Oberlin College Department of History History 393: History and the Formulation of U. S. National Security Strategy & Policy



Download 54.77 Kb.
Date conversion31.05.2016
Size54.77 Kb.

History 393 (Spring 2014): History and the Formulation of U.S. National Security Strategy & Policy (v1)

Oberlin College

Department of History
History 393: History and the Formulation of U.S. National Security Strategy & Policy
Spring 2014; seminar format; Thu 1:00-2:50 PM, King 335

Instructor: Jiyul Kim

E-mail: Jiyul.kim@oberlin.edu; jiyulkim@gmail.com

Phone: (H) 440-385-0186; (M) 717-514-8213

Office hours: after class or e-mail/call to coordinate time and location
Overview: The purpose of this course is to help you develop your national security literacy. We will consider how history and culture should be integral factors in the formulation of security strategy and policy in general and U.S. national security strategy and policy in particular. The course explores the concepts of strategy and policy, the process of their formulation in general and how it is done in the U.S., how historical and cultural factors are integrated, and then apply this to historical and contemporary case studies. Student interest and background will determine the selection of contemporary case studies.
Prerequisite: at least one year of college level history course on any region, period, or theme.
Learning Objectives:


  1. Comprehend the relationship between history and culture.




  1. Comprehend concepts of national security, strategy and policy.




  1. Comprehend the theory of strategy and policy formulation.




  1. Comprehend the historical and cultural dimensions of strategy and policy formulation.




  1. Comprehend current U.S. national security strategy and policy.




  1. Analyze how historical and cultural factors led to success or failure of strategy and policy in historical case studies.




  1. Analyze historical and cultural dimensions of contemporary security issues and their strategy and policy implications.


Course organization:
Part I Theory (weeks 1-4)

Part II: Three historical case studies (weeks 5-7): Cold War, Vietnam, Afghanistan (Iraq)

Part III: Five contemporary case studies (weeks 8-12)

Part IV: Reflection and Future (week 13)


Texts: No texts need to be purchased. All readings will be on Blackboard. Copyrighted material CANNOT be uploaded to third party sites.
Grading


  • MID-TERM

    • Attendance & participation: 60%

    • Team policy information paper: 40%




  • FINAL

    • Attendance & participation: 35%

    • Presentation: 20%

    • MIDTERM: 25% (attendance/participation 15%, policy paper 10%)

    • Final Project paper: 20%


Attendance & participation: Diligent attendance and active participation based on informed preparation are essential for a seminar course.
Case Study Presentation and Discussion:


  • During weeks 8-12 you will be in a 1 or 2-person team that will make a presentation on a contemporary case study and interact with the class under faculty facilitation.




  • You will make a presentation and discuss a case study of a nation of significant security concern for the U.S. The presentation and assigned readings will be the basis for a mini exercise to discuss policy and strategy objectives and options that will be similar to an actual working level interagency policy session led by the State Department and overseen by the National Security Council. The desired outcome is a recommended course of action for the President. The case study team is the State Department, other students represent the interagency and the faculty is the National Security Council.




  • Organizing – first day of class (6 Feb)




    • Cases: The proposed contemporary case studies are China, India, North Korea, Russia, and Iran, but in our first class we will discuss/decide on substituting with other countries based on student background and interest. Other potential case studies are: India, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, Indonesia, Pakistan, Israel, Syria, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.




    • Case Team: You will be assigned to a case study team on the first day of class. We have nine students as of the registration period. If the number remains we will have four teams of two and one team of one. Adjustments will be made as necessary.




      • The country you are assigned will determine the subject of your research, the midterm policy paper and the final paper. See below on the option to choose an entirely new country for the final paper.




      • Procedure: We will first determine each student’s preference. If any country is either short/over we will seek volunteers to change. If excess/shortage remains, lots will be drawn (from the overage country) to move to the shortage country.




    • Case Order: The order of the case studies will be randomly determined. This gives each case equal chance on being first (least prep time) or last (most prep time).




