- Chinese power: military limited and likely to remain so (look at structural conditions china is facing overtime going have trouble putting economic growth into political power u.s. spends 3 times more on their military. U.s. maintains technological and innovation advantage (Chinese high tech industry might seem to be growing but most of china's innovation is not very Chinese and not very high tech often replicating instead of innovating). Chinese aims: limited compared to other rising powers (looking at imperial japan, Napoleonic france, nazi Germany had really lofty goals china not so much not trying to conquer the world have border disputes so overall saying that's encouraging). Also optimists saying security dilemma is muted thanks to nuclear weapons (hard to imagine u.s. and china fighting a major war). People argue geography really favors more peaceful relations (china historically been a landpower it's influence will be east and south east asia while u.s. has been a maritime power therefore our interests don't overlap that much). finally demographics one child policy worker retire ratio in the future Realist pessimists- chinese power rising and intentions change with power so doesn't matter what china says now because don't know what china will want in future Deng Xiaoping famous maxim "hide our capacities and bide our time, but also get some things done" really counterproductive for china to build military now because it would lead to counterbalancing. Mearsheimer reading (offensive realist)- china will want to become a regional hegemon (every states want to maximize their power wants to dominate every other power in the region everything power on the verge of becoming a major power going to want to dominate their neighbors and once they do that they're going to declare their own Monroe doctrine. Chinese goals: keep u.s. and other regional players out of south china sea and yellow sea push u.s. navy out of 1st island chain-> 2nd island chain want to control key maritime straits. Incorporate Taiwan into mainland china. Control supply of water from Tibetan plateau and kick u.s. soldiers out of the region and drive a wedge between u.s. and our allies. China's national strategy is to try to signal to the world that currently they have benign intentions thus slowly growing a powerful military and then finally be able to exert that power. Chinese territorial disputes- india, Bhutan, Taiwan, senkaku/diaoyu islands-japan, paracel islands- Vietnam, spratley islands, (Malaysia, brunei Philippines, Vietnam). Reason all these island chains so important is because wanting to drive u.s. navy out of the region to create their own Monroe doctrine Realist pessimists- numerous sources of conflict- room for conflict in the south china sea. Geography makes u.s.-sino relations more unstable than u.s.soviet relations conflict (during cold war very clear front line the iron curtain everyone knew exactly what that line that would lead to conflict but the islands with china we don't really know what would lead to conflict). Pessimists will also say hypernationalsim- worried china will use nationalist appeals to create conflicts there was this century of national humiliation after opium war with china being preyed upon on western states so now they need to assert their own strength and since 2011 chinese rhetoric has taken a more nationalist tone which is alarming could lead to war. U.s. will pursue containment policy against china-> Chinese neighbors will be torn between security protection of alliance with u.s. vs. economic integration with china (states like south korea, japan, etc. would say which way they will turn since realists say security matters more these states will ultimately side with the united states). Result: crises, arms races, proxy wars, regime change, etc. (aka another cold war) Policy prescription- containment- if you are a realist and see china rising and going to balance power since that's what realists advocate for the policy is containment- realsits are very critical of policy of engagement. Mearsheimer "engagement may have been the worst strategic blunder any country has made in recent history: there is no comparable example of a great power actively fostering the rise of a peer competitor and it is now too late to do much about it." A more foresighted foreign policy in the 1990s would have been to prevent china from becoming rising power. Containment: prevent china from using its military forces from conquering territory and expanding influence in asia (balancing coalition of china's neighbors, maintain dominance of the world's oceans trying prevent china from becoming another naval power, limit china's ability to expand its economic influence and growth, try to hinder china from creating alternative international institutions.

Origins Cold War- · Following WWII, what did the Allies decide to do with Germany? Why?

Potsdam conference- what to do with Germany being asked?- division of Germany prevent resurgent Germany a third time to have a third war started by Germany so split Germany part goes to Poland part to Soviets and rest was modern day Germany was divided by U.S. France, Soviets, British into quarters. Plan for occupying Germany preventing it from rising again.

George W. Bush Administration- What is the difference between a preventive and a preemptive war? Which type did Bush say the United States was pursuing in Iraq? Do you think that was a fair characterization?

Preventive vs. Preemptive War- preventive war- attack your opponent to destroy a potential threat BEFORE they are planning to attack you. Preemptive war- launched in anticipation of an imminent attack by your opponent you think they're heading toward your borders to attack you. Key to this distinction is whether your opponent has mobilized. Analogy two gunners aimed guns at eachother do preemptive war preventive war kill guy before other buys gun at gun store. Preventive War- long term effort to prevent a state from mobilizing ie prevent them from getting gun at gun store. Bush says preemptive war but what really his policy was doing was prevention war. We need to act quickly prevent another 911 terrorist threat. "rogue states" and terrorism prevent the combination of a rogue state and terrorism emerging basically if terrorist gets nuclear weapons you can't deter them because they're crazy so need to use preventive war before can attack ie assume Iraq make nuclear weapons and then giving them to terrorists why would they do that? No I don't think this was a fair characterization

Nouri al-Maliki

Prime Minister of Iraq. 2005 election for transitional national assembly (any democratic election likely favor Shiite and many sunnis boycott the election so Shiite leader comes to power 2006 Nouri al-Maliki comes to power. Background Iraq- nouri al-maliki: shia prime minister (2006-2014)- February 2009: Obama announces 18 month withdrawal window (Obama campaigned about getting u.s out of Iraq) as part of u.s. withdrawal deal, al-maliki promised to form an inclusive government (as part of this deal al-maliki promised bring more sunnis into ministries and bring "sons of Iraq" fighters and and bring them back into the national army negotiate oil revenue sharing agreements with sunni districts (oil is predominately found in Shiite area so sunni wanted some kind of oil revenue sharing agreement) political strategy designed to alleviate the grienvances leading to the civil war. Problem maliki criticized for backpedaling on these commitments (ie disbands sunni militias before turning to shia militias-> therby allowing shia groups to take over city and have disproportionate power. Ie he had promised to incoproate 100k sunni sons of Iraq fighters into the army-> only incorporated 17k. better provision of services to shia areas in Iraq. Iraq ranked 8th most corrupt government in the world (doesn't have long standing institutions) replaced by haider al-abadi in September 2014. 2012-2014 Sunni protests in Iraq- predmoninately anti-government protest april 2013 government cracks down on peaceful government protest camp near hawija 300 killed 600 injured increased recruitment for militant sunni groups thinking don't have way to legitimately get into government.

Humanitarian Interventions-In your opinion, under what conditions should the United States pursue humanitarian interventions?

Proponents of humanitarian intervention may object that the calculus laid out here understates its effectiveness by neglecting the other U.S. interests that these military missions serve. Even the most ardent advocates of intervention in such places as Kosovo, Sudan, or Libya, however, usually concede that the United States' safety was never directly threatened by the crises there (so could argue when u.s. security is threatened it justifies use of military force and that context alone would make humanitarian intervention work). also use humanitarian intervention to help get refugees trying to flee out that are trapped such as the Rwanda example. international law/ humanitarian norms (things we have signed says we should do that to uphold those things in general should do it), powerful states can often stop mass killing quickly (should follow it when it is genocide follow the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948)- any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole on in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group, causing seirous harm, deliberating inflicintg on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, imposing measures intended to prevent births within group, forcibly transferring children from one group to another. Even though some may argue Rwanda would be worse off if we had intervened during the Rwandan genocide it is likely that hundreds of thousands of people could have been saved from a very gruesome fate.

The Rise of China- Explain the controversy over the political status of Taiwan. What is America's current position on the status of Taiwan? ID strategic ambiguity

Question of Taiwan and strategic ambiguity- Chinese civil war 1949-> one china policy mao gives china 100 years to reclaim Taiwan. Nixon's visit to china 1972 and normalization of relations with the PRC (1979). Strategic ambiguity- recognizes Chinese position that Taiwan is part of china, rejects use of force to settle dispute (in order to maintain the status quo), maintains u.s. ties and military aid to Taiwan (continue to give them military aid), continue our ability to come to taiwan's defense without formal commitment to do so which is why it's strategically ambiguous. Question of Taiwan and Strategic Ambiguity- 2021 taiwanese airspace incursions October 2021 biden says u.s. will come to taiwan's defense if its attacked white house then clarifies few days later "the president was not announcing any change in our policy and there is no change in our policy"

· What is the difference between Realism and Liberalism? Be able to briefly describe each paradigm.

Realism tends to focus on security and liberalism focuses more on international cooperation. Realism- refers to a long and diverse philosophical school of thought associated with realpolitik policies of 18th century European leaders like Otto von Bismarck. Realism tries figure out when states will go to war what causes conflict. Modern realist theories 1st Classical realism- drive of interstate conflict is ultimately rooted in human nature 2nd neorealism- interstate conflict is the result of the structure of the international system 3rd neoclassical realism results from both. Neorealism- the anarchic structure of the international system causes states to balance the power of one another to ensure their own survival. Five Bedrock Assumptions of Neorealism 1st states are the main actors 2nd anarchy 3rd uncertainty of intentions 4th self-help 5th rational actors Conclusion of realism after three behaviors is that states will balance the power of one another Liberalism- rooted in enlightenment ideals of liberty, individual rights, contractual government, and equality before the law. As these ideas came about domestically started being applied in international relations key question when states will cooperate with one another and why? (as opposed to realists question of when conflicts occur). How can we improve things is liberalism. A large portion of modern IR liberal theory focuses on questions of political economy, global governance and international institutions.

· How do Realists respond to liberal arguments about economic integration?

Realist response to economic interdependence- economic interdependence does not necessarily lead to peace, when push comes to shove security concerns will trump economic concerns. Because states care most about relative gains, economic interdependence can lead to war if trade disproportionately favors one state. There was more economic interdependence in Europe prior to WWI than there is today (that's a pretty wild fact). Realists say trade with China is great for making things more affordable but this trade is making china disproportionally wealthier then us makes them more grow more then us so for security concerns we should reconsider economic interdependence.

· How do Realists respond to liberal arguments about international institutions?

Realist response to international institutions- international institutions have minimal influences on state behavior on their own. Cannot effectively contain great powers. The most powerful states in the system create and shape international instituions to reflect their own national interests (ie U.S. predominately formed UN so U.S. exerts a lot of influence on UN and therefore in a lot of states. What happens when UN tries to reject U.S. ideas, can't really stop the U.S. ie UN told U.S. not get in war in Iraq and did it anyway). UN IMF have minimal influence ability to enforce.

How did the United States respond to the Iranian Hostage situation?

Responding by ending detente and starting second cold war tensions. a) Carter made embargo on Iranian oil, no economic/ military aid, carter public announcements clear lives of u.s. hostages top priority prayed publicly with them he basically allowed the hostage crisis dominate u.s. foreign policy for 14 months. Carter's various ploys to secure the hostages' release fail; his popularity plummets- operation was poorly planned badly executed had to cancel operation because of equipment failure

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- How has Russia meddled in American elections? How do I think we should respond to Russian meddling in our elections?

Russia was found to intervene in order to help elect trump quotes from combined report 17 agencies on investigation "Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations such as cyber activity with overt efforts by Russian gov agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or trolls... goals were to undermine public faith in the u.s. democratic process, denigrate secretary Clinton." U.s. responses to election june 2017 senate deal on Russian snactions on Russia for meddling passes 98-2 trump signs it but then deadline to implement sanctions passes October 1, 2017 and January 29, 2018 without u.s. actually implementing sanctions march 15 2018 trump implements sanctions and critixcizes russia's meddling in the elction. July 2018 Helsinki Conference controversy (doesn't say that putin/Russia gov did it). Definitely should have been more firm and made sure that couldn't happen again which it did happen again in 2020 presidential election.

