Gov 312L Midterm 2 UT Study Guide

How did the U.S. address the international variant of the coercion dilemma after World War II? What role did international organizations play in constraining U.S. military power?

Dilemma for the United States: American military power necessary to defeat Hitler, but how constrain American capacity for violence after 1945? -Competition with Soviet Union -Ikenberry: bind American military power through institutions •Internal: democracy •External: NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in the case of democracy the president cannot use force until getting support form congress and the public. creates important contraints on the use of military force. aka the US wont do predation. (participating in multilateral allience like NATO can do the same thing) the expectation is that the US will consult its allies to use military force. but the war in IRAQ in 2003 questioned these claims, and reopened the coercion dilemma. the allies opposed the war and the US did it anyway. -is the US military power sufficiently constrained? -or is the US embarking on a broader political program, of expansion in the middle east?

What are the dilemmas of counterterrorism? Discuss the costs and benefits of using defensive measures like domestic intelligence and increased security to counter terrorism. What are tradeoffs associated with using external military force abroad to counter terrorism? Why are terrorist organizations hard to deter?

Dilemmas- Orgs do not want to look as if they are targeting one ethnic group or cultural enclave because this could cause public opposition that could aid terrorists - Domestic Intelligence has aided and helped to stop terrorist orgs although it infringes on civilians civil liberties and privacy - Benefits of surveillance is the clandestine-ness of it. - Sending troops can seem invasive and retaliatory - Law enforcement pose risks for states if they are perceived as employing - surveillance measures can impinge on virtually every citizen's privacy and liberties - Destruction that comes with military force dissapoints US and promote recruitment for orgs - No home base that can be destroyed in response to attack - can be extremely invasive of privacy and not account for the civil liberties of the citizens of the USA -Domestic intelligence rises moral problems of privacy for citizens (civil liberties).-Domestic terrorism also forces terrorists to change their targets (soft-targets) because of increase security.- trade offs associated with using external force is that it may be just what the terrorists want, and it may cause conflict.-External force may increase support for terrorist groups. Lecture notes: provoke an overreaction from an adversary. ****provoke a state to engage in too much force by attacking a whole community instead of just the organization behind the violence. -disillusion the broader community and drive them to support the agenda of the terrorist group. EX: critique of the bush administration by going into IRAQ then Syria overreacted on the attacks of 9/11 by going to war in IRAQ then drag the US into overextended commitment into the Middle East. Al Queda wanted this, to provoke. -reason why obama resisted extending american comitment to really participate in the Syrian war beacuase he viewed the war in Iraq. he didnt want to fall in the same trap of Bush. -the immense pressure after an attack to do something. the political pressure. to not do anything is a really tough reaction to have. like president obama is criticized. "the democrats are weak on terrorism" -or like france had the pressure to launch an attack agains someone ***used to sabotage potential peace negotiations by increasing the mistrust between the 2 sides in the negotiation. -Radical elements can use political Violence to push moderates willing to work out a peaceful compromise to abandon their efforts or to ruin a fragile peace immediately after a deal has been reached and so the strategy is one of spoiling. -undermine the ability of both sides to implement a compromise settlement by demonstrating their ability to control radical elements - terrorists-

How did this cyber campaign exploit social networking sites to try to influence the election? What were the primary findings of the Mueller report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections?

conclusions 1. neither president Trump nor any of his aids conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its attempts to influence the 2016 election. (definitive finding of no collusion) 2. the findings on obstruction of justice were mixed. Barr reported that Muller offered no conclusion on whether he illegally obstructed justice. he punted on this point and left it up to someone else to make that determination. controversy. Why did Russia interfere in U.S. elections? •NYT clip (1:37): Ukraine and Russian Interference -Vladimir Putin angered by American democracy promotion in Russia and post -Soviet states, particularly the Obama administration -Putin "draws a line" at Ukraine when it attempted to break with Russia and draw closer to the West -Russia annexes Crimea and supports separatists in Eastern Ukraine, starting a "FROZEN CONFLICT" that Putin controls -President Obama retaliates with economic sanctions against Russia -Putin retaliates with a concerted effort to interfere in the 2016 election : by using social media platforms and causing controversy like gun violence. turning everyone against each other. #hilaryforprision. hack email accounts. alot of scial damage. Goals of Russian campaign: -Stoke domestic political conflict along racial, partisan, religious, and regional lines -Undermine Clinton candidacy and her legitimacy in office (if she won) -Support Trump!!!! (also did by attacking Rubio and Cruz) WORKED BETTER THEN THEY THOUGH TIT WOULD. (not just the US that they target, they also go after Europe etc) US in a larger (sometimes hostile) international system -Foreign power trying to undermine legitimacy of US elections -Efforts to stoke political conflict continue: 2018 midterms, FL shooting, possibly in 2020 -A new and effective threat to US national security? AFTER THE MULLER REPORT IS RELEASED 1) No conspiracy or coordination with Russia •NYT, The Daily clip (2:34): On conspiracy and coordination -Barr: "The Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." (there is a disconnect between the finding that there is no collusion and all the these indictments that the Muller investigation also secured against members of the Trump campaign and his admin. in the sense of micheal flynn. how can it be that they indicted all these people for lying about their contact with Russia and the finding that there was no collusion. ) -Micheal flynn: Natioal security advisor , Paul Manafort: who was his campaign chairman and had extensive ties with ukrain / russian government and played a critical role in changing the policy platform of the Republican party towards Russia and Ukraine at the republican national convention in 2016. created the larger political pressure for the investigation) TRUMPS CAMPAIGN TEAM WERE CRIMINALS. -broke norms. by allowing foreigners to help in a campaign. 2) No conclusion on obstruction of justice •NYT, The Daily clip (2:24): On obstruction -Mueller (quoted by Barr): "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." -Barr:"The Special Counsel therefore did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction." -Barr: "In cataloguing the President's actions, much of which took place in public view, the report identifies no actions that, in our judgment, constitute obstructive conduct, had a nexus to a pending or contemplated proceeding, and were done with corrupt intent."

