Section 1


Fall 2008

Northern Illinois University

John Maszka


Class Meetings: T, TH 12:30 p.m.-1:45 p.m. - DuSable 252


Contact Information for Mr. John Maszka

Office:              DU 476

Phone:              753-1818

E-mail:              jmaszka@niu.edu

Office Hours:    T, TH 11:00-12:00 p.m. (or by appointment).





This survey course in contemporary U.S. national security policy has two basic objectives. Its primary goal is to provide a solid and fairly broad introduction to the concepts, issues, and debates related to this important area of public policy. The first portion of the course will address essential background information, such as national interests, national capabilities, military tradition and strategic culture, America’s global standing, the impact of September 11, 2001, national strategy and force structure, and private security contractors and companies.


The second and larger portion of the course will focus on a range of real and potential threats to U.S. national security. Terrorism, of course, will be a key focus. We will discuss it as a general issue as well as explore variants, such as the threat of “dirty bombs” or radiological dispersion devices. Other topics will include nuclear proliferation, ethnic and religious conflict, energy security and dependency on foreign sources of oil, and key geopolitical concerns – from a rising China and resurgent Russia to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and the war in Afghanistan. We will give special attention to the Iraq War at the end of the course.


As we examine these many challenges, we will stop to consider several responses. For example, we will discuss and analyze arms control, national missile defense, the best options for addressing terrorism, balancing national security and civil liberties, whether to contain or engage China, the revolution in military affairs, NATO and collective defense, deciding when and how to intervene militarily, reinstating a military draft, and whether to stay the course in Iraq or withdraw.


Given the time constraints of this course, our treatment of national security policy must be selective. There are clearly additional subjects that could be included in each part of the course. The choice of topics is designed to demonstrate the diverse nature of security policy as well as identify many (but certainly not all) of the leading issues that challenge U.S. policy-makers today. In particular, the course draws a clear distinction between foreign policy and security policy, placing emphasis on real threats to the safety and survival of the United States. Furthermore, military history, weapons systems, intelligence, the mechanics of national security decision-making, and certain regions (e.g., Southeast Asia, Latin America, etc.) are featured in other university courses and, therefore, will not be our focus. This class is concerned with substantive policy issues and responses.


The second course objective is to focus on national security policy-making. We will accomplish this goal in a number of ways. For instance, lecture material will often raise questions where students will be asked to consider which policy direction is most beneficial to the United States now or in the future. There will also be a number of class periods where we will probe a particular issue in depth and actively discuss, as a group, the merits of various U.S. policy options. In addition, everyone should stay on top of breaking national security events and decisions by regularly monitoring a high quality newspaper and referencing relevant information at appropriate junctures in class. Lastly, each member of the class will assume the role of a national security practitioner and write a paper dealing with a future security crisis or challenge.



This is a fairly challenging 300-level course designed primarily for POLS majors and minors with a strong interest in international politics. Students should hold a junior or senior class standing. This is a prerequisite. It is strongly recommended POLS 285 or a solid introductory international relations course at another institution be completed before enrolling in this course. Non-majors and POLS majors who have not completed this coursework are welcome, but should consider themselves warned about these recommendations. Everyone enrolled in the class should have a serious interest in current U.S. national security policy and a willingness to work hard.


Good security policy students keep up with breaking events. Staying informed allows one to make better sense of the instructor’s examples and other students’ comments as well as participate in class. Monitoring the news will also help students draw linkages between the course material and the “real world.” News articles will provide examples that can be referenced on examinations to highlight class concepts or in a paper to make a reasoned argument. Moreover, current events can be brought into class discussions. While one can draw on articles from papers like the Chicago Tribune or Christian Science Monitor, the two best sources for news developments related to U.S. national security policy are the following.


Washington Post (Click on http://www.washingtonpost.com (Click on “Nation,” “World” and “Politics.” Under “Nation” click on “National Security.”


New York Times (Click on “U.S.,” “World” and “Washington”), http://www.nytimes.com






Most classes will have a lecture component. However, students are welcome and encouraged to interrupt the instructor to ask questions or make comments about the material. Also members of the class should be prepared to answer the many questions that the instructor will regularly pose concerning a particular day’s material, a past class, a current event, or the assigned readings (which are to be completed before class). Regular and thoughtful participation will be rewarded.        