Decribe Thomas Schelling's 4 step process for nuclear crises. What is the goal of each side? Briefly describe the logic behind: 1)salami tactics ID 2) tripwire ID 3)burning bridges ID

Schelling also had idea how manipulate risk crisis is called "relinquishing the initiative" Decision point 1 (B's decision to threaten) Decision 2 (response)-> Decision 3 (last clear chance to avoid nuclear war)-> Decision 4 (nuclear war) Schelling said you wanted to get your opponent into Decision 3 so they face the question of escalating to a nuclear war or backing down and that in that position they would logically back down and his policy recommendations were essentially to make sure u.s. wasn't in D3 position but USSR was. A's options "the rationality or irrationality" (you need convince adversary you are a crazy person so will take you seriously useful be seen as a little crazy). tripwire-An option for A if something is tripped it will escalate conflict immediately ie u.s. had 5k troops in west berlin so if war started they would die and u.s. would have 5k American fatalities that u.s. would have to escalate. burning bridges-An option for A burn bridges behind your offensive so troops can't retreat can do this with nuclear weapons ie deploying nuclear weapons into the field so military decides use nukes not the president. also known as precommitment- strategy where you intentionally take actions which limit your future options, in order to enforce your commitment to a particular course of action and make your threats appear more credible to others. Another side of strategies is B's options (B is the group that made D1 decision B's decision to threaten) B's option one is salami tactics (think opponents deterrent threat as big salami and way to eat it/ overcome it is to slice up salami ie defending west berlin if soviets came in with red army immediately that would be a crisis but if they gradually added a few more kgb, infantry, officers, etc. until eventually all slices allow them to take west berlin)

Collin Powell ID

Secretary of State Colin Powell joint chiefs of staff during gulf war selective engagement have high criteria for intervening. American politician, statesman,[2] diplomat, and United States Army officer who served as the 65th United States secretary of state from 2001 to 2005. He was the first African-American secretary of state.[3] He served as the 16th United States national security advisor from 1987 to 1989 and as the 12th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1989 to 1993. October 1989 to September 1993, was as Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, the highest military position in the United States Department of Defense. During this time, he oversaw 28 crises, including the invasion of Panama in 1989 and Operation Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf War against Iraq in 1990-1991. He formulated the Powell Doctrine, which limits American military action unless it satisfies criteria regarding American national security interests, overwhelming force, and widespread public support.[4] He served as Secretary of State under Republican president George W. Bush. As secretary of state, Powell gave a speech before the United Nations regarding the rationale for the Iraq War, but he later admitted that the speech contained substantial inaccuracies. He was forced to resign after Bush was reelected in 2004

Afghanistan and the War on Terror- Why did the United States invade Afghanistan?

September 11th terrorist attacks on U.S. and then September 18th Bush signs war resolution to go to war in afghanistan only one congressperson disapproved it. Bush demanded Taliban hand over bin laden Taliban refused saying only willing hand him over to another muslim country third party so bush said wasn't acceptable terms. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan along with his Al Qaeda training camps with the Taliban regime allowing/ protecting their presence within the country.

Nixon-How did the Nixon administration attempt to modify Soviet behavior? What are linkages? ID linkages

Short answer- negotiation linkages and using serious negotiations to do it. 1st serious negotiations with the soviet unions since 1950s u.s. policy had been to negotiate out of a position of strength but this no lingered reflected the realities of the situation why would the soviets negotiate at that point if it meant putting themselves in a position of permanent inferiority? So realistically soviets more likely to negotiate with u.s. during shifts of balance of power soviets had achieved strategic nuclear parity, growth of the soviet union in the third world-> incentive to mange crises with the u.s. and also "skin in the game" growth of the soviet union into a mature industrial economy meant they now faced the choice of using this economy to build weapons or consumer products. 2nd linkages/ behavior modification- attempts to modify soviet behavior would not succeed if the u.s. approached each issue independently Kissinger :great issues are fundamentally interrelated." Stop approaching everything bilaterally-> need deep cross-issue negotiations to achieve significant cooperation asymmetric response. Linkages with different issues tool of crisis management bargaining chip moscow's priorities wanted gain advantage over u.s. nuclear arsenal decrease u.s. trade barriers to allow western food and technology in country wanted recognition of soviet sphere of influence in e eu advance soviet interests in the third world .washingtons priorities negotitionated Vietnam settlement acknowledgment western berlin strategic arms agreement limiting soviet buildup management of crises in the third world (need to have some back and forth linkages of multiple interests)

Jacobo Arbenz

Short termed President of Guatemala...Implemented a Land Reform Policy which mainly targeted the United Fruit Company by taking "uncultivated land"...US saw him as a communist threat...though to have ties with the Soviet Union...CIA Launches coup in 1954 to eject him from Presidency.

What is the Strategic Defense Initiative? Why was it controversial?

Strategic Defense Initiative- march 23, 1983 reagan announced plan to develop a ground and space based system to shield the united states from incoming ballistic missile attacks dubbed "star wars" by its critics. No single proposed technological design: ballistic missile interceptors, hypervelocity rail guns, x-ray lasers, chemical lasers, neutral particle beams, and a system of lasers. Criticisms of SDI (very expensive won't work also lead to less security since lose mutually assured destruction also go against multi-lateral treaty violates anti-ballistic missile defense treaty, undermines mutually assured destruction, decreases nuclear crisis stability, technically unfeasible (especially with 1983 technology) does nothing against other two legs of the nuclear triad)

CMC Why did the Soviet Union attempt to place missiles in Cuba?

Strategic vulnerability fear that the united states had nuclear superiority over the soviet union "level the playing field" potential leverage for the berlin crisis support cuba- deter an American invasion of Cuba (their ally) also wanted leverage to get u.s. missiles out of Turkey.

SLBM ID

Submarine-launched ballistic missile. Is a ballistic missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead that can be launched from submarines. Sea (SLBMs) submarine launch ballistic missile very difficult to find submarines under ice so very likely nuclear submarines would be safe for second strike. Ie Trident II Submarine each one can have 24 missiles on it can have up to 12 warheads each which means you could hypoethically have 288 nuclear warheads on a singular sub and we have 14 submarines which means could be more then 4,000 submarine launched ballistic missiles ready be deployed. one part of nuclear triad. Strategic Arms limitation Talks (SALT)- limits the numbers of ICBM and SLBM "launchers" move to nuclear sufficiency.

Persian Gulf War- What is the Powell Doctrine? (don't need to know every point, just broad objective). ID If you had to come up with your own 'Powell Doctrine' for U.S. military interventions, what would it be?

The Powell Doctrine- u.s. should only militarily intervene if all of the questions have been answered throougly and positively Powell was the chief of the Joint Chiefs and was a national security advisor and a very bright general. Powell believed, based on the Vietnam experience, that if the United States goes to war, it has to have a clear military objective: Down the road, that's what I want to accomplish. I want to put the number of troops in that can take care of that problem, I want to have popular support, and I want to have an exit strategy. I want to go in, I want to accomplish it, and I want to get out. That is what he said is the military's role. It's not there to build schools. It's a very important point. vital national interest? Yes didn't want Iraq to control regional oil so dominately 2nd clear attainable objective? Yes have Iraq not be in Kuwait 3rd risks and costs fully analyzed? Non-violent policy means exhausted? Yes going in with plausible exit strategy? Yes there was one consequences fully considered? Yes action supported by American people? Yes international support? Yes.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- Describe the basic tenets of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal.

The actual deal what it contains- Iran gives up most of its centrifuges (about 2/3 of them). Iran agrees not to use its more advanced centrifuges for at least 10 years (make it harder for them to enrich) iran agrees to rebuild one of its nuclear plants (Arak heavy reactors) so that it cannot product weapon's grade plutonium. Agree to no new reactors for 15 years. Spent fuel sent from country. Iran is only allowed to enrich uranium up to 3.67% (at the levels for nuclear energy way below the levels you need for nuclear weapons) only allowed to have 202kg limit on total uranium iran agrees to give up 98% of its stockpile of uranium. Iran agrees to give IAEA inspectors immediate access to nuclear sites and 24 days access to any other site that IAEA demands (ie if make another new site in 24 days iran has to let them in there). Some provisions last 10 years, some as much as 25. In exchange, the economic sanctions are lifted on iran. We also unfroze some bank accounts from 1979 iranian hostage crisis.

Rwandan Genocide

The killing of more than 500,000 ethnic Tutsis by rival Hutu militias in Rwanda in 1994. The conflict between the dominant Tutsis and the majority Hutus had gone on for centuries, but the suddenness and savagery of the massacres caught the United Nations off-guard. U.N. peacekeepers did not enter the country until after much of the damage had been done. Rwanda 1990: civil war when Rwandan Patriotic Front led by Paul Kagame's Tutsi forces invade from Uganda back into Rwanda and from their perspective driven from their homes so time to return February 1993 RPF advances. Rwaanda 1994 Arusha Accords 1993 ceasefire agreements internatiaonlly brokered ceasefire and peace agreement between hutu President Juvenal Habyarimana and the RPF going to have some form of power sharing agreement very tenuous because neither side trusted the other 2,500 UN troops are deployed to Kigali to oversee peace accord. 1994 Growing tnesions division between tutsi forces vs. moderate hutu government officials vs. hardline hutu government officials and hutu extremist militias(known as interahamwe) hutu extremist movment form "Hutu Power" movement and reject Arusha accords 1993 several thousand hutu moderates and tutsis are killed. Spring 1993 hutu extremsists begin to compile lists of tutsis and hutu moderates import large number of machetes (signs that things could get a lot worse in the future). also start hearing these radio stations and they are giving very hateful messages against tutsi and moderate hutus moving to boiling point April 6, 1994 airplane carrying Rwandan president habyarimana and the president of Burundi, cyprien ntaryamira is shot down outside capital city Kigali still not exactly sure who shot them down. But once that happened hits boiling point of conflict april 7 1994 rwandan army and interahamwe militias set up roadblocks and go house to house killing tutsis and moderate hutu politicians. UN forces do not intervene to stop the killing because it would violate their "monitoring" mandate and many of their Rwandan counterparts have already been murdered (also UN troops pretty overwhelemed with developments not sure who they should be working with) april 7- July 1994 leads to 100 days of killing by hutu army forces and interahamwe militias 800k Rwandans killed 70% of all the Tutsi living in Rwanda are killed 20% of their total population are killed a lot of them are killed by machetes. U.S. Response- april 9-10 evacuate U.S. nationals there april 21st u.s. votes to reduce un forces in Rwanda from 2,500 to 270 May 21st U.S. first uses term genocide took long time to say controversial on one hand in defense of Clinton didn't understand if it was genocide killing so rapid didn't understand scope counter argument didn't use term genocide because would have been beholden by un convention to intervene. May 23rd RPF captures presidential palace fought back June 22nd 1994 Security Council authrozies French forces in SW Rwanda create "safe area" but thousands still killed in their territory. July 1994: RPF consolidates control in Kigali and stops genocide they basically win even though they were a minority they were still able to stop the genocide. Late 1990s early 2000s Rwanda did surprisingly well pretty peaceful and economic prosperous doing pretty well so (not from lecture just opinion possible things would have been worse in Rwanda if u.s. intervened)

Crisis (In)stability

The risk that if a crisis builds, the risk of war increases and the chances of nuclear first strike increase. Explains in peacetime, neither side thinks war is imminent, so risk is low, however, if crisis builds, risk of war increases Crisis Stability/ Instability- key point- crisis instability goes up as the number of weapons goes down. Crisis might be more stable when have more weapons because both sides no going have path of mutually assured destruction. Mutual assured destruction potentially a force for peace between nuclear powers.

CMC- Assessing Daryl Press' argument: Do American policymakers focus on past Soviet behavior or the current balance of nuclear weapons when assessing the threat?

Think it would be current balance when considering the cuban missile crisis and how prior to that khrushev didn't commit to his ultimatum in west berlin but that didn't affect u.s. caution in cuban missile crisis since at that present point soviets had balanced their nuclear weapons. Past actions theory (schelling): doing it by having a reputation for resolve/ commitment (the process of commitment, interdependence of commitments, discrediting an adversary's commitments) current calculus theory (doesn't matter what past credibility past behavior but about current basis of power when leaders assess credibility during a crisis they focus on the balance of capaibilties and interests at stake in the current confrontation

· What was the "Vietnamization" of the war? ID

This strategy brought American troops home while increasing the air war over north Vietnamese army get south Vietnamese to stand up in our place. U.s. troop withdrawals and tactical bombing escalations: steady decrease in u.s. troops decrease by 50% in 1969 1969-1970 bombings in Cambodia and laos to destroy NLF and PAVN sanctuaries. February 1970 secretaary of state henry Kissinger gets into secret negotiations with Vietnam. Nixon Vietnamization strategy as opposed to LBJs Americanization u.s. plans in 1972- vietnamization program largely successful at least appeared to be vc/nva controlled population decreased from 23% of South Vietnamese in 1968 to 3% in 1971. Didn't fully prevent Vietnamese from attacking Easter Offensive March 30-October 22, 1972 conventional north Vietnamese invasion designed to reverse successes of vietnamization program and defeat arvn 120,000 nva troops cross dmz into south Vietnam. Rapid successes against arvn troops disastrous choice argueably worse decision during cold war. Led to double digit inflation more dissension. Expanded war into laos and camboida with tragic results and the ultimate loss of the war. There was nothing that good came out of vietnamization other then it bought time.