How might national missile defense influence the stability of nuclear deterrence? (NMD)

*Mutually assured destruction depends on each state possessing a secure second strike capability *National missile defense (NMD) is designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles -If effective, could undermine an adversary's second strike capability and threaten mutually assured destruction(a state could not retaliate after a first strike even if their ballistic missles survive that strike if they are destroyed before they reach their targets) -the problem is that Changes incentives for state with NMD. Could be tempted to launch a first strike because it is protected from nuclear retaliation or could make it less cautious because it lowers costs of nuclear war. -Also changes incentives for state without NMD. Could be tempted to buildup military to overwhelm missile defenses or launch a preemptive strike before missile defenses become operational. *Reagan administration's STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE, most ambitious missile defense program proposed to counter an all-out Soviet nuclear attack. Was never implemented. *After Reagan, U.S. has pursued limited NMD, which has goal of countering attacks by NEW nuclear states with small nuclear arsenals and accidental launches -Limited NMD has more support (bc it seems more possible to do) in light of threats from nuclear proliferation like North Korea: designed to counter attack from a state with a nuclear arsenal with not that many nuclear weapons. -However, critics argue even new nuclear states can use countermeasures to overwhelm missile defenses and their effectiveness in real combat situations is in question

What is nuclear proliferation? Why do states acquire nuclear weapons, sometimes at the risk of provoking severe international backlash?

*Nuclear proliferation and the problem of credibility: -Non-nuclear states often seek nuclear weapons because they do not trust the credibility of extended deterrence: thus the credibilty probel often drives nuclear proliferation. -Nuclear proliferation may increase credibility problems because proliferators lack the fundamentals for secure second strike capabilities: thus making nuclear conflict more likely. *Why do some non-nuclear states pursue nuclear weapons and others do not? -Security: they feel their national security is at risk if they do not have nuclear weapons in order to deter outside attacks. -Domestic politics: competition between military bureaucracies can influence whether and how states develop nuclear weapons. -International norms: persuade states that face strong security threats from perusing nuclear weapons. EX: the pressure from the international community was instrumental for ukrane's decision to give up the nuclear weapons that it inherited after the collapse of USSR. *Why do nuclear states and the international community want to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons? -Recent proliferators have fewer nukes and less likely to possess secure, second strike capabilities: this would undermine their ability to maintain stable relationships with neighboring nuclear powers. -Domestic instability of nuclear proliferators increases chances of accidents, spread to terrorist groups -Risk of regional nuclear arms races: in the middle east if Iran attained a nuke sadia arabia would do it to. -***Nuclear weapons and changes to the regional and international status quo: are the great equalizer, raising the realtive power of much weaker states at the expense of influence and leverage of neighbors and hegmons like the US. one reason why the US does not want rogue states iran and north korea to get nuclear weapons.

What is terrorism? What are the distinguishing features of terrorist organizations? What is the "terrorist's dilemma"?

*Terrorism: -is a contested and politicized concept that does not have a single, universally agreed upon definition. -the commission of violent acts against non-combatants in pursuit of political something. surprise attacks to create fear and insecurity on its targets. -the intentional targeting of civilians not just military targets. *According to this definition, terrorism is differentiated from other acts of violence by three main factors: -Goals: Terrorism is a political act and perpetrated to achieve a political goal -Target: Terrorism is designed to provoke fear in a wider audience than its immediate victims (broader community) -Nature of the perpetrator: Non-state actors (or individuals influenced or inspired by them) are the principal perpetrators of terrorism rather than states, they bypass military of states and go directly to the citizens to achieve goals. overlap between terrorism and insurgencies. "terrorist's dilemma"? when terrorists must calibrate their level of violence to achieve their political goals. If they are too destructive or target the wrong group, then they can undermine the terrorist group by alienating it to the broader society and bring greater attention from governing authorities which can lead to the terrorist org.'s downfall

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

-Political order: stable patterns or regularities of social behavior induced by authority relationships and/or coercion note: the relationship between COERCION and AUTHORITY- coercion the ability to impose costs is necessary to the provision of authority. but coercion on its own does not equate with authority. the presence of authority implies that its holder also processes legitimacy. not all that can coerce are legit. ex: schoolyard bully. takes lunch money under the threat of beating up but its target does not view this bully's actions as legitimate. or recognize the right of the bully to extort his money. The capacity to coerce is necessary to the provision of authority: (6th street police example- if there is no police people would have to arm themselves and it would change the scene if people would have a gun) the capacity to use physical force is necessary to enforce laws that are designed to coordinate social behavior so people can interact peacefully HOBBS and LEVIATHAN: you centralize power and give its holders the capacity to deploy it so that people dont harm each other and their property. to ensure the society can function.

What is deterrence?

-Prevent adversary from attacking with credible threats to impose costly retaliatory attacks -National security through threats to use force rather than actual use of military force

What types of international behavior does power transition theory expect from global powers that are ascendant versus global powers that are in decline? What is the commitment problem associated with power transition theory and how does it help to explain the incentives for declining powers to launch a preventive war against rising powers?

-When States are in ascendancy they are gaining power so there is more advantage to showing restraint...cannot commit to maintaining status quo after becoming most powerful state -When states are descending they are at a risk for war because they are losing power and there is a commitment problem -Weak gp cannot prevent themselves from revising economic, territorial, and political status quo when they get power → commitment problem -Structure of international politics set by rise AND fall of leading powers -Peace and growth during ascendancy; instability and conflict during decline -Shift in distribution of power heightens risk of war between declining hegemon and rising challenger -Fight because of commitment problem: declining states launches preventive war because rising state cannot commit to preserve Status Quo system and the benefits it generates -Key source of shifts in distributions of military power (Paul Kennedy): differential rates of economic growth -Economic productive capacity as foundation for military power

What are some of the broader global patterns in terrorist attacks? Why do terrorist organizations resort to political violence to achieve their political goals?