  • Case Study Preparation - ALL:

    • Read/review Appendix I “A Commentary on Modernity and Nationalism” in Cultural Dimensions of Strategy & Policy (from week 1) for one view on modernity and nationalism as key defining aspects of the contemporary world.

    • Read/review assigned readings from the National Security Strategy and the Defense Strategic Guidance (from week 3) with focus on understanding U.S. interests and policy/strategy approaches.

    • Read all assigned readings for background. These readings will be determined after case studies are determined.

    • Stay on top of current developments for each case study nation.




  • Case Study Preparation - TEAM:

    • This is a collaborative project so the team members are expected to coordinate and work together outside of the classroom.

    • Conduct research using any suitable resource to supplement the common reading to be able to make an informed presentation and to become the class experts.

    • Write a midterm policy information paper due on week 7 (20 Mar). Details are below. This paper will be distributed to the rest of the class the day before the case study. You have the option, indeed you are encouraged to take the option, to update the paper for the presentation lesson. Do this by posting on Blackboard by NLT 1700 on Wed the day prior to class and alerting the class/faculty. You can alternatively provide hard copies of your revised policy paper in class just before the presentation and then post on Blackboard for future reference.




  • Case Study Presentation: A succinct (max 30 min) team presentation on,

    • U.S. security interests and objectives with regard to the nation. What and why.

    • Discussion of the three history/cultural dimensions of strategy/policy (Identity, Political Culture, Resilience)

      • That nation’s core values, sense of purpose and national interests/objectives – what is important to them and why? Do they correspond or clash with U.S. values, purpose and interests/objectives?

      • How strong are their shared values, purpose and interests? Are there major fault lines that can divide values, purpose and interests e.g. due to political or sectarian divisions or lack of a shared national identity?

      • How might they respond (their strategy) to threats and challenges to their values, purpose and interests?

      • Consider in your analysis the nation’s historical experience (history) and, if possible, its historiographical tradition and considerations.

    • How might or should the analysis of these dimensions affect U.S. security interests, policy objectives, and the strategy to reach those objectives and attain the policy goal?

    • What U.S. interests, objectives and strategy are feasible, acceptable and suitable?




  • Discussion: I will facilitate the discussion as an interagency working group discussion. This means, to the extent possible, identifying questions and points in terms of what agency(s) it would come from. For example, the Defense Department will focus on military capability, readiness and options while the Commerce Department will be interested in trade issues. The goal of the discussion is to deliberate policy and strategy goals and options and come up with consensus on policy and strategy. Good luck to us.


Writing assignments:


  • MIDTERM Paper – Policy Information Paper: Due by 6 PM 20 Mar (week 7) (by e-mail).

    • Prepare a 2-3 page policy information paper on your country. This replicates the succinct background information paper that is circulated to attendees before a real world interagency policy/strategy meeting. It helps the other attendees to quickly gain a sense of the key issues. This is a joint country team product. Collaboration is a must. Only one paper per team.

    • Format:

      • Heading: Name of country, team members, date

      • Para 1: Subject (what is the issue)

      • Para 2: Situation (where are we now and what is U.S’s interests and objectives)

      • Para 3: Discussion (key issues and factors bearing on policy & strategy consideration. Historical-cultural factors must be included.)

      • Para 4: Policy and strategy options – as specific as possible

    • Double space, 1” margin, 12 point font of your preference.

    • Footnotes/endnotes are not necessary, but have them for the final paper.

    • As noted above this paper will be used by the class for your presentation session and you are encouraged to update the paper before the presentation.




  • FINAL PROJECT Paper – Policy Decision Paper: due by e-mail at the time determined by the college final exam schedule (11 AM, Sat 17 May).

    • Unlike the midterm paper this is an individual paper and team members will NOT consult, corroborate or coordinate with each other. Plagiarism between team members will be grounds for failing grade on the paper.

    • The final paper has two parts. Endnotes are required. Bibliography is not required. Endnotes do not count toward the page limit.

      • Part 1: revise and expand the midterm information paper to a policy & strategy decision memorandum for the President. Maximum length is 10 pages. Format:

        • Heading thru Para 4: same as midterm paper. Expand Para 1-3 as necessary. For Para 4 include pro and con for each option.