Nixon's Visit to China

This was an important step in formally normalizing relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China. 1972 nixon visits china- shanghai communique both sides will work towards normalization of relations neither side would seek to establish "hegemony in the Asian-Pacific region." U.s. commits to a one china policy with "constructive ambiguity"-> recognize the PRC (Beijing) as the leader of China. We would defend Taiwan if attacks but wouldn't support Taiwan doing anything aggressive wouldn't be obligated to defend them. one of five strategies of nixon's detente policy

Iran-Nuclear Deal- What was Trump's position on the deal?

Trump administration- strongly condemned the deal- "My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran secretary defense james mattis in favor of it "an imperfect arms control agreement it's not a freidnship treaty when America gives her word needs to keep it." October 2017 speech on iran: u.s. trump more hardline approach with iran- "first we will work with out allies to counter the regime's destabilizing activity and support for terrorist proxies in the region" "seoncd, we will place additional sanctions" "third we will address regime's proliferation of weapons that threaten its neigbhors global trade freedom navigation and finally we will deny the regime all paths to a nuclear weapon"

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? Why was recognizing Israel's capital as Jerusalem a controversial decision?

Trump very Israel aligned state 2017 moving u.s. embasy from tel aviv to Jerusalem 2019. Jerusalem- in particular what are its municipal boundaries is entire city capital of jersualem will part of jeruslaem east Jerusalem become capital of independent Palestine one day. u.s. can't exactly rescind this recognition of israel's capital being jerusalem has a foreign policy precedent. also the 2020 peace deal recognized most of jerusalem as part of israel which is very provactive for palestinians that live there. Today, the status of Jerusalem remains one of the core issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, West Jerusalem was among the areas captured and later annexed by Israel while East Jerusalem, including the Old City, was captured and later annexed by Jordan. Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory.[note 6] One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital. All branches of the Israeli government are located in Jerusalem, including the Knesset (Israel's parliament), the residences of the Prime Minister (Beit Aghion) and President (Beit HaNassi), and the Supreme Court. The international community rejects the annexation as illegal and treats East Jerusalem as Palestinian territory occupied by Israel.[42][43][44][45]

What is the difference between Type 1 and Type 2 deterrence? Why can strong Type 1 deterrence make Type 2 deterrence more difficult? ID

Type 1 Deterrence has just two actors ie u.s. vs. ussr and soviets trying to deter attack from u.s. u.s. trying to deter attack from soviets. Nuclear monopoly (only one state has nuclear weapons). First strike capability (state can attack its opponent with nuclear weapons). Nuclear superiority (splendid first strike or nuclear primacy one side can take out all nukes on other side in one strike state could take out its opponenets entire arsenal in one strike). Second strike capability (ability to retaliate after you have already been hit state could retaliate after being struck by a nuclear attack from its opponent they move first now you're moving second). Mutual assured destruction (both states have a second strike capability both states could retaliate after being struck by their opponent it would assure destruction on both sides.) Type II deterrence- Strategies for Extended Deterrence Instead of having two actors we now have a third actor now trying to extend umbrella to protect third actor like u.s. trying to protect west berlin actor from USSR. Since our policy is containment would need to exercise this type of deterrence a lot. Stable Type 1 Deterrence can make Type 2 Deterrence more difficult ie Why would the United States risk Washington for West Berlin? (it becomes a question of credibility) How can the United States credibly threaten to do something irrational?

Humanitarian Interventions- How did the United States respond to the genocide in Rwanda?

U.S. Response- april 9-10 evacuate U.S. nationals there april 21st u.s. votes to reduce un forces in Rwanda from 2,500 to 270 May 21st U.S. first uses term genocide took long time to say controversial on one hand in defense of Clinton didn't understand if it was genocide killing so rapid didn't understand scope counter argument didn't use term genocide because would have been beholden by un convention to intervene.

Rollback: When/ why did U.S. perceptions of the Soviet threat change during the Truman administration?

U.S. perceptions of Soviet Union changed predominately in 1949 when USSR seemed to be gaining a lot of momentum enough to be able to challenge the u.s. balance of power a lot of things happened in this period that made the red scare stronger concern. 1st soviet consolidation of eastern Europe, Berlin Blockade, Alger Hiss (1948 soviet spy in FBI), 1949 loss of china, 1949 soviets test their first nuclear weapon, 1950 Korean War, Kim Philby (soviet spy) in 1951 caught, and more spies caught Julius and Ethel Rosenberg 1953 involved in the nuclear program. All of these things came together for red scare origins widespread belief that the u.s. was losing the cold war because communists had infiltrated the u.s. government and leaking info back to soviets.

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- What has been the U.S. response to ISIS expansion into Iraq?

U.S. strategy in iraq/ Syria- august 7, 2014 u.s. launches air campaign against ISIS. August 15, 2014 encourages maliki to resign in favor of haidar al-abadi. September 3, 2014- u.s. increases troops in Iraq to 1,200 increased by an additional 500 a few days later. Sept 2014 obama's 6 point plan for dealing with isis 1st significantly expand the bombing campaign in Iraq 2nd train and equip the Iraqi army and Kurdish pershmerga stand up against isis so u.s. troops sent to Iraq to train Iraqi security forces 3rd begin bombing campaign in Syria to disrupt isis supply lines administration estimates that it will take 3 years 4th increase efforts to train and arm moderate Syrian rebels 5th work with Saudi arabi and European allies to combat the flow of foreign fighers to Syria. 6th keep u.s. troops out and stay away from Syrian and Iranian governments.

· When/why did U.S. public opinion turn against the Vietnam War?

U.S. turned against the war during the Tet offensive because showed that after all that u.s. military commitment of men, bombs, time to the conflict the north vietnamese were still able to pull off such a massive invasion that showed we were far away from the so called breaking point. Also Americans started turning with Vietnam war draft lottery and 500,000 u.s. troops being stationed in vietnam during late 1960s. a) Frustration over failure to win in Vietnam- biggest factor.

One China Policy ID-

U.s. commits to a one china policy with "constructive ambiguity"-> recognize the PRC (Beijing) as the leader of China. We would defend Taiwan if attacks but wouldn't support Taiwan doing anything aggressive wouldn't be obligated to defend them. Question of Taiwan and strategic ambiguity- Chinese civil war 1949-> one china policy mao gives china 100 years to reclaim Taiwan. signifigance that having taiwan is really important to china and leads to foreign policy question of whether china will ever take it by force and what would the u.s. foreign policy response be to such a situation.

What is unipolarity?

Unipolarity in international politics is a distribution of power in which one state is the only one major power and debate as to whether United States is that power. argument that the u.s. is the predominant power economically, militarily, technologically, and geopolitically following the fall of the soviet union (soviet union broke apart fell apart as big power). U.S. military is an order of magnitude larger than most competitiors (defense budget roughly half of the world's total for most of the post-Cold War era just last year out budget was equal to weakest 154 countries combined. Other powerful states are u.s. allies Britain, japan, Germany, france, Saudi arabia, south korea, Israel, Canada, Australia get very strong state. Not only a lot of money put into u.s. military but also unrivaled power-projection capabilities no other country has military bases across the world way we do we have best blue-water navy, unparalleled foreign base structure and forward deployed troops. Only country capable of intervening anywhere in the world then and probably still now. Also have "command of the commons" (command of common areas like uncharted water the oceans navy ability to regulate traffic in the seas and so forth). We also have most sophisticated nuclear arsenal although Russia has more nukes then we do our missiles tech way more deployable. Research and development unparalleled in the world.

Unipolarity vs. Bipolarity

Unipolarity- argument that the u.s. is the predominant power economically, militarily, technologically, and geopolitically following the fall of the soviet union (soviet union broke apart fell apart as big power). Some argue that china today has made bipolar system some think today is multipolar system but in 1990s the idea was the world is unipolar. U.S. military is an order of magnitude larger than most competitiors (defense budget roughly half of the world's total for most of the post-Cold War era just last year out budget was equal to weakest 154 countries combined. Other powerful states are u.s. allies Britain, japan, Germany, france, Saudi arabia, south korea, Israel, Canada, Australia get very strong state. Not only a lot of money put into u.s. military but also unrivaled power-projection capabilities no other country has military bases across the world way we do we have best blue-water navy, unparalleled foreign base structure and forward deployed troops. Only country capable of intervening anywhere in the world then and probably still now. Also have "command of the commons" (command of common areas like uncharted water the oceans navy ability to regulate traffic in the seas and so forth). We also have most sophisticated nuclear arsenal although Russia has more nukes then we do our missiles tech way more deployable. Research and development unparalleled in the world. In 2020 u.s. military expenditures 39% china 13% india 3.7% Russia 3.1% uk 3%. debate as to whether unipolarity is peaceful and durable Bipolarity- two superpowers like USSR vs. U.S. Unipolarity- only one major power which today is the united states although that is debatable. Bipolar- Cold War was a bipolar system between two major powers US and USSR

John Foster Dulles

United States diplomat who (as Secretary of State) pursued a policy of opposition to the USSR by providing aid to American allies (1888-1959). Eisenhower's tough-talking secretary of state who wanted to "roll back" communism. As Secretary of State. he viewed the struggle against Communism as a classic conflict between good and evil. Believed in containment and the Eisenhower doctrine. The brothers (john foster dulles and other dulles) worked behind and in front of scenes of containment. Kennedy repudiates Dulles's theory of "massive retaliation,". Dulles was a bit of a hawkish advisor to Eisenhower.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- What are some of the impediments to rejoining the deal?

Vienna talks fail November 2021 after five days they fail iran is demanding substantial changes to the text. Also the deal is not very popular with americans. u.s. need to remove unlawful snactions and need to give compensation and biden must promise that next administration cannot withdraw from deal. U.s. wants iran to rejoin deal immediately but can't lift many sanctions because they're not tied to nuclear deal so need congress for that biden says he can't promise that the next administration won't leave deal because the u.s. is a democracy blinken "have both said if diplomacy fails, we have other tools, and we will use other tools to prevent iran from acquiring weapons. June 2021 new president ebrahim raisi conservative but has expressed interest in rejoining the jcpoa also it seems that iran has already gotten nuclear weapon too little too late

Describe Kissinger/Nixon's strategy in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos

Vietnamization have u.s. troops withdrawn gradually but keep the conflict going with ARVN taking the reins on the ground and u.s. drastically increasing aerial bombings intensity and scope by bombing Laos and Cambodia who were previously deemed neutral countries do this to stop the Ho Chi Minh trail and slow down communist force advancements enough for u.s. to get out of the region with "peace with honor" use the destruction as military leverage to get concessions out of north vietnam that allows the u.s. to save face for when they eventually withdraw from the conflict in its entirety.

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? What is the West Bank? Gaza? Golan Heights? Jerusalem?