1. terrorism has increased over time since 9/11 2. most terrorist attacks do not target western democracy 3. Terrorist attacks tend to have a "local" focus. Most terrorist attacks occur in or near the terrorist organizations' home base. -86% of ISIS terrorist attacks have occurred in Iraq or Syria -Same is true of other major terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram (Nigeria), the Taliban (Afghanistan), and Al Shabaab (Somalia and Kenya) -Only ISIS-inspired attacks tend to target other countries but they involve a small number of the attacks and deaths inflicted by global terrorism Why do terrorists engage in political violence? -Terrorist "foot soldiers": psychological and sociological focus rooted in understanding why individuals join clandestine extremist organizations -Terrorist leaders: strategic focus rooted in use of terrorist attacks to influence the behavior of the states they oppose *In context of asymmetrical warfare with states, terrorist leaders may use attacks for strategic reasons such as: -Avoiding direct conflict with states' militaries by attacking civilians -Provoking an overreaction from an adversary -Sabotaging potential peace negotiations provoke an overreaction from an adversary. ****provoke a state to engage in too much force by attacking a whole community instead of just the organization behind the violence. ***used to sabotage potential peace negotiations by increasing the mistrust between the 2 sides in the negotiation. -Radical elements can use political Violence to push moderates willing to work out a peaceful compromise to abandon their efforts or to ruin a fragile peace immediately after a deal has been reached and so the strategy is one of spoiling. -undermine the ability of both sides to implement a compromise settlement by demonstrating their ability to control radical elements - terrorists-

How did we get from the attack on 9/11 and war in Afghanistan to war in Iraq?

9/11 created alot of political capital to rage war against the Taliban, the decision to widen the counter-terror campaign to include topping Saddam Hussein squandered a lot of this good will. -the administration was populated by many neo-conservatives in senir positions that had long supported regime change in Iraq. -RUMSFIELD- raised this possibility in a meeting on sept. 12th, -WOLFOWITZ his deputy issued a clear threat to states who sponsor terrorism, hinting on Iraq. -This descion was overdettermined aka so many political reasons givien its hard to say which one. Iraq was considered apart of the Axis of Evil - they could harbor terrorists. The leverage point was also to transform and democratize the middle east. Cheney also said we should fight the war in the foreign theater. Wolfowitz said that the administration focused on - Weapons of mass destruction --Saddam Hussein seeking to augment capabilities and would threaten allies in region --Might give to terrorists --Had used in the past (deterrence would not work) --Wolfowitz: settle on this because easier to sell domestically-Iraq part of Axis of Evil and key enemy of the United States --Might harbor terrorists-Leverage point to transform and democratize Middle East --Democratic Iraq would put pressure on autocratic countries in region to liberalize--Needed bold solution to long term (two generations) problem of terrorism-Better to fight the terrorists in a foreign theater (Cheney)

why war occurs?

Bargaining model of war -An assumption: all wars costly: impose net costs on all participants. (human moral costs, economic costs, opportunity costs) -A puzzle: if all wars costly, then why can't parties reach some peace settlement that would leave all participants better off than fighting?( •Explanations for why wars occur should focus on why states fail to reach and/or sustain this mutually beneficial settlement

Discuss President Biden's speech on the Ukraine crisis (covered in INN@UT #3) What were Biden's main themes in this speech?

Biden questions Russia's announced troop withdrawal • Reiterates retaliatory threats of high costs if Russia invades • Recommits US to military intervention to protect NATO allies • ABC News clip on Biden's warning of economic costs for Americans (0:32) • Warns American public that Russian invasion and American sanctions may hurt American consumers

What is the commitment problem? How does the commitment problem help to explain why Russia and the West may not reach a bargain that avoids a Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Commitment problem: inability of one side in a conflict to promise or commit to abide by the terms of any settlement indefinitely in the future. The resurgence of Russia since the end of the Cold War produced its interest in revising the post -Cold War settlement • US cannot trust that Russia will abide by an agreement to guarantee Ukraine's sovereignty in the future • Russia cannot trust that the US and the West will abide by an agreement that Ukraine will remain permanently non-aligned with the West

What is the commitment problem and how does it contribute to continuation of conflict? What are the sources of the commitment problem?

Commitment problem: inability of side with rising power to promise or commit to abide by the terms of any settlement indefinitely in the future •Organizations fight if think adversary will demand (in the future) revisions to terms of any pre-conflict settlement -Fight rather than face a future of repeated concessions through extortion -Concern that growing power will enable such demands for revision •Often due to shifts in distribution of military power -Creates expectations that agreement not self-enforcing, more powerful will demand more concessions in the future •Example: the challenge to securing peace in 2020 while the side that is growing weaker worries about what concessions it might have to make in 2025 Sources of commitment---- 1.Shifts in the internal distribution of political or military power -Potential sources of shift: withdrawal of support from external patron, democratization, emergence of social movement or political party (Communism) •Examples -American and Soviet withdrawal after Cold War: from Afghanistan could have undermined the control of existing regimes, they became weaker relative to contending groups relative to society, they then make political concessions to a growing opposition movement. through such things as greater political participation via democracy. Can also signal weakness and encourage opposition groups to demand more concessions that give them even more influence over the gov. (the commitment problem stems from the inability of the rising faction That's challenging the government to limit its demands to remake the internal political order once it sees its power. the fading autocrat launched a preventive civil war to quash domestic revolt. -US withdrawal from Iraq: the war helped to shift the balance of power away from Saddam's Regime. When the US pressed democratization it also meant that the majority group in iraq the Shia, could then use legal institutional means to exclude the sunnies from power. 2.Ethnic imbalances: ethnicity as a device to mobilize groups: ethnicity provides a powerful device to mobilize groups and collective action. when ethnic solidarity and identity are cast as protection against hr threats posed by competing or alternative ethnic groups. under these conditions minority groups can have the same fears as the Sunnis. 3.Minority groups tempted to secede; majority groups fight to preserve unity and access to resources in entire territory: declare independence. these demands can prompt the dominant ethnic group to attack a minority group to maintain resources. Minorities fear a political situation akin to the tyranny of the majority so long as it hangs together as a coherent voting group,the majority group could use its power over the state to restrict the civil liberties of the minority, to impose higher taxes on them, and to exclude them from positions of power and influence in gov and economy. The commitment problem stems from the inability of the majority group to respect minority rights. to impose legal restrictions on its own political power, that could disadvantage minority groups. SOLUTIONS -Minority rights could be protected constitutionally via civil liberties - some federal division of authority could delegate autonomy and political control to local officials in regions that are populated predominantly by minority ethic groups. The power to select these local officials might then provide some reassurance to these minority groups that their political rights and interests will be represented through peaceful political processes.