        • Para 5: Recommendation – your recommended policy and strategy with discussion of why

      • Part 2: Reflect on what you have learned and what that means to you. Maximum length is 5 pages.

    • Double space, 1” margin, 12 point font of your preference.

    • DRAFT Review option: You have the option to submit a draft, partial or full, (by e-mail) of your final paper for preliminary review and feedback. Submit the draft by NET last day of class (8 May) and NLT the next day (9 May). I will provide the feedback ASAP but NLT 13 May.

    • Final Project paper OPTION: You may select an entirely different country than your case study for the Final Decision Paper. If you do so you are encouraged to exercise the DRAFT option. You must declare your intent to take this option and the country you select by 20 Mar (week 7, when the midterm paper is due).




  • For MIDTERM and FINAL project policy papers use Alan G. Stolberg’s “Crafting National Interests in the 21st Century” and “Making National Security policy in the 21st Century,” as reference guides on an approach you can use to address the issues and factors you can/should consider. Full reference for this item is in Week 2 Reading.

  • Extension and late paper: extensions will be granted only under extenuating circumstances. Late paper will be penalized one-third of a letter grade (e.g. B to B-) for each 1 hour period.


Blackboard Discussion Board: Use the course Discussion Board to collaborate, to consult me, and to post information papers and any supplemental material.
Honor Code: at the end of the final paper write in full and sign the Honor Pledge, I have adhered to the Honor Code in this assignment, to affirm that you have not plagiarized, fabricated, or falsified information, nor assisted others in these actions. This is NOT applicable to the midterm policy information paper.
Students with Disability policy: for documented disability that may impact on your work for this class and require accommodation, notify me and see the Office of Disability Services for assistance.
Cell phone: Cell phones must be turned off or muted in class. No texting.
COURSE SCHEDULE and ASSIGNMENTS
Week 1 (6 Feb): Introduction, Administration, Theory 1
NOTE: Drop/Add deadline is 12 Feb


  • Self-introductions: background, aspiration, why course

  • Course introduction:

    • Structure: Seminar – discussion

    • Theory, Historical cases, current cases

    • Focus on war/avoidance of war; confrontational cases

    • Case country team; Midterm policy info paper; final policy decision paper

  • Case Study selection and team assignments




  • Theory 1

    • Study of War and liberal education

    • History, historiography, culture, national security, policy, and strategy

    • History-culture and policy and strategy




  • READINGS

    • J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., ed., The U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, 5th Edition (US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, July 2012). Complete volumes are posted on Blackboard.

      • Vol. II National Security Policy and Strategy

        • Frank Jones, “Strategic Thinking and Culture: A Framework for Analysis,” pp. 287-300.

    • Jiyul Kim, Cultural Dimensions of Strategy and Policy, (US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2009) pp. 1-27.

    • Henry A. Kissinger, “The Limits of Universalism: On Burkean Conservatism,” The New Criterion (June 2012) (4 p).


Week 2 (13 Feb): Theory 2


  • Theory 2

    • What is war?

    • Historical-Cultural dimensions of the U.S.

    • Formulating policy and strategy




  • READINGS

    • George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796.

    • Walter Russell Mead, “Clausewitz: Master of War,” The American Interest, 17 May 2011.

    • Carl Von Clausewitz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds. and translators, (Princeton 1976), pp. 75-89 (Book I, Chap. 1: What is War?).

    • Michael Howard, “Clausewitz, On War,” Bradley Lecture (Library of Congress, 1998)

    • Michael H. Hunt, Ideology and U.S. Foreign Policy (Yale, 2009), Chap. 1 pp. 1-18.

    • Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules: America’s Path to Permanent War (Metropolitan Books, 2010), Introduction, pp. 1-18, Chapter 1, pp. 19-58

    • Bartholomees, Jr., ed., The U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, 5th Edition (US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, July 2012). Complete volumes are posted on Blackboard.

      • Vol. I Theory of War and Strategy

        • David Jablonsky, “Why is Strategy Difficult?” pp. 3-10.