West Bank- population 3 million 430k Israeli settles in west bank and 220k settlers in east jersualem led by Palestinian national authority (full Palestinian control by Palestinian liberation organization become the PA from the PLO when gained independence decades beforehand). The West Bank (Arabic: الضفة الغربية‎ aḍ-Ḍiffah al-Ġarbiyyah; Hebrew: הגדה המערבית‎ HaGadah HaMa'aravit or יהודה ושומרון‎ Yehuda VeShomron)[3] is a landlocked territory near the Mediterranean coast of Western Asia, bordered by Jordan and the Dead Sea to the east and by Israel to the south, west and north.[2] Under Israeli occupation since 1967, the area is split into 167 Palestinian "islands" under partial Palestinian National Authority civil rule, and 230 Israeli settlements into which Israeli law is "pipelined". The "West Bank" name was given to the territory after it was captured by Jordan in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War because it sits on the west side of the Jordan River. Jordan subsequently annexed the territory in 1950 and held it until 1967 when it was occupied by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War. Gaza strip previously administered by Egypt population 1.9 million isreali settlements there until 2005 but in 2007 hamas wins election control the gaza strip Hamas really runs it and administers it. Gaza strip has been under land blockade by state of Israel difficult to get medicine foodstuffs difficult for gazas travel internationally. is a Palestinian enclave[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea. It borders Egypt on the southwest for 11 kilometers (6.8 mi) and Israel on the east and north along a 51 km (32 mi) border. The Gaza Strip and the West Bank are claimed by the de jure sovereign State of Palestine. The territories of Gaza and the West Bank are separated from each other by Israeli territory. Both fell under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority,[11] but the Strip has, since the Battle of Gaza in June 2007, been governed by Hamas, a militant, Palestinian, fundamentalist Islamic organization,[12] which came to power in the last-held elections in 2006. It has been placed under an Israeli and US-led international economic and political boycott from that time onwards.[13] The territory is 41 kilometers (25 mi) long, from 6 to 12 kilometers (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide, and has a total area of 365 square kilometers (141 sq mi).[14][15] With around 1.85 million Palestinians[16] on some 362 square kilometers, Gaza, if considered a top-level political unit, ranks as the 3rd most densely populated in the world.[17][18] An extensive Israeli buffer zone within the Strip renders much land off-limits to Gaza's Palestinians.[19] Gaza has an annual population growth rate of 2.91% (2014 est.), the 13th highest in the world, and is often referred to as overcrowded.[15][20] The population is expected to increase to 2.1 million in 2020.[clarification needed] In 2012, the United Nations Country Team (UNCT) in the occupied Palestinian territory warned that the Gaza Strip might not be a "liveable place" by 2020;[21] as of 2020, Gaza had suffered shortages of water, medicine and power, a situation exacerbated by the coronavirus crisis. According to Al Jazeera, "19 human rights groups urged Israel to lift its siege on Gaza". The UN has also urged the lifting of the blockade,[22][23][24] while a report by UNCTAD, prepared for the UN General Assembly and released on 25 November 2020, said that Gaza's economy was on the verge of collapse and that it was essential to lift the blockade.[25][26] Due to the Israeli and Egyptian border closures and the Israeli sea and air blockade, the population is not free to leave or enter the Gaza Strip, nor is it allowed to freely import or export goods. Sunni Muslims make up the predominant part of the population in the Gaza Strip. Golan heights- annexed by Israel in 1981 unrecognzied officially. the Golan Heights refers to the border region captured from Syria by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967; the territory has been occupied by the latter since then and was subject to a de facto Israeli annexation in 1981. This region includes the western two-thirds of the geological Golan Heights and the Israeli-occupied part of Mount Hermon. Since the Six-Day War of 1967, the western two-thirds of the Golan Heights has been occupied and administered by Israel,[1][2] whereas the eastern third remains under the control of Syria. Following the war, Syria dismissed any negotiations with Israel as part of the Khartoum Resolution at the 1967 Arab League summit.[20] Construction of Israeli settlements began in the remainder of the territory held by Israel, which was under a military administration until the Knesset passed the Golan Heights Law in 1981, which applied Israeli law to the territory;[21] the move has been described as an annexation. The Golan Heights Law was condemned by the United Nations Security Council in Resolution 497,[2][22] which stated that "the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction, and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect", and Resolution 242, which emphasizes the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war". Israel maintains it has a right to retain the Golan, also citing the text[23] of Resolution 242, which calls for "secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force".[24] Jerusalem- in particular what are its municipal boundaries is entire city capital of jersualem will part of jeruslaem east Jerusalem become capital of independent Palestine one day. Nakba- aplestinian exodus from Israel between 1947 and 1949 "catastrophe" or "cataclysm" 700k Palestinians left state of Israel and went to refugee camps primarily in west bank and gaza 80% of arab inhabitants of what became Israel "right of return"(idea of being able to return back to land they had to flee). 16% of Israel state is Arabic speakers. Also a lot of Palestinians went to Kuwait and the united states. 1st war 1948 2nd war 6 days war 1967 egyptians and president received ussr intelligence that Israel was going to preemptively attack validity of that statement controversial Nasser begins to mobilize forces and then Israel essentially negates 70% Egyptian airforce while still on the ground and advances takes a lot of land Israel able to defeat military that comes in in 6 days Israel occupation of gaza and west bank from this 6 day war Israel doubled its land in a war that Egyptians were chest beating for but didn't anticipate isreael response. 3rd war Yom Kippur War- Egyptians and Syrians link up trying to get west bank and gaza strip back in some form of negotiation but eventually Israel repels those efforts.

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- What were some of Trump's criticisms of NATO? Do you think those criticisms are valid? Why or why not? 3 reasons obsolete

What to do about NATO (second issue under trump presidency)- NATO is it obsolete? Should u.s. should even continue being in nato trump was criticizing nato in 1987 had longstanding belief it wasn't serving u.s. interests. 3 reasons trump said it's obsolete 1st Russia no longer poses the same threat as the soviet union (yes but still went into crimea still has 100k troops on border of ukraine russia isn't exactly timid post coldwar) 2nd nato was not focused on counterterrorism (one time article 5 used was on act of terror) 3rd financial cost of nato to the united states.(counter eu war be alot more expensive) How should US address "freeriding" NATO allies?- u.s. spends a lot more on NATO other eu countries need give more there is stiupation you should spend at least 2% of your gdp on military if you're in nato only u.s. Greece Poland Estonia and uk meet that goal most nato members don't spend that much money on nato. Only way to get them to spend more would be to threaten to leave.

What is the Revolution in Military Affairs? ID

Written by Eliot Cohen in 1996. for almost a decade American defense planners have forseen an impending revolution in military affairs described as military tech revolution such transofmrmation would open the way for afundamental reordering of American. 2 developments made RMA possible 1st rise of information technologies (development of intelligent weapons that can guide theselves to their targets, variety and ever expanding capbilityies of intelligence gathering achiens and computers to bring together and distribute to users masses of information from these sources it's the internet rise of satellite surveillance on unprecedented level. 2nd successs of post industrial capitalism- in the years after WWII even western nations spent a great deal of their national wealth on defense and created vase state bureaucracies provide for every military need and function. When combine these two things the result- "only the u.s. with vast accumulation military capital can fully exploit this revolution... a revolution in military affairs is underway it appears to offer the u.s. the prospect of military power beyond that of any other country on the planet now and well into the next century." RMA use of precision missiles cyber security drones satellite high end technology all concentrated on the u.s. should give us the ability to fight differently can fight wars with not as many boots on the ground. can fight wars with less u.s. boots on the ground can have quick decisive victories in conflicts.

The Iraq War/ Syrian Conflict- In your opinion, looking back, was the war in Iraq a mistake?

Yes absolutely

Did the United States ever contemplate launching a preventive war against the Soviet Union?

Yes, Eisenhower brought it up in early 1950s idea take advantage we have more before soviets could increase but shortly after Eisenhower had second thoughts "The United States and its allies must reject the concept of preventive war or acts intended to provoke war."

Afghanistan and the War on Terror- In your opinion, looking back, was the war in Afghanistan a mistake?

Yes, I think so could've just focused on Al Qaeda and Bin Laden either through negotiations or quick military bombings and capturing of bin laden that wouldn't have involved going to war with the Taliban and therefore having a full fledged decades long war in Afghanistan.

Afghanistan and the War on Terror- In your opinion, should the United States have withdrawn from Afghanistan? Should/ could the Biden Administration have executed the withdrawal in a different manner?

Yes, definitely. We couldn't stay there forever and Biden knew this and while he could've been more prepared/ faster at getting vulnerable people out of Afghanistan the actual withdrawal really had to be done and was in many ways like ripping off a band-aid

What is the Carter Doctrine? Why did he do it? ID

a declaration that efforts to interfere with American interests in the Middle East would be considered a act of aggression and be met with force if necessary this doctrine said that the U.S. had the right to intervene in the Middle East if the oil reserves in the region were threatened. which later led to the later Persian Gulf War in the early 1990s. called Persian gulf area as part of u.s. interest and assault soviets by any means necessary including military force. Carter made relations worse with Soviets then they were at beginning. He did it because u.s. felt like were losing edge in Middle East with Soviet invasion of afghanistan and the iranian hostage crisis. declared in 1980

Al Qaeda

a network of Islamic terrorist organizations, led by Osama bin Laden, that carried out the attacks on the US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya in 1998, the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, and the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001. 1988 osama bin laden (wealthy Saudi inspired by jihad) comes to afghanistan with a small group of islamist fighters about 15 of them to start called Al Qaeda. Bin Laden wanted to create a free independent Islamic nation. In 1996 Taliban seize Kabul and control 2/3 of the country 1996 taliban gives sanctuary to bin laden and other al qaeda leaders who then establish training camps in afghanistan leading to u.s. war in afghanistan later. Rise of al-qaeda in anbar province in Iraq (al qaeda is sunni gain more control in sunni region in Iraq many of their former members were people who left the Iraqi army so control a lot of territory in western part of country). Al Qaeda also denounced ISIS Al-Qaeda renounces ISIS (splitting off from them because of number of reasons different in priorities al qaeada interested in attack far enemy u.s. foreign powers isis more interested in near enemy having control over the state. Also how to deal with moderate muslims isis was more fundamentalist then al qaeda thought moderates need be treated really poorly isis known for particularly brutal tactics beheadings mass executions sexual slavery emphasis placed on apocalypse in ISIS al qaeda says isis is too hardcore for them and denounces them).

Iran-Contra

a political scandal in the United States which came to light in November 1986, during the Reagan administration, in which senior US figures agreed to facilitate the sale of arms to Iran, the subject of an arms embargo, to secure the release of hostages and to fund Nicaraguan contras. Iran-Contra- 1982 congress bans the u.s. from providing aid to the contras so Reagan admin looks for alternative sources of money meanwhile seven American hostages in Lebanon are being held by a group with ties to the iran, Hezbollah. U.s. develops plan to sell weapons to iran (currently subject to u.s. arms embargo) via Israel in exchange for the release of the hostages. Have money from securing hostages Reagan decided use this new source of money 1985 NSC approves plan to use proceeds of sales of weapons to Israel (so know weapons going to iran in iran Iraq war through Israel since there was an embargo) to fund the contras in Nicaragua. 1986 scandal breaks Reagan claims that he did not know of the operation (some people argued there is some possibility he was in early phases of alzheimers and didn't understand what was going on maybe) many in Reagan administration convicted of perjury and withholding evidence. 1986-87 Iran-Contra deal- u.s. secretly sell arms to iran release hostages in Lebanon and use that money to help rebels in Nicaragua.

Eisenhower Foreign Policy- In broad terms, describe the U.S. intervention in Iran in 1953

a) The Eisenhower administration, viewing Mossadegh's movement as communist-inspired, inaugurates Operation AJAX- Eisenhower publicly said indifference but was anti mossadegh though he was communist. British in weird spot of wanting control over Iran but wanted maintain monopoly but needed u.s. help. b) After a few minor glitches, a CIA-orchestrated demonstration drives Mossadegh from office and restores the Shah to power- 1953 uses CIA money at least five million dollar to hire mob to throw down mossadegh. Important to note mossadegh was a nationalist not communist not crazy just eccentric Eisenhower saw him as tool of Moscow. c) Short-term consequences: The United States gets a staunch ally in Iran and a major share of Iranian oil d) Long-term consequences: Anti-American resentment ripens in Iran for decades before erupting in the 1979 revolution that enthrones the Ayatollah Khomeini- intense anti-american feeling that endures to this day. Exploded revolt that dethroned shah and Khomeini deemed a lot worse then mossadegh u.s. kind of did this to themselves.

Berlin Airlift ID

airlift in 1948 catalyst for crisis- u.s. introduces deutsche mark into w. Germany as part of effort to integrate germany's economy. As we introduce it in west Germany we introduce it into west berlin it starts spreading into entire berlin system and soviets are furious this is happening didn't want u.s. to have de facto currency control of berlin so soviets decides to blockade berlin to prevent western powers from introcuting new currency in west berlin problem 2 million people in berlin only 36 days worth of food 45 days worth of coal. Soviet Union thought pretty easy for them to blockade Berlin. But u.s. decided would overcome the blockade three 29 mile wide air corridors. And delievered 8,000 tons of food per day 200,000 plus flights total. Rest of EU watching thinking victory for u.s. and eventually ussr capitulating may 1949 after nearly 11 months they capitulate and stop blockading the city. important because seen as a key successful instance of early U.S. containment strategy in Europe.