What is polarity? What is the difference between unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar systems and how does each affect relations between great powers? How does the distribution of power between great powers influence their relations?

Counts the number of great powers in the international system -Multipolarity: as countries form Russia recover from collapse, china devotes more resources to their military. they are too becoming a great power. LESS STABLE. -Bipolarity: 2 states having the most power. MORE STABLE -Unipolarity: since the end of the Cold War the international system is often classified as this, the US is the strongest in the system due to certain factors like military power. (fleeting, changing)American dominance: Russia and China are growing but not actually looking for a war. while their relationship with the US is deteriorating, we are no where near the situation of the 1930s. MOST STABLE. how does it affect relations? - Helps understand great power relations: it sets coalitional dynamics and risks associated with coalitional realignments: a destabilizing realignment occurs when on great power abandons an alliance with another great power and joins another. These realignments are more likely to happen under a multipolar system. This also implies because these realignments can shift the distribution of power among competing colations. -Great power war is more likely under multipolar system. realtionships amoung great powers are likely to be less stable under multipolar system. -Risks of multipolarity: in terms of the run up to the outbreak of WWII in the latter part of the 1930s. (germany out of Versalles anexes all thos countries and then wants poland. shift the distribution of power to Germany's advantage when stalin signs the Nazi pact.)

What is the bargaining model of war and how can it help explain the Ukraine crisis? What is the central conflict of this crisis and what would a bargain to avoid war have to accomplish in regards to the opposing demands of the two sides?

Creates a theoretical foundation to examine questions about: - Why wars occur; and what conditions facilitate their end? • Assumes that war imposes costs on its participants, which then creates a reward for avoiding war and preserving peace

What is the coercion dilemma? How does it shape the construction of a domestic political order? How does this same dilemma frame the problem of war and political order in the international order?

Government or organization strong enough to enforce its directives is also strong enough to leverage authority for its own gain. a potential for exploitation risks: PREDATORS: the forcible redistribution of a resource or thing of value. aka armed robbery. - in terms of conquering armies that get to seize or consume what they conquer. Hitler taking territories. -Use of violence for predation as self-sustaining: take what they want and then use those new resources to bolster military so can engage in more predation Sometimes have to go to war to impose limits on or regulate violence - if do not counter force with force, future of political impotence as target of extortion solved through democracy. these attempts to forcably expand need to be countered by military force. if predation violent conquest is not stopped- the alternative for the conquered is a political life of concession and exploitation in which groups are unwilling to protect themselves.

According to this module's reading (Chapter 20, Great Power Politics), what is hegemonic stability theory and how does it relate to the provision of public goods and the free rider problem in international relations?

Hegemonic stability theory is the claim that the concentration of global power is in the single most powerful state, or the hegemon, facilitates globalization, peace, and the provision of public goods. If there is no hegemon, states compete, conduct wars, and impose trade restrictions.The hegemon provides public goods, or non-excludable and non-rivalrous commodities like international economic stability, and the protection of global commons such as sea lanes and the environment.However, international powers free ride on the contribution of the hegemon, which is what Trump argues is wrong with the NATO alliance. The US supplies most of the political and economic support, and its poorest members in Eastern Europe who are threatened by Russia contribute very little.Domestically, the free rider problem is resolved by coercive action of a state, or the collection of taxes. Internationally, large actors voluntarily absorb costs of public goods on own because they cannot acquire sufficient compensatory benefits and lack supranational authority, unlike states that can coerce contributions. -The stability of the International System requires a single dominant state to articulate and enforce the rules of interaction among the most important members of the system; HST indicates that the international system is more likely to remain stable (greater global trade and peace) when a single nation-state is the dominant world power, or hegemony; presence of an indispensable nation -HST suggests that in an international system a large actor, the hegemony, pays the cost of providing the public good on its own because the benefits it receives are sufficient compensation to offset these costs. (free rider problem- enjoying the benefits of a public good without paying for it; global public goods: stable and open international economy, protection of environment, protection of global shipping lanes, etc.)

How have nuclear weapons complicated the provision of national security?

In conventional era, protect territory and civilians with defense (or defensive military strategies) -Use conventional weapons (tanks, machine guns) to block access to civilians Nuclear armed missiles shift national security strategy of US from one based on defense to one based on deterrence -Cannot shoot down incoming missiles so cannot defend population

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

Most civil war do not end with disputants finding bargain on their own—one side imposes solution or third party helps enforce. Why? •Civil war different from international war: one side has to disarm( do not have to fear retribution) •Disarmament creates intense period of vulnerability because no longer use military force to punish other side if do not abide by peace terms. This is commitment problem: fear of one side not fulfilling peace obligations coupled with vulnerability of disarmament leads to continuation of war •Civil war has destroyed institutions (judiciary, police, power-sharing like federal division, minority rights, bill of rights) used to solve this enforcement problem( the great power alleviates the fears of the minority, aka losing group, and ensures that they are protected in the subsequent peace time state building process) •Can substitute third party guarantee (B. Walter) if: -External state has self-interest in upholding -Third party willing to use force if necessary(stay the course to preserve the peace, the president has sufficient domestic support to keep troops around) -Can signal resolve to stay the course

What is the problem of credibility in nuclear deterrence? Explain why the effectiveness of deterrent threats depends on credibility.