        • H. Richard Yarger, “Toward a Theory of Strategy” pp. 45-50.

      • Vol. II National Security Policy and Strategy

        • Marybeth P. Ulrich, “American Values, Interests, and Purpose,” pp. 3-9.

        • Alan G. Stolberg, “Crafting National Interests in the 21st Century,” pp. 13-21. (SCAN. Use as reference for Midterm and Final policy papers.)

        • Alan G. Stolberg, “Making National Security policy in the 21st Century,” pp. 41-57. (READ 41-48 (top); SCAN 48-61. Use as reference for Midterm and Final policy papers.)

        • Thomas Sheperd, “Navigating the Linkage Between Culture and Strategy: A Guide to Understanding the Analytical Cultural Framework for Strategy and Policy,” pp. 275-282.

        • Appendix I: Guidelines for Strategy Formulation, pp. 413-418.

    • Diagram of the US Army War College Strategy Formulation Model. (SCAN)


Week 3 (20 Feb): Theory 3


  • Theory 3

    • Elements of Power

    • Enduring features and concepts of U.S. national security

    • U.S. national security policy and strategy

    • U.S. national security system and process




  • READINGS

    • U.S. Constitution: Articles I, II, and III.

    • National Security Act of 1947/Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986/Homeland Security Act of 2002/Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004/Intelligence Community.

    • National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) #1, February 13, 2001.

    • Presidential Policy Directive (PPD) #1, February 13, 2009.

    • Presidential Directive (PD) guide. (SCAN)

    • National Security Council, National Security Strategy [of the U.S., commonly referred to as “NSS”], May 2010, President Obama’s cover letter (3 pp), Part I Overview pp. 1-6, Part II Strategic Approach, pp. 7-16.

    • National Security Council, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense (Defense Strategic Guidance), Jan 2012, Cover letters by President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta (3 pp), pp. 1-8.

    • Department of State, Executive Summary: Leading Through Civilian Power: The First Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, 2010 (QDDR 2010). Cover letter by Secretary Clinton and pp. 1-18.

    • Regional/Functional Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC)/Interagency Policy Committee (IPC). (SCAN)

    • J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr., ed., The U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Issues, 5th Edition (US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, July 2012). Complete volumes are posted on Blackboard.

      • Vol. II National Security Policy and Strategy

        • Walter H. Leach, “The National Security Community, Revisited,” pp. 27-38.

    • Organizational charts (SCAN): National strategy documents; National Security Council staff (NSC); Dept of State (DOS); Dept of Defense (DOD); Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); Joint Staff (JS); Unified Combatant Commands; Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI); Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); Dept of Homeland Security.

    • Chart on Elements of National Power. (SCAN)


Week 4 (27 Feb): Theory 4
Catch-up


  • READINGS

    • Koposov, Nikolai, “The Armored Train of Memory: The Politics of History in Post-Soviet Russia,” Perspectives on History, Jan 2011.

    • Kim, Jiyul, “Pan-Korean Nationalism, Anti-Great Power-ism and U.S.-South Korean Relations,” Japan Focus, 13 Dec 2005.

    • Kulish, Nicholas, “German Identity, Long Dormant, Reasserts Itself,” NYT, 10 Sep 2010.



Week 5 (6 Mar): Historical Case Study – Cold War 1945-1991
Questions to consider in readings and discussion:


  1. Why and how did the Cold War start? Which side was more responsible? Was it inevitable?




  1. How and why did it follow the course it did? What role did the Korean War play in the creation of a National Security state in the U.S.?




  1. Why and how did it end? Did it end? Was the end inevitable?




  1. What was the role of history and culture in the start, course, and end of the Cold War? The role of Identity, Political Culture and Resilience? Could better understanding of those factors prevented or mitigated the Cold War?




  • READINGS

    • Guide to historical case studies

    • Wikipedia article, “Historiography in the Soviet Union”

    • Melvyn P. Leffler, The Specter of Communism: The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1917-1953 (Hill & Wang, 1994), Ch. 1-2, pp. 3-63.