For class meetings devoted to the discussion and debate of U.S. policy options, everyone’s active and thoughtful participation is absolutely essential and expected. During these sessions the instructor will guide the class discussion and highlight key concepts and points when appropriate, but the vast majority of our time will be spent discussing and dissecting U.S. national security policy as a group. At times, these class periods may involve group work and exercises.


To ensure the quality of these class periods, everyone is expected to do three things. First, all assigned readings on the issue under discussion should be read carefully before class. Second, copies of these readings should be brought to class as reference material for discussion and group exercises. Third, some time should be spent prior to class considering the following questions for each reading:


1) Who is the author? (What does the author do, and how might this affect his/her position?)

2) What is the main argument?

3) Are there important secondary or supportive points?

4) What are the temporal boundaries (if any), and how do they affect the reading’s relevance to us today?

5) Are there specific geographic boundaries that the reading is concerned with? If so, what are they?

6) So What? (Why is this reading worth reading? What about the argument is relevant or important to the overall focus of the course?).




There is one required textbook available for purchase at the university bookstore. A conscious effort has been made to keep the material as affordable and update-to-date as possible. Therefore, the book is a recently published paperback edition. To be successful in this course, it is required that students have personal copies of this book.


Donald M. Snow. 2008. National Security for a New Era: Globalization and Geopolitics, 4th edition (New York: Longman).


Other course readings include journal articles, book chapters, reports, and Internet material that have been placed on electronic reserve. Students may obtain these readings by visiting the library’s reserve reading or by connecting to the course’s electronic reserve reading list via the Internet. The web address for this list is:

Adobe Acrobat Reader will be needed to open many of the readings, which are in Portable Document Format (PDF) files. Students who do not have this program can download it free of charge. Simply click on the appropriate link on the upper right hand corner of the electronic reserve reading list. The reserve reading list was selected to give students access to up-to-date material without the purchase of additional costly textbooks.




There are four graded requirements that each student must complete to pass the course.


The first two graded requirement consists of two written examinations. The midterm exam is scheduled for Thursday, October 8 and will be worth 25% of the course grade.  The final exam will be administered on Tuesday, December 8 during the university’s examination period and will be worth 30% of the final course grade. Both examinations must be completed to pass the course. Each test will be composed of a variety of written identification and short answer questions.


The third course requirement is five (5) short 1-2 page summary papers on an assigned reading. Students will discuss one of the assigned readings in each of these papers. Eligible readings are marked with an X in the course schedule and assigned readings section of this syllabus. The five short papers are worth 5% each, for a total of 25% of your grade. All five papers must be completed in order to sit for the final exam. Quality papers will address the same six questions listed above:


1) Who is the author? (What does the author do, and how might this affect his/her position?)

2) What is the main argument?

3) Are there important secondary or supportive points?

4) What are the temporal boundaries (if any), and how do they affect the reading’s relevance to us today?

5) Are there specific geographic boundaries that the reading is concerned with? If so, what are they?

6) So What? (Why is this reading worth reading? What about the argument is relevant or important).


If a question is not relevant to a particular reading, please use a sentence or two to explain why—even if it appears obvious. Often times, the effort expended to explain why a question is not relevant turns up evidence that it is in fact relevant after all. Papers that satisfactorily address all six questions will receive the full 5%. Papers that fail to satisfactorily address all six questions will lose 1% per question:

5% = all six questions addressed satisfactorily - A

4% = only five questions addressed satisfactorily- B

3% = only four questions addressed satisfactorily- C

2% = only three questions addressed satisfactorily- D

1% = two or less questions addressed satisfactorily- F

All summary paper assignments are due at the beginning of class the day we discuss the reading. Late papers will not be accepted. Papers should be typed in a readable 12 point font, and double-spaced. They should capture the essence of the reading, but must be limited to 2 pages. These summary papers will make excellent supplements to your class notes when preparing for the mid-term and final exams.