Nuclear deterrence depends on the credibility of threats to work, an adversary must believe that the threats made will actually be carried out. to have successful deterrence. PROBLEMS: -If a nuclear attack breaks out, incentives change -Dilemmas of extended deterrence - using nuclear deterrence to defend allies against attack *Credibility depends on capabilities and resolve *Capabilities - the ability to carry out the threat-States enhance capabilities by improving their weapons systems -Examples: North Korean nuclear and missile tests showed they had the capability so the US took the threats seriously. *Resolve :the will to carry out the threat -States enhance their resolve by managing risk during crises (i.e. brinkmanship) increases the pressure to follow though so they tie their hands to show they will do it. -Public pronouncements by democracies -"The threat that leaves something to chance": send aircraft armed with nuclear weapons to a conflict zone, or put nuclear weapons on alert. ( SHELLING argued that when leaders delegate decisions that may escalate to military crisis to military commanders, they raise the risk that something could go wrong and start a nuclear war. serious about using force. -Tripwire forces: small military units stationed at global hotspots not large enough to defend against an attack instead their purpose is political. if there was an attack these soldiers would be casualties and then the state would have to retaliate. aka bait.

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

POLITICS: Use of authority to allocate scarce resources - Means of coordinating social behavior 2 ELEMENTS -Authority: capacity to direct social behavior (actions of others) •Often relies on coercion: capacity to impose costs (physical, economic, social, emotional) if you do not do what is asked. •But presence of authority also rests on some legitimacy (the citizen understands the role of authority even though they disagree with the decisions.) ex: we dont like to pay income taxes, yet we do bc the gov threatens with physical coercion (jail), and bc the active collecting revenues is legit bc they pay for army and police. -Allocation of scarce resources: implies some degree of competition or social conflict over that allocation: the rich getting charged higher taxes notes:

What is power transition theory? What causes shifts in the distribution of power among great powers and how can they alter the larger international political order and heighten the risks of war?

POWER TRANSITION THEORY: *Peace and stability in great power relations from military, political, and economic dominance by one state (hegemony) *Hegemon sets and enforces rules of system *Instability and war from power transitions (shift in the distribution of power that reduces or eliminates hegemon's supremacy) -Hegemon less capable of enforcing international order -Rising challenges tries to alter the SQ order *Link to commitment problem *Does this theoretical model help us understand contemporary (and future) relations between China and the United States? -how will china seek to alter the gloabal trading system system of allieances in east asia when it surpases the US in military and economic power?

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

Roosevelt and Churchill adapted many Wilson 1919 principles. helped to define the rules of the game for future peace settlements. they both sought to strengthen democracy against communism and fascism around the world fostered democracy in Germany and japan through expansive nation building efforts. these new institutions were protected by incorporation Germany and japan into the US security umbrella. the Marshall plan aid was designed to thwart the advances the local communist parties were making in Italy and France after WW2 when military victory was followed by economic crisis. the US worries that the absence of a robust economic recovery would tilt the citizens to support communism and an alliance with Soviet union. marshal plan was then designed to get democracy in its recipients. the post WW2 settlement bedeviled a formal security commitment to many countries in western Europe from the US. Truman understood that the US withdrawal from European politics helped to create a political vacuum that hitler filled. after 1945 the us built an extensive military alliance through NATO. the 1945 was different bc the victors took much more care in constructing an international economic settlement to suppor t their international goals. held at the BRENTON WOODS negotiations in 1944 eventually yielded many international orgs (monetary fun, world bank, GATT). designed to support the reduction of trade barriers that would increase international commerce. prevent a new great depression, in the name of the security system. from PP: Truman and FDR -Democracy promotion and support (think Marshall Plan aid) -Nation building in Germany and Japan (reintegrated into Western order) -Collective security through NATO -Creation of new international organizations (UN, International Monetary Fund, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT], World Bank) -New international economic order around promoting globalization (Bretton Woods)

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

SHORT ANSWER: Wars fought among great powers tend to remake the structure of international politics by transforming the main political actors of the system. After WWI and WWII, changes were made through the ratifications made at great power settlements to end the wars. LONG ANSWER: Long wars fought among great powers tend to remake the structure of international politics by transforming the main political actors in the system. -Structure as the agents (political organizations like states, empires, and international organizations) and the rules that guide their interactions (sovereignty, arms control agreements, trade liberalization) Many of these changes ratified or instituted at great power settlements that end these wars -Ex: Napoleonic Wars (1815), World War I (1919), World War II (1945), end of Cold War (1990) long wars alter the internal composition of states, create new states, and leas t death of some states. transform the larger structure of international politics by determining which political org will exist in the future and by setting rules or expectations that will guide subsequent interactions of states and int. organizations, the consequences of war are important for shaping the quality of the resulting peace among states. also means that international politics is nested between the consequences of international violence. sidebar: -structure: agents or political orgs. (like states) as well as the rules that guide these political orgs. (these rules could be things like sovereignty treaties, or trade liberalization) VICTORS write the rules of the new system and, as a consequence, shape its long term sustainability 1.Set requirements for membership and redraw territorial boundaries: statehood and sovereignty 2.Regime type of new members (US promotes democracy after 1919, 1945, 1991) 3.Distribution of military power 4.Enforcement mechanisms (reparations, League of Nations) 5.Division of territory among surviving great powers changes as well •Important: shapes degree of satisfaction with new status quo and long term sustainability of the system

Under what conditions might nuclear weapons paradoxically make war less likely?