What is the difference between an atomic and a hydrogen bomb? ID

an atomic bomb is a fission device, while a hydrogen bomb uses fission to power a fusion reaction. In other words, an atomic bomb can be used as a trigger for a hydrogen bomb. An atomic bomb or A-bomb is a nuclear weapon that explodes due to the extreme energy released by nuclear fission. A hydrogen bomb or H-bomb is a type of nuclear weapon that explodes from the intense energy released by nuclear fusion. Hydrogen bombs may also be called thermonuclear weapons. The energy results from the fusion of isotopes of hydrogen—deuterium and tritium. A hydrogen bomb relies on the energy released from a fission reaction to heat and compress the hydrogen to trigger fusion, which can also generate additional fission reactions. In a large thermonuclear device, about half of the yield of the device comes from fission of depleted uranium. Fusion- Thermonuclear or Hydrogen Bomb- more complicated. Every hydrogen has an atomic bomb within it. But also has thermonuclear fusion fuel smaller atoms that push together usually an isotope of hydrogen or lithium. First need have regular fission bomb go off in one end of the bomb and when this happens it gives off a lot of energy of x-rays gamma rays the casing will for split second to bounce rays back inward pushing the rays together with such energy to force atoms together aka fusion which creates ignition fusion fuel ignites.

· What are the alternatives to balancing? ID balancing and other two

bandwagoning- aligning with state that poses the biggest potential threat. Defensive rationale: appeasement (trying to not get in this states way) or offensive rationale: to share in the spoils of victory. Suggests that this is a strategy for minor states are attracted to power. Buckpassing- having another state balance the power of a rising state (get another state to do the balancing for you) balancing requires states to invest significant resources (is costly on state) in their own military and potentially risk attracting the ire of a rising state. Appealing strategy for states that lack the resources to balance the states directly Conclusion of realism after three behaviors is that states will balance the power of one another How do states balance the power of one another? 1st Internal balancing- everything you can do inside of your own state to make you more powerful build up your military, developing nuclear weapons, conscription, war planning etc. building up the military power of one's own state. 2nd External balancing- forming alliances with other states in order to join military forces against a common threat.

George W. Bush Administration- According to Bush, why did the 9/11 terrorists attack the United States?

big debate in American society why they did it 2 interpretations 1st hate us for who we are (hate us for our American values if we can change who they are make them more liberal then they will no longer hate us) 2nd hate us for what we do (hate our foreign policy support for Israel put troops in Saudi arabia). Basically thought with universal liberalism that hate us for who we are and that we need to make them a liberal democracy in order for them to not hate us anymore. long story short Bush thought they hated us for you WE ARE

George W. Bush Administration- How did the Bush administration define their opponent during the War on Terror?

broad conception of who we are fighting. All different enemies we are fighting. Expansive conception of the target of the war what constitutes a terrorist threat. The enemy is terrorism premediated violence against innocents so the enemy is terrorists not Al-Qaeda can see why all militant and terrorist groups can all be grouped together. making no distinction between terrorist groups and the states that harbor them going be big deal for war of afghanistan al-qaeda had bases in Afghanistan.

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? Which of Trump's foreign policy beliefs have been controversial amongst America's European allies?

comments on free-riding allies (our allies are capitalizing on our military commitments by not putting money into their own military rely on u.s. military instead they benefit disproporitionately from free trade since don't have to put as much money in military and more into the welfare of their citizens instead) Trump heavily critical of NATO (payments we make to NATO were disproportional to everyone else could put money into our homeless, sick, commerce, education, etc.) sees NATO more as a protection bracket rather then this balancing coalition we should tax these wealthy nations not America they should pay a tribute to the united states for keeping our troops in the region he doesn't really talk about how u.s. benefit from NATO. Also criticizes Japan for free-riding 1951 post-occupation of Japan u.s. security treaty with japan the united states stationed troops in japan but since we were worried about japan rising they couldn't spend more then 1% of their GDP on their military and now there has been some debates as to whether they should be capped at 1% Japan really dependent on seas for imports/ oil trump criticized that u.s. military commitment what protecting japans market they should protect their own market. In general more transactional discussion of allies. Trump doesn't like NATO What to do about NATO (second issue under trump presidency)- NATO is it obsolete? Should u.s. should even continue being in nato trump was criticizing nato in 1987 had longstanding belief it wasn't serving u.s. interests. 3 reasons trump said it's obsolete 1st Russia no longer poses the same threat as the soviet union 2nd nato was not focused on counterterrorism 3rd financial cost of nato to the united states. How should US address "freeriding" NATO allies?- u.s. spends a lot more on NATO other eu countries need give more there is stiupation you should spend at least 2% of your gdp on military if you're in nato only u.s. Greece Poland Estonia and uk meet that goal most nato members don't spend that much money on nato. Only way to get them to spend more would be to threaten to leave. 2016 interview will the us uphold its article V nato commitments if Russia invades Baltic states trump "have they fulfilled their obligations to us? If they fulfill their oblitionations to us yes I'm saying there are many countries that have not fulfilled their obligations to us." How should we deal with Baltic states since Russia has huge advantage in the terrain should we defend them could we even defend them?

Bashar Al-Assad

current president of Syria. bashar al-assad: president of Syria since 2000 took over for his father hafez al-assad who ruled as a dictator for 30 years so during Syrian civil war this country had dominated Syria a cult of personality type of regime he is member of alawite minority group only 12% of the Syrian population the majority population 65% sunni arab. Receives external support from Russia, iran, Iraq, and lebanon's Hezbollah faction. Janurary-July 2011 protests in Syria began (anti-authoritarian anti-assad protests). Syrian opposition is highly fragmented compared to assad's centralized authority August 20 2012 obama says that the u.s. will reconsider military intervention in Syria if assad uses chemical weapons or biological weapons spring 2013: Washington authorizes 250 million in covert aid to Syrian opposition. From obamas perspective he had campaigned from withdrawing saw it as messy conflict august 21 2013 assad uses chemical weapons killing 1,429 civilians Obama "we have been very clear to the assad regime but also other players on the ground, that a red line for us if we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized that would change my calculus" (many repulbicans thought u.s. should intervene) u.s. condemns human rights offenses of assad.

Why does William Wohlforth believe that unipolarity is durable and peaceful?

current unipolarity is peaceful- the leading state's power advantage removes the problem of hegemonic rivalry from world politics cold war battle between soviet union and u.s. whose going to do that and fight us the power gap so big other states can't challenge the us. "a unipolar system is one in which a counterbalance is impossible states are tempted to free ride, pass the buck, or bandwagon in search of favors from the aspiring hegemon." States will bandwagon with the US can't fight us join us. Also reduces the salience and stakes of balance of power politics among major states (uk vs. Germany vs. Russia that's not going to lead to world war because always know u.s. would come in and deal with it). the current unipolarity will be durable- 1st the size of the power and 2nd geography-> both of the elements necessary for unipolarity strongly favor the u.s.. additional factors making unipolarity durable 1st alliance politics are costly 2nd regional powers will struggle to aggregate capabilities. 3rd toher unified hegemons (Russia/china) will take a long time to emerge 4th the legacy of cold war favor us (large projection of power unrivaled projection of power.

What is the security dilemma? ID

defensive measures that a state takes to increase its security may appear threatening to other states, causing them to take similar actions to protect themselves. Even though no intention of attacking other state increasing power defensive but uncertain intentions can be perceived threatening to others. Spiral security dilemma result of this which creates increased tensions arms races and can also lead to crisis destabilization. cyclical

· In broad terms, describe Eisenhower's policy toward Vietnam.

domino theory mindset basically wants to help French despite it being a imperialist endeavor better then communist one. so wants to fund French to keep the status quo to prevent vulnerabilities by giving 400 million dollars to French. U.s. gradually raises its contribution to the French war effort by 1953 paying 40% of franc'es war buget 1.5 billion in aid which is a lot but not going very well for French. Eisenhower considers intervention having u.s. soldiers there but he decides against it 68% of u.s. public disapproves (context this is a year after the Korean war so no wonder americans weren't so thrilled about having troops in Vietnam). South Vietnam 7th ranking recipient of u.s. aid during 1950s 3rd ranking non-nato recipient of aid a lot of aid. Eisenhower creates u.s. military assistance and advisory group MAAG to learn to fight better develop the ARVN and develop the civil guard south vietnmaese internal security force.

Rollback: What is Rollback? ID

exploit weaknesses in the soviet bloc one of three part strategy of Kennan (affiliated with rollback) exploit weaknesses in Soviet Bloc- rollback operations. Working with communist regimes that split from Moscow. Few times during cold war communist governments don't want be super allied with ussr like soviet-yugoslav split (1948) but Kennan as realist on Tito said "the U.S. must take advantage of the present situation not only to contain the soviet sphere but to reduce it seizing and maintiaining the initiative in all fields." He is going to make the same argument with Albania and China in cold war later. rollback operations- actively overthrow an existing soviet ally overthrowing a current military adversary 22 covert, 1 overt do this through covert regime changes. Rollback operations at beginning of cold war- Kenan "to encourage and promote the gradual retraction of undue Russian power and influence from the present perimeter areas around traditional Russian boundaries." U.S. going to intervene in areas Soviets had expanded into WWII and encourage the immersion of new independent governments indep of soviet union. idea was to splinter the soviet bloc by encourageing the emergence of indep states not allied with ussr. U.s. launches 13 covert rollback operations behind the iron curtain in the late 1940s. 5% of Marshall Plan funding went to these covert oeprations $685 million dollars in total. Idea Soviets weren't in these areas that long so should be vulnerable to weakening soviet control of these regions. also Reagan reinstated rollback during the second phase of the cold War and we also transitioned to rollback during the Truman administration during the Korean War.

· What was the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Why was it important? Gulf of Tonkin Resolution ID

gulf of Tonkin incident (early august 1964 OPPLAN-34A CIA led covert operations into North Vietnam via the Gulf of Tonkin small speed boats race them up also had august 2nd north Vietnamese torpedo boats exchange fire with uss Maddox in international waters outside the gulf of Tonkin (problem is north Vietnamese follow covert operation and then rn into not covert uss Maddox who didn't know about covert operation instigation thought north Vietnamese were attacking them so shot four of them down two days after initial attack august 4 alleged second attack on uss Maddox and turner joy later revealed likely not to have occurred likely overly eager anxious commanders Johnson "For all I know, our Navy was shooting whales out there." important because led to u.s. escalation in war in Gulf of Tonkin resolution- august 4 johnson addresses nation and launches retaliatory air strikes on north Vietnamese targest august 6th mcnamara testifies before congress that Maddox had been conducting routine missions august 7th congress authorizes the gul of Tonkin resolution empowered LBJ to take all necessary powers to prevent further aggression in SE Asia and became a basis for our fight in Vietnam no congressional declaration of war in the region. Congress repealed the gulf of Tonkin resolution in December 1970

Stability-Instability Paradox ID

idea that states will engage in conventional war precisely because they feel secure that it can never escalate to nuclear war among the superpowers. Glenn Snyder: Stability-Instability Paradox- it says that mutually assured destruction decreases the likelihood of full-scale nuclear war, it increases the likelihood of minor or indirect conflicts between nuclear armed states. Reason why different level of conflicts bottom being sub-conventional conflict and then conventional war and then limited nuclear war using couple nuclear weapons and finally have full scale global nuclear war and idea is that all these steps would be part of an escalation ladder but Snyder says because both sides know that the full escalation is impossible they are willing to risk confrontation at lower levels the highest level is suicide so it paradoxicaclly makes lower levels of conflict more likely ie in cold war wouldn't expect full blown nuclear exchange but might see all sorts of instability like proxy-conflicts, crises, etc. might even be more willing to get into a limited nuclear war.