    • John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History (Penguin, 2005), Ch. 1, pp. 5-47.

    • George Kennan, “The Long Telegram,” 22 Feb 1946.

      • OPTIONAL: “X” (George Kennan), “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.” Foreign Affairs, July 1947.

    • Novikov Telegram, 27 Sep 1946

    • Ernest May, ed., Interpreting NSC-68, Introduction, pp. 1-17.

      • OPTIONAL: Chapter 2, pp. 94-107, Chapter 4, pp. 130-150.

      • OPTIONAL: NSC-68

    • John Lewis Gaddis, “Was the Truman Doctrine a Real Turning Point?” Foreign Affairs, Jan 1974, pp. 386-402.

    • Benjamin Schwarz, “The Real Cuban Missile Crisis,” The Atlantic, Jan/Feb 2013, pp. 73-81.

    • Robert Jervis, “Identity and the Cold War,” in The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Vol. 2, Melvyn Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, eds. (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 22-43.

    • Vladislav M. Zubok, “Why Did the Cold War End in 1989? Explanations of ‘The Turn’,” in Odd Arne Westad, ed., Reviewing the Cold War (Frank Cass, 2000), pp. 343-361.

    • Jeremi Suri, “Explaining the End of the Cold War: A New Historical Consensus?,” Journal of Cold War Studies 4.4 (Fall 2002), pp. 60-92.

    • John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War: A New History (Penguin, 2005), Epilogue, pp. 259-266.



Week 6 (13 Mar): Historical Case Study – Vietnam 1945-1973
Questions to consider in readings and discussion:


  1. How does the Vietnam Wars (First and Second Indochina Wars) fit within the larger Cold War policy and strategy framework for the U.S?

  2. Is there a pan-Vietnam (including both North and South) identity?

  3. What are the values and sense of purpose of the North Vietnamese national identity? What are their sources?

  4. How did North Vietnam manipulate and politicize history to serve its political and military policy and objectives?

  5. Did the French and the U.S. understand North Vietnamese interests and their source?

  6. What role, if any, did personalities and bureaucratic politics and culture play in U.S. decision making? French? North Vietnamese? South Vietnamese?

  7. Do Hunt’s ideologies of U.S. foreign policy apply in U.S. policy decisions toward Vietnam?

  8. Do Bacevich’s Credo and Trinity apply? How or why not?

  9. Can the ACFSP explain where U.S. policy and strategy may have gone astray or done it differently? More fundamentally, does it provide any clue that the U.S. should not have gotten involved in Vietnam?

  10. Was there a way for the U.S. to have “won” in Vietnam? What would win look like?

  11. What has U.S. learned from Vietnam? How has it affected U.S. national security policy and strategy since?




  • READINGS

    • Guide to historical case studies

    • Frederik Logevall, “The Indochina wars and the Cold War, 1945-1975,” In The Cambridge History of the Cold War, Vol. II: Crisis and Détente, Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2010), pp. 281-304.

    • David Kaiser, American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War, (Harvard Univ. Press, 2000), Introduction, pp. 1-9.

    • Michael H. Hunt and Steven I. Levine, Arc of Empire: America’s Wars in Asia from the Philippines to Vietnam, (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2012), Introduction and Legacies, pp. 1-9, 239-250.

    • Patricia Pelley, “The History of Resistance and the Resistance to History in Post-Colonial Constructions of the Past,” In Essays into Vietnamese Pasts, K. W. Taylor and John K. Whitmore, eds., (Cornell Univ. Studies on Southeast Asia, 1995), pp. 232-245.

    • Robert McMahon, ed., Major Problems in the History of the Vietnam War, (D.C. Heath, 1990), pp. 30-69.

    • Frederik Logevall, Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America’s Vietnam, (Random House, 2012), Preface and Epilogue, pp. xi-xxii, 702-714.

    • Larry Berman, Planning A Tragedy: The Americanization of the War in Vietnam, (Norton, 1982), Preface & Ch. I, pp. xi-xiv, 3-7.

      • OPTIONAL: Ch. IV, pp. 79-129. Discussion and transcripts of key NSC meetings.