Successful deterrence rests on secure second strike capabilities -Sufficient number of nuclear weapons so that all cannot be destroyed in a first strike by adversary. Enough survive to launch retaliatory strike. If both sides possess secure second strike capabilities, both sides deterred from launching war -US and Soviets avoided direct military confrontation during the Cold War because of the risk that a war could escalate into a nuclear war and kill millions.

What does the logic of the commitment problem suggest about why the Syrian Civil War started? And why is has been so difficult to end? Who are the primary combatants (warring sides) in the Syrian Civil War? How is the Syrian Civil War related to the rise of ISIS?

Syria: multiple rounds of international intervention trigger multiple shifts in the distribution of military power on the ground in terms of a commitment problem broke out because of a shift in the distribution of power because of a shift in the distribution of power between competeing political sides (Syrian gov and rebels.) this shift undermined the incentive for both sides to remain @ peace. the political capacity of rebel groups to organize a rebellion to topple the Assad regime, grew in the context of the Arab Spring. Bc these rebels could not commit to allowing the Assad regime to remain in power, the Assad gov chose to fight a civil war. (using military force to repress them rather than surrendering political power. this shift in the distribution of power can create strategic incentives to prolong war- at least 1 side may not want to participate in peace bc it worries that they will be forced to make political concessions in the future. the war continued to drag bc the distribution of power among the rival sides remained dynamic. after the defeat of ISIS there was hope it was almost over. the dynamism in these wars that allows them to continue to churn, stems from multiple rounds of foreign intervention and expectations of additional rounds of foreign, and the expectations of additional rounds of foreign intervention. -Everytime US, RUSSIA, TURKEY, ISAREL, SAUDI ARABIA. sent new troops or military supplies to bolster one side in the conflict they shift the balance of power on the ground again and incentivized all sides to keep fighting. EX: when the US send military troops to fight on the side of the Syrian Kurds, it strengthened the political power of the Syrian Kurds. This worried the Turkish Gov that Syrian Kurds would grow stronger in northeast Syria then support turkish kurds in an attempt to break away in that part of turkey. Turkey then escalated its intervention in the Syrian Civil War to weaken the Syrian kurds prolonging the fight.

How have nuclear weapons influenced US foreign policy since 1945?

The US dropped Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. the destructiveness of these attacks caused the Japanese gov to surrender less than a month later to avoid the unacceptable costs. the integration of these weapons altered the course of int politics: The US has sought consistently to deny all other states access to nuclear weapons for multiple reasons. sheer destructiveness. the post nuclear era is different!!! no nuclear attack can be defended.

How can power transition theory be used to understand the evolution of the maritime disputes in the South China Sea?

The US is worried that China will use the man made islands to make and enforce territorial claims to that island chain and possibly close off the South China Sea which is important for trade. This could mess up the hegemony and international trade system set up by the US

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

The three main pillars of the peace settlement after WWI are: -National Self Determination: Wilson supported the idea that people should be able to determine their pwn political faith by setting up their own gov and sparked independent movements. unleashed a new political force. making hard for the imperialism of the 19th century. Strengthened the viability of nationalism as a mobilizing force for collective action that helped foster local resistance to imperial rule. gave rise to a steady increase to many independent states. -Support for Democracy: define american grand strategy. -Collective Security in The League of Nations: set a president to support the creation of international organizations as instruments of international governance. rests on the belief that orgs like the U?N and NATO are capable of provoking cooperating among states in the defense of international order. carried over into the settlement that ended WWII. when they layed out the war aims of the western allience wit the atlanitc charter. roosevelt anc Wilson influenced the international system after the war by implementing these pillars. After WWII, the main elements of the peace settlement were now: Democracy promotion, Collective Security through NATO, Creation of new International Organizations such as the World Bank and the UN, and Net international economic order around promoting Globalization. Organizations like the UN and NATO were put in place to help maintain order after WWII. These institutions helped to resolve the central dilemma of politics by balancing power among great powers.

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

Two key explanations for bargaining failure to reach a political settlement -Private information coupled with incentives to misrepresent lead one side to offer insufficient concessions; other side opts to try and secure greater division of issue through war -Commitment problem: difficulties associated with contracting over time

According to Malley and Finer, what are some of the long term domestic political consequences in the US from the attacks on 9/11?

Unified country on one issue and created bipartisan consensus that elevated counter terrorism as principle national security interest of us Politicians can exploit for politicians gain- they can accuse politicians opponents of being too soft on terrorism, forcing all politicians to support intense counter terrorism actions Author argue trump exploited these fears during the pres campaign to build domestic support for his proposed ban on Muslims entering us

Summarize the arguments made by McFaul. Why did the relationship between Russia and the United States deteriorate after 2011? What are the lines of contention in this ideological conflict?

details some sources of the deterioration in US russian relations since 2011. Putin saw US support for NATO expansion into eatern europe and Pro democracy movement as threatning his regime. US association W NGOs that supported democratic opposition groups in 2011 and 21012 and ukranes attempt to move away from russia in 2014 represented the points of no return for putin. he has responed by supporting the Assad regime in the syrian civil war, stregthening ties with iran, seizing crimea in 2014, supporting sepretists in the ukranian civil war, and engeneering a sustained social media campaign to disrupt democratic election is the US and EU. -United States and Russia in deeper ideological conflict (putin wants to limit american influence around the world) -No change in relations until significant internal political change in Russia (i.e. Putin gone) -Adopt policy of strategic patience that contains or limits growth of Russian influence --Tighten up US election security --Strengthen NATO --Reaffirm alliance relationships particularly in East Asia (support for economic force in Ukraine, even if portions of Ukraine continue to be occupied by military forces loyal to Russians.) --Limit Russian economic influence in Europe ( by reducing this regions dependence on natural gas exported from Russia)