George W. Bush Administration- What is Neoconservatism? As an intellectual movement, where did it come from? ID

ideological movement started in 1970s Ford faced serious criticism from the right placed a lot of importance in preponderance of power. First generation were intellectuals second generation came out of university of Chicago including Wolfowitz, Fukyama, Cohen, etc. during cold war anti-communist movement but after USSR fell neo-conservatives lost a lot of influence really criticized H.W. Bush for not going to Baghdad during Persian Gulf War but post 911 started having a resurgence and Bush administration uses it to guide their policies. 3 big beliefs 1st American exceptionalism 2nd Universal Liberalism 3rd Efficacy of Military Power 1st American exceptionalism- u.s. was founded on constitution, democracy idea of liberal values embrace of democracy distinctive political institutions have unique position to help the rest of the world. Unique founding-> moral imperative to get involved in spreading liberal values. U.S. is force for good in the world we helped defeat imperialism in WWI defeated communism and fascism we have duty to promote freedom liberty and other good values. Some argue unipolarity of post-cold war allowed these American exceptionalism ideas to be passed on. "a foreign policy that impresses values... the success of liberty... America is nation not build on blood race but proposition". Implications of this belief- u.s. has benign intentions our intentions are to help people so we can exercise our power without fear of abuse we are acting benevolently for all states. 2nd implication u.s. is a model for other countries. 2nd Universal Liberalism- neo-conservatives think liberalism is strongest belief on earth like fukuyama thinks everyone wants to be a liberal. Liberalism is most powerful ideology democracy will flourish if given opportunity. Very black and white terms of the world liberal states vs. nonliberal states. "no people on earth want to be oppressed." Think that everyone wants to be a liberal you think its not that hard to create it's evident in our planning or lack of planning in government state building in Iraq (which 2000 bush would say was very difficult to do but really shifted thinking could do it in a few months). Democratic Peace Theory- if create world that is populated by democracies then world would be safer. Neo-conservatives thought heart of terrorism problem post 911 was lack of liberal values in the middle east so if can make them follow a u.s. model of liberalism the terrorism problem would go away. 3rd efficacy of military power- RMA. Unipolar moment we are the preponderant of power combination of that with RMA we are qualitiatively and quanitatively the strongest state in the world undeniably U.S. strongest military. We are so strong that states will bandwagon with us instead of balance against us were just so powerful can't help but to do it. If you have such a strong military if use that power to take advantage of unipolar moment then virtually all states in system will be forced to align with u.s. interests ie 2003 libya gave up nuclear weapons because u.s. forced them to.

· According to Liberals, how do international institutions foster interstate cooperation?

international institutions foster cooperation- international institutions create rules stipulating rules for how states should cooperate and compete with one another (ie UN, IMF, WTO). Institutions provide info about their members-> reduces uncertainty of intentions and miscalculation (ie UN can look into states nuclear programs to reassure other states). Institutions allow for "issue linkages" (UN everyone can go to the UN have established norms and values). Institutions lower transaction costs for cooperation. Institutions compel states to develop reputations for trustworthiness (want to be seen as reliable member so not promising all these things you don't fulfill creates a sense of accountability).

Eisenhower Foreign Policy- What was the New Look? ID

key challenge: deter an increasingly powerful soviet states but also decrease the size of the u.s. military budget which had blossomed because of the Korean war and nsc-68 while also dealing with soviets having a rise in military funding and investment so Eisenhower solution to both challenges was the "New Look' (1955)- increased reliance of strategy nuclear weapons to offset the costs of maintaining a large overseas conventional force (nuclear weapons become the more affordable military option). works hand in hand with massive retaliation strategy- The thought was even if the credibility was really low but the costs were so high we shouldn't do it. Introduction of nuclear weapons into European theater. Could have large military in Europe or have nuclear weapons there.

The Rise of China- In your opinion, how should the United States prepare for the rise of China?

measured containment

· What was the strategic hamlet program?

move rural South Vietnamese peasants to new villages where they could get security from South Vietnam gov; isolated peasants & made it difficult for Viet Cong guerillas to hide amongst them. It aimed to create armed blockades which would house South Vietnamese peasants and protect villages from the Vietcong. The program largely failed and likely led to the recruitment of peasants in the Vietcong. Corrupted officials who took aid from villages further alienated the peasants. A program devised by the US to prevent South Vietnamese peasants becoming subject to Vietcong influence.

George W. Bush Administration- What are the advantages/ disadvantages of unilateral vs. multilateral interventions?

multilateral agreements bring more legitimacy and it helps with burdensharing (not needing to take on whole military economic commitment by ourselves). oftentimes not that effective due to defectors and freeriders. also multilateral interventions can become multilateral entanglements where difficult for us to remove ourselves because of other states actions. also unreliable because democracatic state partners need their publics to favor intervention as well meaning allies can be very sensitive to political considerations. unilateral can generally work faster don't need to wait until have UN/ UN security council approval wait for permission for each military action because oftentimes need to work quickly to protect national security. makes us appear as a imperial overstretch imperial world police which can be problematic politically. pro allows us to act even when don't have international support when security concern so high shouldn't need to ask for permission to secure it.

The Rise of China- In your opinion, does China's rise in power pose a major threat to the United States? Why or why not?

not sure yet

What is the difference between punishment and denial? ID

punishment=countervalue=cities denial=counterforce=nuclear weapons/military

How did changes in the structure of the international system shape U.S. foreign policy since 1945?

reflect

What are the pros and cons of unilateral versus multilateral interventions?

reflect ). Democracies are problematic partners for interventions because their publics must favor action as well (public can vote out leaders if don't like a policy so worry about public opinion variable ie Iraq war a lot of our key allies public opinions were against Iraq war). Democracies are extremely casualty sensitive. unilateral can generally be faster ie first persian gulf war had a lot of states involved second persian gulf war not as much. multilateral is more legitimate intervention internationally though. unilateral- don't need to coordinate with other militaries or threaten our sovereign influence on our military structures. multilateral agreements bring more legitimacy and it helps with burdensharing (not needing to take on whole military economic commitment by ourselves). oftentimes not that effective due to defectors and freeriders. also multilateral interventions can become multilateral entanglements where difficult for us to remove ourselves because of other states actions. also unreliable because democracatic state partners need their publics to favor intervention as well meaning allies can be very sensitive to political considerations. unilateral can generally work faster don't need to wait until have UN/ UN security council approval wait for permission for each military action because oftentimes need to work quickly to protect national security. makes us appear as a imperial overstretch imperial world police which can be problematic politically. pro allows us to act even when don't have international support when security concern so high shouldn't need to ask for permission to secure it.

If President Biden asked you to develop a new U.S. strategy to combat the various current challenges in the Middle East, what would your priorities be?

reflect ISIS, Al Qaeda, not the Taliban, not Palestine Hamas Fatah, maintain status quo in Israel, etc.

In your opinion, when should the U.S. pursue regime change (covertly or overtly)?

reflect Never never really seems to work it undermines our liberal values a lot of the time to overthrow a government that was elected just because we find them left leaning. we are also undermining other states soveriengty every time we do it which seems highly problematic to me almost imperialist world police. U.S. backed overt regime change attempts during Cold War- Lebanon, North Korea, Panama, Dominican (what blatantly tried to do) but covert was a lot more 64 times we tried to overthrow another country most of them failed. Covert Regime change- foreign interventions to replace the leadership of another state where intervening state does not acknowledge its role publicly (coups, assasinations, manipulating elections, secretly supporting dissident groups.) 3 main goals of covert regime changes 1st rollback operations- actively overthrow an existing soviet ally overthrowing a current military adversary 22 covert, 1 overt. 2nd containment- prevent the emergence of a new military threat 28 covert 2 overt (Italy, France) and 3rd Hegemonic establish or maintain a hierarchial insterstate order Monroe doctrine 18 covert 3 overt Guatemala, chili, brazil, panama, etc. Regime attempts by administration- during Vietnam war Nixon, Ford, post Carter it is shorter. Rollback operations at beginning of cold war- Kenan "to encourage and promote the gradual retraction of undue Russian power and influence from the present perimeter areas around traditional Russian boundaries." U.S. going to intervene in areas Soviets had expanded into WWII and encourage the immersion of new independent governments indep of soviet union. idea was to splinter the soviet bloc by encourageing the emergence of indep states not allied with ussr. U.s. launches 13 covert rollback operations behind the iron curtain in the late 1940s. 5% of Marshall Plan funding went to these covert oeprations $685 million dollars in total. Idea Soviets weren't in these areas that long so should be vulnerable to weakening soviet control of these regions. Case study of Albania operation- 1939 Italy overthrows Albanian king zog and establishes a fascist regime in his place. Multiple Albanian partisan groups emerge to combat fascist regime (national liberation movement (left wing communist), balli kombetar (conservative), legaliteti (monarchists want put king back in power). All groups fight against Italy puppet regime in wwii. Legaliteti and Ballii Kombetar decide collaborate with the Nazis while communist group doesn't. Soviet Union expels Nazi occupying forces so communists assume power with Enver Hoxha serving as Prime Minister (soviets put national liberation movement in power). U.S. decides develop plan to overthrow soviet backed regime Operation BGFiend target: Enver Hoxha Regime type: communist Proposed government: non-communist military regime. Overthrow Hoxha's regime. Strategic rationale "the most important factor here is the loss of prestige to the soviets resulting from successful coup or defection of Albania" if break up block might incentivize other states to fracture as well follow Albania's footsteps. Another reason could be normative which o'rourke disagrees with also disagrees with regime type trying to promote democracy in these states. O'rourke thinks main reason was strategic security concerns for u.s. also doesn't have much economic gain of regime change in Albania so not motive. Three stage plan to overthrow Hoxha 1st formation of a refugee Albanian committee to serve both as a front and as a rallying point for subsequent activities 2nd reconnaissance and propaganda. Part 1: Formation of Opposition- opposition to Hoxha- anti-communist Albanian partisans that had collaborated with Nazi and Italian occupiers during WWII. Balli Kombetar and Legaliteti despite had Nazi affiliations this would be groups U.S. would have to work with. How get in touch with these groups used Gen-Maj Reinhard Gehlen (basically did CIA for Nazis but when germans losing war he had a lot of intelligence that u.s. needed to work with im for u.s. works with gehlen organization to identify anti-communist groups in eastern Europe ties to BK and Legaliteti partisans (and other Nazi auxiliary forces in Eastern Europe) gave Gehlen 200 million dollars in U.S. support because that information was so important Gehlen had a whole bunch of Nazi spies under his command. U.S. forms National Committee for a Free Albania 40% Balli Kombetar 40% Monarchists 20% other groups headed by Hasan Dosti (was minister of justice during the Italian fascist government). We had nickname for infiltration people we called them "Pixies" workers of the operation during third phase of overthrowing the Hoxha regime. We started training militarily the pixies. Final step start infiltrating pixies into Albania parachuting them into Albania called pixie airdrops join with anti-communist forces try to incite a mass uprising in hopes to overthrow the government (1950-1951) of first 50 dropped only 5 survived there were oftentimes people ready right away to stop the airdrops there was a Soviet spy Kim Philby (british intelligence liason in Washington to the OPC, FBI, and CIA and he was revealing to his Soviet handlers precise coordinates of every u.s. and british infiltration) in 1951 he was caught and he defected to Soviet Union and u.s. decides to continue operations and that domestic groups claiming to be Pixies asking for arms that we gave but turned out to be KGB all 13 covert offensive operations in Eastern Europe fail disastrously Kenan regrets supporting the idea and this was the end of rollback until the 1980s. Overall success rate of u.s. backed regime changes by conduct 66% for overt 39% for covert. Our success was low in soviet areas higher in non-aligned areas but most successful obviously was countries that were u.s. allies. In terms of tactics assassination plans never worked, 2/3 coups successful, dissidents least successful 5 out of 33 suceeded, meddling in elections most successful 75% of time 12 out of 16 cases and democracy promotion (support wide spread democratic revolution) had some success. Out of three strategies roll back stopped, foreign diplomacy didn't really work, but containment was here to stay. 1986-87 Iran-Contra deal- u.s. secretly sell arms to iran release hostages in Lebanon and use that money to help rebels in Nicaragua. was really unpopular undermined reagan's political legitimacy and the constitution and was ultimately unsuccessful. Iran-Contra- 1982 congress bans the u.s. from providing aid to the contras so Reagan admin looks for alternative sources of money meanwhile seven American hostages in Lebanon are being held by a group with ties to the iran, Hezbollah. U.s. develops plan to sell weapons to iran (currently subject to u.s. arms embargo) via Israel in exchange for the release of the hostages. Have money from securing hostages Reagan decided use this new source of money 1985 NSC approves plan to use proceeds of sales of weapons to Israel (so know weapons going to iran in iran Iraq war through Israel since there was an embargo) to fund the contras in Nicaragua. 1986 scandal breaks Reagan claims that he did not know of the operation (some people argued there is some possibility he was in early phases of alzheimers and didn't understand what was going on maybe) many in Reagan administration convicted of perjury and withholding evidence.