The fourth course requirement is participation. Components of this grade include (a) regular and thoughtful participation in class lectures and discussions, (b) regular attendance (no more than three absences), (c) regular and thoughtful engagement on class days devoted to discussion and debate. Failure to fulfill any one these expectations satisfactorily or any additional assignment will significantly reduce the participation grade, which is worth 20 percent of the final course grade.


In general, relevant in-class participation (a and c) will be evaluated according to the following scale (with plus and minus grades being possible).


A = regular and thoughtful participation            

B = occasional and thoughtful participation                   

C = regular attendance, but little or no participation

D = less than regular attendance

F = little or no attendance


Attendance is taken each class session.  At the end of the semester, the total number of class meetings is divided into the number of times a student was present. The resulting percentage is then converted to a letter grade.  Specifically, it counts for one-third of the participation grade with in-class participation (discussed above) accounting for the remaining two-thirds. Missing class no more than two or three times will result in an “A” range grade for this portion of the participation grade. Please note that a half letter grade deduction will be taken from the overall course participation grade (not just the attendance grade) for each class missed after the fifth absence.


The midterm examination, final examination, five summary papers, and attendance will all be scored on a 0 to 100 percent scale and assigned a corresponding letter grade. The final course grades will be awarded as follows:


A 93-100
A- 90-92
B+ 87-89
B 80-86
C+ 77-79
C 73-76
C- 70-72
D+ 67-69
D 63-66
D- 60-62
F                                                                                                                                0-59


Midterm Examination    = 25 percent

Final Examination          = 30 percent

Five Summary Papers = 25 percent

Participation                 = 20 percent




1.      Makeup Exams: Makeup exams will only be given in extraordinary circumstances.  If such circumstances arise, please contact the instructor as soon as possible and before the scheduled exam. To keep the process fair for everyone in the course, students may be asked to support requests for makeup exams with documentation. A missed examination without prior notification and a documented excuse will result in a zero and a course grade of “F” as opposed to an incomplete.


2.      Students with Disabilities: Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, NIU is committed to making reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Those students with disabilities that may have an impact on their coursework must register with the Center for Access-Ability Resources (CAAR) on the fourth floor of the Health Services Building (753-1303). CAAR will assist students in making appropriate instructional and/or examination accommodations with course instructors. It is important that CAAR and instructors be informed of any disability-related needs during the first two weeks of the semester.


3.      Late Assignments: No late assignments will be allowed. 


4.      Submitting Written Work: Please turn in all assignments to me at the beginning of the class period in which they are due. If you are not able to make class for any reason, your assignments must be emailed to me before the start of the class period in which it is due.  Please do not leave assignments at the POLS office or anywhere else, and do not give them to a colleague to turn in for you.


5.      Extra Credit: Extra credit will be made available throughout the semester in the two following ways: 1) quizzes will be offered on the assigned reading at the instructor’s discretion. These quizzes will be worth 1 point of extra credit each. 2) Each class period, I will randomly draw a number of names of students. These students will be eligible to play “National Security Jeopardy” for up to 5 points of extra credit. Questions for both forms of extra credit will be based on the readings assigned for that class period and will only be available to students who come to class. No make up extra credit quizzes will be offered, and students’ names will only be drawn once. If a student is not in attendance on the day that his or her name is drawn, they forfeit the opportunity to play.   


6.      Handouts: Handouts are a privilege for those students who attend class on a regular basis. No student is entitled to supplemental materials simply because they are registered for the course.


7.      Classroom Etiquette: Students are to arrive at class on time. If you arrive late, please be courteous and make an effort not to be disruptive as you settle in.  Students are to remain for the entire session unless excused by the professor beforehand or confronted with a serious personal emergency. For instance, it is not acceptable for students to walk in and out of class to answer cell phones, take casual bathroom and smoking breaks, or attend to other personal matters. Cell phones, pagers, iPods or any electronic devices must be turned off during class (unless it is a translator or other educational aid). The only exception is when the instructor has been notified beforehand of a special circumstance that requires the student to remain in close contact with a sick family member, pregnant wife, special childcare situation, and so forth (in which case the cell phone may remain on vibrate). No one should talk while someone else is talking; this includes comments meant for a classmate rather than the entire group. What may seem like a whisper or a harmless remark to one person can be a distraction to someone else, particularly in a small room. Overall, classroom dialogue and behavior should always be courteous, respectful of others, and consistent with the expectations set forth by the university.