What are the origins of ISIS? Describe the complicated regional politics behind the collection of states that fought to militarily defeat ISIS and take back the territory it held in Iraq and Syria. What are some of the potential scenarios for what comes after the military defeat of ISIS?

emerged out the chaos and power vacum of a broader civil conflict between rival ethnic and religious groups in syria and Iraq. -Sunnis: religious sect within islam that were the dominant group under sadam - but also minority- were politically marginallised in the new iraq -new iraq became dominated by the majority Shias -some sunnis took up arms agains the US and new Iraq gov. - the surge : strategy of bush that centered increase american military presence and sunni leaders to fight against sunni rebel groups like Al-Queda. -US withdrawls under Obama = again fighting - shia backed by iran cracks down on the Sunnis. - Civil Wars neighboring Syria and Libya, following the Arab Spring uprisings created political vaccums in which a groups called ISIS could emerge out of Al-Queda in Iraq , and be more powerful. -more violent and more radical taking large parts of syria. the Iraq army that the US trained retreated and melted away in early battles. Overarching problem is commitment probelm: why did all these sunni iraqui groups fade away when ISIS begins. Bc they had dienfranchised from the Iraqui state under MAliki - kicks sunni out of government, military from this newly democratic state. -ISIS then begins retaking territory and the Sunnis say why should we fight on behald of the government that disenfranchised us. (MAliki is not protecting minority rights) -aka commitment problem that curns the civil war. began as Al Qaeda in Iraq *Predominantly Sunni, recruited from former Baathists displaced from Iraqi politics *Strengthened via Iraqi civil war that followed toppling of Saddam Hussein *Exploited civil war in Syria and withdrawal of American troops to seize territory in Iraq and Syria in 2014 scenarios ISIS returns to its insurgent roots: -Boomerang effect: Foreign fighters have to go somewhere and return home and can easily cross borders because they are citizens -Indoctrinated by ISIS they have training and incentives to carry out attacks

What explains the absence of great power war since the mid-20th century?

great power will still play a role in international politics? -they still may compete over influence in syria and Ukraine / fight proxy wars there to help seize or hold some territory -will avoid direct military confrontation (so costly) -not all war is increasingly unlikely, middle east and Africa still have conflict BUT - these wars are now civil wars or concentrated in specific regions. -great powers may intervene in these wars but their military will avoid fighting each other -ex: Syrian airspace controlled to avoid accidental air strikes. •If great power war is over, do broad outlines of the American system—created in 1945 and 1990—survive indefinitely? (aka the US may be able to maintain their leading political position in the international system for a bit.) - expanded democratic political presence in the world may endure indefinitely. causes of great power PEACE: 1. GLOBALIZATION: the importance of holding territory in contemporary politics. -b4 the industrial revolution national wealth was associated whit the physical possession of resources like gold the transformation process associated with the industrial revolution like urbanization and large scale production in factories helped to change these foundations of wealth. -Today states can get wealthy though COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE (specialize in the production of a few goods, costs of production are relatively low in that country.) dramatically reduced the need to hold alot of territory. no economic reason for the US to invade mexico or Canada. instead the US has trading relations. making the 3 countries wealthier. -why go to war with china when there are economic incentives through peace. -Provides a powerful economic incentive for great powers to avoid military confrontation. 2. NUCLEAR DETERRENCE: risks and costs associated with confronting another state that posses nuclear weapons = SECURE STRIKE CAPABILITY. (a state can absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough nuclear weapons to inflict UNACCEPTABLE costs on its opponent.) -freezes territorial status quo and raises RISKS. 3. UNIPOLARITY: the contemporary period describes the structural condition associated with american economic political and military dominance. huge advantage of power resources. -eliminates the incentives to challenge the US bc it would be costly. -the US is protected by oceans, huge nuclear arsenal, strongest military, richest economy in the world. -other powers dont want to fight each other bc the US may intervene.

What are some of the political controversies triggered by the withdrawal of US military forces from Syria?

notes from lecture: Layers of the war: Syrian government (backed by Iran and Russia) fights rebels trying to overthrow the Assad regime.(backed by US and Turkey) ISIS v. large international coalition (Syria, Russia, US, Turkey, Syrian Kurds, Iraq, Iran) Turkey v. Syrian Kurds in northern Syria: (because they have a historical conflict between those 2 actors) Israel v. Iranian backed militia groups based in Syria: ( armed scrimmages with each other over Syria THE SYRIAN CIVIL WAR HAS CREATED A FAILED STATE IN A FRAGMENTED COUNTRY in which various groups, inside syria but also external actors all try to control portions of the country. (everyone has an interest in this war) *This conflict is a larger political battle over the balance of power in the Middle East and in this larger conflict, the principle rivals of the US include RUSSIA & IRAN -Assad wants to remain in power. re consolidate Syrian gov's hold over ALL territory and defeat rebel groups. inviting the Russian and Iran gov as allies. gave them bases. -Russia: supports Assad and Syrian government, naval base, fights ISIS -Iran: supports Assad and Syrian government, establishing bases, cultivating more political influence, fights ISIS -United States: supports rebels, fights ISIS, support YPG, initially hoped that Assad would be removed, so supported rebel groups to fight the governemnt. did not insert troops to fight Assad but to fight ISIS. Now that ISIS is lowkey gone there is less need for troops. -Syrian Kurds (YPG): fights ISIS, now holds territory in North -Turkey: supports Syrian rebels, move YPG out of northern Syria, conflict with US over status of YPG -Israel: bombing raids targeting military convoys to Hezbollah, targeting Iranian operations. worried that Iran is setting up soldiers and war materials along side the border to set up an attack against israel. US WITHDRAWL: President announces after phone call with Erdogan (turkey would assert full responsability to beat ISIS) BUT this now strengthens the Turkish gov not the YPG (which is also allied) Without troops on the ground the Us can no longer provide a physical barrier to prevent escaltion of conflict between YPG and Turkey. so JIM MATTIS RESIGNS. •Does not consult with key military advisors: joseph votle is commander and was not consulted. •Mattis resigns in protest •Provokes larger backlash from Congress and Executive Branch: troops on the ground prevented attacks because no one wanted to attack US troops, so the withdrawl deprives the US of this important military lever to influence the balance of power (political and military power) in the middle east. the Us should have been suprised by the announcement but not by the change in US policy the President has consistently brought all resources back to focus on domestic matters. The American public put these goals in place by electing Trump. he following through. AND the fact that it took this long to happen, says something about the strength or scope of domestic institutional constraints that limit the President's ability to get what he wants in foreign policy.