How important are international institutions in shaping international relations?

reflect international institutions create rules stipulating rules for how states should cooperate and compete with one another (ie UN, IMF, WTO). Institutions provide info about their members-> reduces uncertainty of intentions and miscalculation (ie UN can look into states nuclear programs to reassure other states). Institutions allow for "issue linkages" (UN everyone can go to the UN have established norms and values). Institutions lower transaction costs for cooperation. Institutions compel states to develop reputations for trustworthiness (want to be seen as reliable member so not promising all these things you don't fulfill creates a sense of accountability). Realist response to international institutions- international institutions have minimal influences on state behavior on their own. Cannot effectively contain great powers. The most powerful states in the system create and shape international instituions to reflect their own national interests (ie U.S. predominately formed UN so U.S. exerts a lot of influence on UN and therefore in a lot of states. What happens when UN tries to reject U.S. ideas, can't really stop the U.S. ie UN told U.S. not get in war in Iraq and did it anyway). UN IMF have minimal influence ability to enforce. Collective Security/ Cooperative Security- more liberal mindset out of the four. Based on liberalism (democratic peace theory, economic cooperation, insitutions foster peace cooperation). Sees the u.s. as maintaining peace via international institutions (build upon this want us to work multilaterally to make peace in the future with these instiutions). High level of strategic interdependence. Value in promoting democracy, international law, and free trade all parts of their worldview of how to make a more cooperative international system. global regional priorities (global interventions something should work together with all of our allies to remake the world order in a new better way) International institutions didn't really work with liberalizing Russia long-term post-Cold War. International institutions didn't really work with the Rwandan genocide. China- International instituitons china is thriving within u.s.-led liberal world word UNSC, WTO, etc. Ikenberrgy scholar has said this is a really good thing on why the liberal order is primed to accept china's rise (unlike other international orders this is best on rules and orders which is more primed to allow state to rise within it). International intsitutions- china is splitting from u.s. led liberal order. China creating alternative political institutions new development bank (NDB), Asian infrastructure investment bank (AIIB), created the belt and road intiative (2013) create conenctions between china and other parts of eastern hemisphere building ports all throughout it. Made in china initiative (2015) about producing own military productions. Regional comprehensive economic partnership 2020 15 country free trade agreement in s.e. asia. Ambitious foreign policy outreach in global south, Africa, etc. (can argue china is creating own order that isn't a liberal order).

Does reputation matter? When a state backs down during a crisis or withdraws from a conflict, does its credibility suffer afterward? How do states assess one another's credibility?

reflect I think yes but maybe not as much as it used to. Cold War a lot of policies were based on have enough legitimacy to defend your claims to west berlin western hemisphere iron curtain japan etc. if lost reputation ussr could've take more risks and expanded communism thinking u.s. wouldn't have the will to stop them. post-cold war I think it hasn't mattered as much although it might in the upcoming years our reputation vs. chinas we will have to see. But even cold war don't need much credibility for mutually assured destruction threat people won't risk it also didn't need much credibility for cuban missile crisis. : schelling believes that states will manipulate the level of risk of nuclear war during crises to make their coercive and deterrent threats more credible. Way get around this probel is moving around risk of war he called "brinksmanship" although both sides understand that the other would not rationally start a nuclear war, the possibility of accidental nuclear escalation can turn seemingly incredible threats into credible ones (indicators that you just might risk nuclear war over berlin). Schelling foreign policy recommendations (how states can make their commitments more credible): the process of commitment (have do anything you can to show that ie west berlin is really important to your state). The interdependence of commitments (this isn't a one time gain these things are interdependent reason u.s. committed to so many places because threats are interdependent and deterrence is based on enemy expectations so we need a reputation for strength his policy recommendations: perimiter defense and domino theory kind of have to defend everywhere you are defending). You also have to do the reverse for your opponenent discrediting an adversary's commitments relieve enemies as much as possible their fears they will lose space if they back off. Schelling also had idea how manipulate risk crisis is called "relinquishing the initiative" Cuban missile crisis at end of the day current calculus theory not past action theory was what mattered so could argue "reputation" past background mattered less but could say present credibility of material influence does matter. How to make a type 2 deterrent threat credible? Past actions theory (schelling): doing it by having a reputation for resolve/ commitment (the process of commitment, interdependence of commitments, discrediting an adversary's commitments)... But another way to make type 2 deterrent credible is current calculus theory (doesn't matter what past credibility past behavior but about current basis of power when leaders assess credibility during a crisis they focus on the balance of capaibilties and interests at stake in the current confrontation capabilities are preferable indicator of intentions under anarchy leaders understand that no two crises are alike so won't be too hung up on previous state actor historical decisions leaders abandon cognitive heristics when the stakes are high. Ask 2 questions (does our adversary have enough power to accomplish what they are threatening? Are the interests at stake large enough to justify the adversaries costs and risks?) Past actions theory two central claims: a countrys credibility, history of credibility but current calcualations theory is more about current power/ security threat influence. a lot of realists not worried about reputation credibility as much- Kissinger- although many prominent realists have questioned that declaration many don't think Kissinger was a realist. Vietnam not strategically important enough to justify continued American involvement (Kissinger would have done gotten out faster if was realist) also concerns about reputation play a greater role in kissinger's decision making than many realists would have preferred. Extended consequences of the Nuclear Revolution- peace between nuclear powers (the COLD war). Preservation of the status quo. Nuclear threats do not have to be highly credible to be effective in this world since threatening something so horrible not going to be willing to take the risk. Tenuous link between political outcomes and the military balance (precise balance doesn't really matter anymore). For type II deterrence credibility/ reputation matters a lot more- Instead of having two actors we now have a third actor now trying to extend umbrella to protect third actor like u.s. trying to protect west berlin actor from USSR. Since our policy is containment would need to exercise this type of deterrence a lot. Stable Type 1 Deterrence can make Type 2 Deterrence more difficult ie Why would the United States risk Washington for West Berlin? (it becomes a question of credibility) How can the United States credibly threaten to do something irrational? massive retaliation as deterrence- The thought was even if the credibility was really low but the costs were so high we shouldn't do it. Introduction of nuclear weapons into European theater. Could have large military in Europe or have nuclear weapons there. Logic behind massive retaliation (goal is to deter and initial attack the costs of the potential threat (even if it's not terribly credible) is so high that it can deter an opponent. need to show we will enforce containment to stop domino effect although can argue in vietnam despite losing the war not all of south and southeast asia turned to communism so maybe reputation didn't matter that much also perimter vs. strong point defense need a different level of credibility. Why did Johnson escalate in Vietnam?- LBJ had serious doubts thought unwinnable situation also had important great society domestic ambitions priority. International level explanations: domino theory (thought if lose Vietnam lose southeast asia could lose south asia as well make all asia communist shifting balance of power) also perimeter defense style containment demonstrate credibility of u.s. commitments thought all of our threats were interconnected more important strategic places make allies question our commitment and incentive communist ambitious expansion. One challenge facing security oriented international level explanations many realists objected to Vietnam war didn't think it was a threat Vietnam in and of itself even today credibility still concern when say we will do something and not carry out like what we did in syria that can be concerning for foreign policy although fact that obama didn't enforce the "red line" statement suggests that maybe it's not as pressing of a concern as it used to be. although trump really cares about credibility so I don't know.

Should the United States promote democracy abroad? Why or why not?

reflect no really only worked in germany and japan. Fukuyama give idea liberalism victorious and spread of democracy way to bring peace to rest of world to make them get to end of history. promoting democracy can be interpreted by countries as us coming in and interfering imperialistic overreach. also I don't believe in american exceptionalism that we are in a unique position to spread democracy we can serve as a role model or if a country wants to become democratic can collaborate in the process but we can't initiate it start it even force it because very rarely works. democracy in Iraq is too difficult given Iraqi demographics demographic breakdown shia arab 60% sunni arab: 20% sunni kurd 17% other 3% so saddam was sunni arab his administration was disproportionately filled with sunni arabs as well so if had democracy likely lead to shia government massive power shift just given these demographics. Sunni vs. shia dominant areas (a lot of shia in iran and Iraq so could argue could lead to benefit for iran) also kurds stateless ethnicity spread across 5 different states so if kurds given different power could affect thse other states as well. Sunnis will lose theirprivileged position in society they will be resentful to lose that position and won't go down easy without a fight. Historically, democratization is a long and complicated process. Democratization by force has a very poor track record (it's pretty much just Germany and japan every other time we have done it it hasn't worked out). Iraq has none of the precursors for democratization, didn't have any previous experience with democracy they were poor and were not ethnically homogenous. Democracy in Iraq would result in a shia government that would be sympathetic to Iran. our democracy promotion in ukraine was needlessly provoactive on russia as well.

Based on your knowledge of history and foreign policy, if you had to provide President Biden with 3 pieces of advice to shape his foreign policy, what would they be?

reflect- in the past democracy promotion has not worked so be wary of covert regime changes or nation building strategies with this goal in mind. 2nd we generally fair better in conflicts against conventional forces not guerilla forces/ insurgents etc. so take that into acount before deciding to invade a country or start a war make sure to know the enemy better then we did in the War in Vietnam. humanitarian intervention is problematic, expensive use of political capital and resources when there are non-military ways to help a country such as humaintarian aid, food, Peace Corps, medicine/ cures for tropical diseases, refugee camp assistance, etc.

George W. Bush Administration- Describe the Bush Administration's overall objective for the Middle East.

regional transformation of middle east. Think that everyone wants to be a liberal you think its not that hard to create it's evident in our planning or lack of planning in government state building in Iraq (which 2000 bush would say was very difficult to do but really shifted thinking could do it in a few months). Democratic Peace Theory- if create world that is populated by democracies then world would be safer. Neo-conservatives thought heart of terrorism problem post 911 was lack of liberal values in the middle east so if can make them follow a u.s. model of liberalism the terrorism problem would go away.if we make them more liberal democracy promotion they will stop hating us for who we are. reduce the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit- if we can make countries more liberal democracies that would reduce the appeal of terrorism

Vladmir Putin

replaced Yeltsin, elected president in 2000. Vladmir Putin President 1999-2008 Prime Minister 2008-2012 President 2012-present (he extended the term limit so he can hypoethically stay president into 2036. Former KGB officer. Much more nationalist, authoritarian approach compared to his predeccessors (less so then liberal interests he has become increasingly authoritarian overtime with elections becoming less and less free). Hardline foreign policy. Relatively popular domestically on account of economic growth particularly during the first two terms. 2002: U.S. withdraws from ABM treaty- Russia strongly objects (bush administration had plan to put up anti- ballistic missiles in Poland and Germany to deal with iran but Russia/putin upset because close to Russia). 2003: Russia strongly opposes war in iraq. 2004: Russia opposes second round of NATO enlargement (now in Baltic states NATO is sharing a border with Russia again Russia objected to this).

Monroe Doctrine- What was the Roosevelt Corollary? ID

roosevelt corollary we intervene even with domestic disturbances 1904- "Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society, may in America, as elsewhere, ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere the adherence of the United States to the Monroe Doctrine may force the United States, however reluctantly, in flagrant cases of such wrongdoing or impotence, to the exercise of an international police power." Roosevelt corollary to Monroe doctrine: said Europe hands off, now U.S. hands on U.S. can assume the role as international police. U.S. will assume the role of "an international POLICE POWER" in the Western Hemisphere d) Roosevelt and Taft put the Corollary into practice in the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, making those ostensibly sovereign nations into protectorates of the U.S. Sort of became the stepping point in foreign policy for gun boat diplomacy in the Americas with By 1930, Washington had sent gunboats into Latin American ports over six thousand times, invaded Cuba, Mexico (again), Guatemala, and Honduras, fought protracted guerilla wars in the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and Haiti, annexed Puerto Rico, and taken a piece of Colombia to create both the Panamanian nation and the Panama canal."