    • Nguyen Cong Luan, Nationalist in the Vietnam Wars: Memoirs of a Victim Turned Soldier, (Indiana Univ. Press, 2012), Foreword by David Zabecki, Preface, and Epilogue, pp. ix-xi, xiii-xiv, 545-559.

    • Andrew Rotter, “Chronicle of a War Foretold: The United States and Vietnam, 1945-1954,” in Mark Atwood Lawrence and Frederik Logevall, eds., The First Vietnam War: Colonial Conflict and Cold War Crisis, (Harvard Univ. Press, 2007), pp. 282-306.


Week 7 (20 Mar): Historical Case Study – Afghanistan (Iraq)
NOTE: Midterm policy information paper due by 6 PM by e-mail.
We will concentrate our limited energy and time to examining only Afghanistan for our case study. A few short pieces on Iraq are included for comparative purposes. A reading list on Iraq is provided should you wish to pursue on your own to gain better understanding about our venture in Iraq.
Questions to consider in readings and discussion:


  • What was our interest with Afghanistan?




  • Did we have a grand strategy?




  • What was our policy objective?




  • What was our strategy to achieve our policy objective?

    • What were the Ends, Ways and Means to achieve the policy objective?

    • What other strategies did we consider or was available beside invasion and regime change?

    • Why did we choose the military strategy? Was it the best choice?




  • What were our post-War interest, policy objective and strategy to achieve it?




  • What were the relevant aspects of Afghan Identity, Political Culture and Resilience based on their history and culture?




  • How were these factors considered in determining our policy objective and strategy (ends, ways and means)?

    • If considered, was it comprehensive or lip service?

    • Were they ignored?




  • How might have our policy objective and strategy ends, ways and means adjusted to account for Afghan’s historical-cultural factors?




  • READINGS

    • MAPs – 4 each

      • Administrative Divisions

      • Ethnolinguistic Groups

      • Physiography (terrain)

      • Transportation




    • Guide to historical case studies




    • Jiyul Kim, Cultural Dimensions of Strategy and Policy, (US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, May 2009) pp. 1-3, 33-38.

      • Short theoretical overview of the post-Cold War international order to contextualize the Afghanistan case.




    • Joseph J. Collins, Understanding War in Afghanistan (National Defense Univ., 2011) pp. 5-114.

      • The core reading for the case study. Seems like a lot of pages but a quick read and essential information. This is one reading you should not skip.




    • Astri Suhrke, When More is Less: The International Project in Afghanistan (Columbia Univ. Press, 2011) Chap. 1 and Conclusion, pp. 1-18, 219-234.

      • Adds depth and analytical rigor to complement Collins.




    • The following readings show how Washington politics, policy making bureaucracy, culture, and personalities can clash with national security interest, policy making and strategy formulation.

      • Vali Nasr, “The Inside Story of How the White House Let Diplomacy Fail in Afghanistan,” Foreign Policy (Mar/Apr 2013). The assertion.

      • Sarah Chayes, “What Vali Nasr Got Wrong,” Foreign Policy web site, 12 Mar 2013. The counter.

      • Stephen M. Walt, “The REAL reason the U.S. failed in Afghanistan,” Foreign Policy web site, 15 Mar 2013. The adjudication.




    • Huw Williams, “ISAF prepares Afghans for withdrawal,” Jane’s International Defence Review (Mar 2013) pp. 24-26.

      • On the ground reality of transitioning to Afghan security forces.




    • Following readings give brief glimpses of the Iraq aftermath, part of many articles written to mark the 10th anniversary of the invasion in March 2003.

      • Courteney Coelho, “Iraq War: 190,000 lives, $2.2 trillion,” Brown University Cost of War Project, 14 Mar 2013.

      • R. Jeffrey Smith, “The Failed Reconstruction of Iraq,” The Atlantic, 15 Mar 2013.

      • Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Five myths about Iraq,” The Washington Post, 15 Mar 2013.