Discuss how the attack on 9/11 led to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. How did the decision not to distinguish between terrorists and states that harbor terrorists play into this decision? How did considerations of domestic reaction and the possibility of another attack affect this decision?

pres bush considered was the right way to handle this. -wanted to prevent another attack and show he could protect Americans (government's primary goal). -Domestic reaction supported Bush's invasion of Afghanistan, it was probably why he got elected again. 9/11: no discrimination between terrorists and states that harbor them --Quickly determined to strike Al Qaeda, given sanctuary in southern Afghanistan by Taliban in return for substantial financial support -Tremendous pressure on military and CIA to be ready ASAP, concerns about breakdown in order if another attack before striking back President Bush saw 9/11 as an equivalent to Pearl Harbor and felt the US was at risk for getting attacked again Bush faces pressure from within administration to go to war against Iraq right away after 9/11 -Rumsfield raises possibility on September 12 -Wolfowitz, 9/13, "ending states who sponsor terrorism" -Orders Rumsfield on 11/21 to begin updating war plan for Iraq

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

the current state of the Realtions between the US and Russia is all thanks to this settlement. he Cold War was NOT a great power war -No direct military conflict between the U.S. and USSR But, the end of the Cold War resembled the end of a great power war -State/territorial change: Killed states (Soviet collapse, Yugoslavia collapse, Czechoslavakia split), created new states (Soviet successor states), re-established states (Germany reunited) -Regime change (communist systems cterm-25ollapsed, democracies emerged) -Distribution of military power changed (bipolar to unipolar world where the US was more powerful and responsible.) -Enforcement mechanisms changed (Warsaw Pact collapsed, NATO expanded taking many adversaries from its adversaries. the EU integrated east European countries back into Europe. Russia lost: Territory - Soviet Union becomes 15 newly independent states: (Russia was viewed as the heart and central core pf the USSR event though it was a multinational empire that contained numerous nations and half of the populations was not russian.) (the other non Russian countries such as Armenia got offered the benefit of independence.) (Russia viewed this as a loss and reduction of territory.) -Empire - loss of hegemony in Eastern Europe (crucial strategic and psychological effects for Russia and its status and the international system, everyone now gravitated to american led org like NATO was devastating. the conflict is partially motivated by this post cold war. ) -Superpower status and influence: (it still posses nuclear weapons but no more international influence. huge constraints. psych loss for the typical Russian citizen- historical tragedy) The US Gains: -Military hegemony over Eastern Europe - Expansion of NATO -Economic hegemony - Expansion of European Union- Ideological hegemony - Ascendance of democracy- Unipolarity - Unrivaled US power around the world (no other country had the military power etc) Challenges maintaining the post-Cold War order: - break apart like the societ union or decline into social and economic chaos. a weak russia posed significant threats. There were fears that the country would lose control over their nuclear weapons. elections in russia threatened to procude a natioanist leader that would threaten neigbors. clinton sought to help Russia adopt democracy and capitalism though foreign aid an advice, hoped that russia would transform into a free market democracy that was pro western in foreign policy and could be integrated into the western security and economic order in Europe. he also over saw a dramatic expansion in NATO which brought in Poland Hungary an CR into the military alliance and incorporated Estonia Latvia Lithuania. all over strong objections of Russia who saw NATO expansion as a security threat. ppl thought it would alienate Russia from the west.

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

worried that the american had falied to observed a series of self-imposed limits on the use of military power.limits at the core of the post 1945 settlement could threaten to promote a broader backlash from other countries. and unwind the the larger international political order that had the US at the center that depended on a series of limitation on the american ability to use military force for predation. think of these global challenges in terms of the US as an indispensable nation: political challenges in central europe and middle east created demand for outside intervention to stabilize local political order and prevent the spill of war to neighboring countries. the US responded to these strategic challenges by inserting american military troops into these regions. Others think this is to expand american influence and transform domestic political systems throughout the world. coercion dilemma anytime it considers deploying military force outside territorial borders. from powerpoint: Dangerous legacy of 2003: Allies and U.N. say no to Iraq, but US does it anyway. America unbound? American power still legitimate outside of US? •US as indispensable nation: world needs US military power (e.g. ISIS in Middle East), but is exercise of US military power sufficiently regulated?

How does the actions taken by the Biden administration reflect President Biden's broader grand strategy? How might the resolution of the Ukraine crisis affect the sustainability of Biden's grand strategy moving forward?

• Ukraine crisis showcases key elements of Biden's grand strategy - Multilateralism: priority on maintaining unity of NATO coalition - Principles: maintaining rules-based international order emphasizing sovereignty and protecting democracy - Confronting autocratic regimes aggressively by uniting western democracies • PBS Newshour clip on credibility of US threats (2:20) • Ukraine crisis could have global implications - If US and NATO successfully constrain Russian aggression then US gains credibility - If not, then US will have more difficulty confronting other autocracies such as China, Iran, and North Korea