Donald Rumsfeld

secretary of defense for carter and bush junior- Rumsfeld (big proponent of revolution of affairs rise of information technology idea with u.s. high technology drones high quality air force we could fight wars without boots on the ground and compensate it by aerial tech Former defense secretary who supplied weapons to Iraq/Iran during their 1980's war Secretary of Defense under G.W.Bush, wanted the US to start the War in Iraq, headed the invasion of Afghanistan, coined the terms "War on Terror," and "Weapons of Mass Destruction", resigned on own power in 2006 after being displeased with US strategy in Iraq. Donald Henry Rumsfeld (July 9, 1932 - June 29, 2021) was an American politician, government official and businessman who served as secretary of defense from 1975 to 1977 under president Gerald Ford, and again from 2001 to 2006 under President George W. Bush.[1][2] He was both the youngest and the oldest secretary of defense. Rumsfeld claimed they knew where and if Iraq had WMD. On the afternoon of September 11, Rumsfeld issued rapid orders to his aides to look for evidence of possible Iraqi involvement in regard to what had just occurred Rumsfeld directed the planning for the War in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks just hours after the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was launched, Rumsfeld addressed the nation in a press conference at the Pentagon stating "While our raids today focus on the Taliban and the foreign terrorists in Afghanistan, our aim remains much broader. Our objective is to defeat those who use terrorism and those who house or support them. The world stands united in this effort".[89] Rumsfeld also stated "the only way to deal with these terrorist threats is to go at them where they exist before and during the Iraq War, Rumsfeld claimed that Iraq had an active weapons of mass destruction program

Persian Gulf War- How would you characterize ideological orientation of the administration of George H.W. Bush?

seen as very experienced foreign policy person conservative realist. Bush first year pause bush wanted to be careful to not cooperate use détente and understand if Gorbachev was really going to be what they thought he was. Key challenge of navigating the peaceful dissolution of the soviet bloc. (huge issue to deal with no guarantee it was going to peaceful or widespread crackdowns or that somehow u.s. could get caught up with this) bush had challenge of needing to encourage liberalizing reforms without provoking a backlash. a) By temperament cautious and by experience a Cold Warrior, Bush does not advocate a new agenda in foreign policy- deep commitment to SDI, contras, détente with soviet union. Didn't indicate any sudden shifts in foreign policy. For so long 44 years u.s. foreign policy directed toward soviet union now he had to ask how u.s. going to shift it's foreign policy. Foreign policy successes- collapse of the ussr and the soviet bloc, peaceful reunification of Germany, Persian gulf war, and stable relations with china.

Iran-Nuclear Deal- Describe the current state of the Iranian nuclear program?

talks failed and Current status of Iranian program uranium enrichment at 60% 2,300 kilograms of enriched uranium 11 times what the deal allowed turning gaseous uranium into a metal which is necessary for a nuclear bomb September 27 2021 analysis by rand "given iran's current centrifuge capacity could product a weapon's worth of 90% enriched uranium in just three and one half weeks it would take an additional 6 weeks to produce a second weapon's worth there appears to be no satisfactory way to prevent iran from acquiring the 90% enriched uranium required to produce nuclear weapons." Likely has nuclear bomb but probably won't announce it any time soon. signs of continued nuclear development at fordow and the introduction of new centrifuges januar y2021 iran begins enriching uranium to 20% iran resumes nuclear enrichment at fordow (where they shouldn't have been doing enrichment at all at that location in accordance with deal if still being applied)

regional hegemony

the influence exercised over neighboring countries by an independently powerful nation. basically the most powerful nation within a region. global hegemony but likely impossible because of the stopping power of water so the next best thing is regional hegemony a state so powerful that it dominates all other in a geographic region (Mearsheimer argued U.S. really only state to ever accomplish regional hegemony). Napoleon, Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler, Hirohito all tried... but failed. U.s. strategy now: prevent other states from gaining a foothold in the W. Hemisphere and prevent the rise of a "peer competitor" aka another regional hegemon specifically China.

Trump Administration's policy toward the Middle East? In broad terms, describe the Trump Administration's foreign policy towards Israel. What aspects of his administration's 2020 Israeli-Palestinian Peace plan were controversial? 4 elements

trump more pro-israel then ordinary presidential administration definitely favoring Israel as an ally in the Middle East and doesn't really try to address the concerns or positions of Palestine. Deal of the century quote on quote right before pandemic 2020 israel-palestinian peace plan- led by Kushner embraced by Netanyahu rejected by Palestinian leaders 4 major controversial elements 1st Israel keeps most of Jerusalem as caital 2nd Palestinians do not get a right of return 3rd new borders between sirael and west bank 4th permanently demilitarized palestinain state

· What were the consequences of the coup against Diem?

u.s. initially optimistic that it will improve position in Vietnam could have new group that takes challenge more seriously but they soon face reality coup upended existing political authority structure in south Vietnam he was in charge for ten years diem's successor general minh and other coup plotters lack any base of support sparks a series of coups leading to a "revolving door of leadership in Saigon" diem died three weeks before kennedy was assassinated.

Ukraine, Russia, and Nato- In broad terms, describe the evolution of U.S. policy towards Russia in the post-Cold War era.

u.s. policy towards Russia- 1990- gorbachev-proposed joint eu leadership with the united states. Soviet leaders wanted the u.s. to remain in Europe and nato to stay intact in order to keep a reunified Germany pacified (at time u.s. domestic debate about with cold war ending whether u.s. needed to be in Europe anymore needed nato anymore). Believed that the united states had promised not to expand NATO if they allowed Germany reunification (big historical debate- many historians say we made an explicit deal but not codified). 1991 ussr implodes on Christmas day gorbachev ousted yeltsin comes to power. Yeltsin suggests that Russia could join nato directly to forge a direct alliance with the United States (idea we could be joint leaders within Europe) but the u.s. never really considered or wanted Russia to join NATO: (1st Russia too big would require too much aid 2nd fair too independent and required equal footing with the u.s. which we wouldn't want to give 3rd still somewhat of a security threat given it's nuclear arsenal despite them taking a powerful hit in military from collapse also concerns Russia could have a resurgence as another soviet union) u.s. provides alternative policy: rather than incorporating Russia into nato or eu-> u.s. encourage Russia to gradually reform and liberalize its economy (hope that Russia would become more liberal in the process) u.s. tries to incorporate Russia into west 1991: Russia takes USSR's seat on security council (give them veto power and international say) 1992-1998: large IMF grants to keep Russia afloat. 1996: Russia joins council of Europe 1998: Russia joins the G8. 2002- NATO-Russia council for military cooperation created. 2012 Russia joins WTO (support democracy, support free trade, support capitalism, and support incorporation try get Russia be part of liberal institutions). 1999 1st round of NATO expansion with u.s. Poland, Czech republic, and hungary join NATO (Russia protests that u.s. is violating their deal but relations still pretty positive overall). However, russia's liberalization and movement toward the west stalemates in the 1990s. haphazard and corrupt privatization of state-led industries concentrates wealth in the hands of a few oligarchs (these few people to control huge industries and really concentrate the wealth). Russia suffers from low commodity prices, inflation, and economic collapse (hence all loans imf was giving them). 1999: Yeltsin resigns- and Putin takes over. 2002: U.S. withdraws from ABM treaty- Russia strongly objects (bush administration had plan to put up anti- ballistic missiles in Poland and Germany to deal with iran but Russia/putin upset because close to Russia). 2003: Russia strongly opposes war in iraq. 2004: Russia opposes second round of NATO enlargement (now in Baltic states NATO is sharing a border with Russia again Russia objected to this). Color Revolutions: 2003: Georgia (Rose) 2004: Ukraine (orange) 2005: Kyrgyzstan (pink) 2006 Belarus (denim)- there was a popular uprising in these countries that wanted to have a more democratic government the west largely supported this color uprisings an expression of freedom overthrowing authoritarian governments in Russia this was viewed as trying to limit russia's influence beyond its borders. Supported by the west as the expansion of freedom and democracy in the post-communist world. Viewed by Russia as an encroachment of the west. 2008- Russian-Georgian War- Georgia was another soviet republic that gained independence in 1991. There were two provinces in Georgia that were never fully captured by regime so was under defacto Russian control so in 2008 rebels in pro-russian region began shelling Georgian forces Georgia responded by invading the regions Russia then invades to protect the pro-russian forces/ rebel it is a very quick invasion less then thousand people kill 4days basically u.s. doesn't do anything in response to it one is because it was over so quickly in 4 days also during election year in u.s. and when financial crisis in 2008 so Bush doesn't do much at all Obama and Medvedev- Russian reset (putin steps aside and becomes prime minister) both come to office in 2009 obama and Medvedev announced "fresh start" following G20 summit. Bilateral commission to work with Russia on multiple issues. 2009: deploy abm defense on warships rather than Poland and Czech republic so less provocative but at same time have 3rd round of NATO expansion. 2011: New START treaty (new reduction nuclear arms treaty). 2012: Russia joins the WTO. General sense of period was joint cooperation we cooperated on iran nuclear deal mutually condemned north korea had joint terrorism. 2012: putin comes back into office and Obama decides take a harder stance against Russia abandon missile defense talks sign no new reductions treaties and put up sanctions. Russia Washington says that yanukoych fled on his own accord Russia says it was a coup afterwards a new government was formed which was more pro-western looked like u.s. victory but didn't last long. Russian covert interference in Ukraine- "little green men"-> soldiers in army uniforms not saying who they were fighting for spreading out over crimea for crimea annexation and seize the airports gov buildings relatively easy target since most population in crimea are Russians. Pro-russian separatists in eastern portion Ukraine Donbass region start taking control and governing regions. Shortly after they had elections seeing if people wanted to vote to join Russia had elections (likely rigged 98% in favor) regardless Russia annexed crimea. Trump administration: 4 debates regarding Russia- under trump became more polarized on Russia republicans became slightly more in favor of putin and democrats a lot more against putin and democrats had majority favor increase for nato and republicans slight decrease from 52 to 47 percent.

Centrifuges ID

used to separate the parts of cell by spinning it around the solution. Way enrich uranium centrifuges: separate heavier atoms U-238 from lighter atoms U-235 (machine that spins really fast takes advantage of centrifugal force U-238 slightly heavier so will move to side of container and lighter material will stay in center. Really slow process. Key problem for controlling proliferation- the same process (centrifuges) can be used to enrich uranium to low levels for peaceful nuclear energy programs and high levels for nuclear weapons. It's the same process just how long you keep uranium in centrifgues which makes it difficult to determine the true purpose of a state's nuclear program. we claimed their were centrifuges in iraq a lot of them when in fact they just aluminum tubes probably for mortars instead not right sizes for centrifuges also would have been way too many centrifuges. IAEA makes sure centrifuges at right levels for NPT- Can develop civilian nuclear energy but problem hard tell difference between energy and weapons up to 20% centrifuge use is peaceful and 80% or more used for nuclear weapons. International atomic energy agency(UN Watchdog) inspectors can come into country to make sure only making nuclear energy not weapons. Iran signed this.

George W. Bush Administration- How do Neoconservatives believe the U.S. should fight terrorism?

war on terror "the united states of America is fighting a war against terroirsts of global reach. The enemy is not a single political regime the enemy is terrorism premeditated politically motivated violence perpetrated agiainst innocents. 1st global war on terror 2nd going end state sponsorship of terrorism make no distinction between the states that harbor terrorists and the terrorists themselves. 3rd reduce the underlying conditions that terrorists seek to exploit- if we can make countries more liberal democracies that would reduce the appeal of terrorism 4th protect u.s. citizens security intensely remove regimes that give them sanctuary, attack their training camps, kill their leaders, make states with islamic religious extremists have more liberal governments (so in a sense promoting nation building). don't go easy on terrorist groups bomb them heavily, sanction them, attack them. also give people freedom to establish liberal governments and remove governments that are illiberal and thus inclined to support terrorism groups.

Monroe Doctrine- What is the Monroe Doctrine? When was it written? Is it still important? ID

why important? 1st cold war had covert regiem changes like guatemala ties into roosevelt corollary we intervene even with domestic disturbances trying to keep foreign powers outside of the western hemisphere and trying to keep the soviets out of cuba. fear wasn't going to be just cuba there were a lot of uprises in latin america also important when nuclear missiles in cuba protected cuba from potential invasion and gave soviets foothold in region more then anything else. Monroe Doctrine (1823). a) Wanted maintain complete isolation from Europe. Monroe doctrine said Europe should stay out of Americas hemisphere 1st America can't be considered area for colonization. 2nd intervention from Europe seem dangerous 3rd non-intervention. Yes, U.S. used it in their containment Cold War policy too to a certain extent to assure their regional hegemony and also why things like the Cuban Missile crisis and the Guatemalan Coup were deemed necessary confrontations to a certain extent. Monroe Doctrine Goals- U.S. faces no security threats in the Western Hemisphere Large buffer zone preventing invasion from European states Ability to regulate the domestic political behavior of subordinate states Ability to influence the region's economic policy International support for American actions in international institutions 'American Pacifier' decreases conflict between states within region