    • Andrew J. Bacevich, “A Letter to Paul Wolfowitz: Occasioned by the tenth anniversary of the Iraq war” Harper’s Magazine (Mar 2013) pp. 48-50.

      • Devastating critique from a wounded soul.




    • “An Interview with Richard N. Haas,” PRISM 4.1 (2012) pp. 133-143.

      • A frank retrospective look at our Afghanistan and Iraq policies and the national security processes that produced them by a veteran foreign policy specialist (State, NSC, DOD) and the current President of the Council on Foreign Relations who is also an Obie (OC 73).




  • For the Ambitious and the Interested: a reading list for an Iraq case study (not required reading)

    • James Fallows, “Blind into Baghdad,” The Atlantic, Jan/Feb 2004

    • Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules (Metropolitan Books, 2010) Chapters 4-6.

    • Eric Davis, Memories of State: Politics, History and Collective Identity in Modern Iraq (Univ of California Press, 2005).

    • David Ryan and Patrick Kelley, eds, America and Iraq:Policy-making, intervention and regional politics (Routledge, 2009)

    • Ali A. Allawi, The Occupation of Iraq: Winning the War, Losing the Peace (Yale Univ. Press, 2007).

    • Michael R. Gordon and Bernard E. Trainor, Cobra II: The Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (Pantheon, 2006).

    • ----------, The Endgame: The Inside Story of the Struggle for Iraq, from George W. Bush to Barack Obama (Pantheon, 2012).


SPRING BREAK 22-30 Mar

Weeks 8-12: Preparatory reading for all cONTEMPORARY case studies


  • Appendix I “A Commentary on Modernity and Nationalism” in Cultural Dimensions of Strategy & Policy, pp. 33-38 (REVIEW form week 7).

  • TBD


Week 8 (3 Apr): Contemporary Case Study 1
NOTE: 7 Apr is last day to declare Pass/No Pass (PNP) option



Week 9 (10 Apr): Contemporary Case Study 2


  • READINGS

    • Team Policy Information Paper

    • TBD


Week 10 (17 Apr): Contemporary Case Study 3


  • READINGS

    • Team Policy Information Paper

    • TBD


Week 11 (24 Apr): Contemporary Case Study 4


  • READINGS

    • Team Policy Information Paper

    • TBD


Week 12 (1 May): Contemporary Case Study 5


  • READINGS

    • Team Policy Information Paper

    • TBD


Week 13 (8 May): Reflection, Future
(NOTE: If you wish to submit a draft version of your paper submit by midnight Friday 9 May (by e-mail) and it will be returned to you by Tuesday 13 May)


  • READINGS


REFLECTION: Could a more historically and culturally informed security and foreign policy and strategy as proposed by this course made things “better” since 1945? Why? How? How can we get beyond obstacles imposed by the politics and structure of our security and foreign policy making and strategy formulating apparatus and process? And what does it mean to be “better” than what happened since 1945?


    • Andrew J. Bacevich, “Life in the Dawn of the American Century,” in Andrew J. Bacevich, ed, The Short American Century: A Postmortem (Harvard Univ. Press, 2012), pp. 1-14.

    • Walter LaFeber, “Illusions of an American Century,” in Bacevich, ed, The Short American Century, pp. 158-186.

    • Andrew J. Bacevich, “Not So Different After All,” in Bacevich, ed, The Short American Century, pp. 231-239.


FUTURE: What alternative paths for U.S. security and foreign policy and strategy should we follow? Why and to what End?


    • John Norris, “The Y Article,” Foreign Policy, 13 Apr 2011.

    • “Y,” A National Strategic Narrative, Woodrow Wilson Center, Apr 2011.

    • Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, National Intelligence Council (NIC), Dec 2012, EXSUM pp. i-xiv.

    • Dan Twining, “Global Trends 2030: Pathways for Asia’s Strategic Future,” Foreign Policy 10 Dec 2012.

    • Robert A. Manning, Envisioning 2030: US Strategy for a Post-Western World, Atlantic Council, 2012, EXSUM pp. 5-7.


11 AM, 17 May: Final Project paper due by e-mail at the time determined by the college final exam schedule


The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page