8.      Incomplete Requests: Such petitions will be granted only in extraordinary circumstances. The instructor reserves the right to ask for documentation to verify the problem preventing completion of the course by the normal deadlines. If the student does not present documentation from a university office or official, the matter will be left to the instructor’s discretion.         


9.      Academic Dishonesty: Regarding plagiarism, the NIU Undergraduate Catalog states: “students are guilty of plagiarism, intentional or not, if they copy material from books, magazines, or other sources without identifying and acknowledging them. Students guilty of or assisting others in, either cheating or plagiarism on an assignment, quiz, or examination may receive a grade of F for the course involved and may be suspended or dismissed from the university.” The above statement encompasses a paper written in whole or in part by another; a paper copied word-for-word or with only minor changes from another source; a paper copied in part from one or more sources without proper identification and acknowledgement of the sources; a paper that is merely a paraphrase of one or more sources, using ideas and/or logic without credit even though the actual words may be changed; and a paper that quotes, summarizes or paraphrases, or cuts and pastes words, phrases, or images from an Internet source without identification and the address of the web site. Please note that copies of papers written in previous years are retained by the instructor. Also, all papers will be checked within the SafeAssign system (discussed below). In short, students are advised to do their own work and learn the rules for proper quoting, paraphrasing, and footnoting.


10.  Religious Observances: The University asks instructors to make students aware of the following policy. Northern Illinois University as a public institution of higher education in the State of Illinois does not observe religious holidays.  It is the university’s policy, however, to reasonably accommodate the religious observances of individual students in regards to admissions, class attendance, scheduling examinations and work requirements.  Such policies shall be made known to faculty and students.  Religious observance includes all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief.  Absence from classes or examinations for religious observance does not relieve students from responsibility for any part of the course work required during the period of absence.  To request accommodation, students who expect to miss classes, examinations or other assignments as a consequence of their religious observance shall provide instructors with reasonable notice of the date or dates they will be absent.” The instructor is respectful and fully supportive of students who wish to participate in religious observances. Excused absences will be provided, but students must understand and follow the above policy with respect to reasonable notice and making up work.


11.  Attendance and Class Participation: I recognize that this course is not the only obligation that you have to deal with—life often happens when you least expect it. However, attendance is mandatory. I also understand that class discussion comes more easily for some people than for others. However, given that an important subsidiary goal of this course is to help you to develop professional interaction skills, class participation is also required.


            Please refrain from:

            -Comments that are not relevant to the ongoing discussion.

-Remarks that are disruptive to the discussion, insensitive to others, or attempt to dominate the discussion. It is strongly preferred that students participate in class on a voluntary basis.


If a student is particularly apprehensive about talking in class, or feels closed out of the discussion for another reason, please speak with instructor. There may be things that the instructor can suggest to make the situation more manageable. Please remember that communication skills and self-confidence are extremely important assets in the professional world. Thus it is better to develop these things in the collegial environment of this class rather than under more difficult circumstances later in life.


12.  Undergraduate Writing Awards: The Department of Political Science will recognize, on an annual basis, outstanding undergraduate papers written in conjunction with 300-400 level political science courses or directed studies. Authors do not have to be political science majors or have a particular class standing. Winners are expected to attend the Department’s spring graduation ceremony where they will receive a certificate and $50.00. Papers, which can be submitted by students or faculty, must be supplied in triplicate to a department secretary by February 28. All copies should have two cover pages – one with the student’s name and one without the student’s name. Only papers written in the previous calendar can be considered for the award. However, papers completed in the current spring semester are eligible for the following year’s competition even if the student has graduated.


13.  Department of Political Science Web Site: Undergraduates are strongly encouraged to consult the Department of Political Science web site on a regular basis. This up-to-date, central source of information will assist students in contacting faculty and staff, reviewing course requirements and syllabi, exploring graduate study, researching career options, tracking department events, and accessing important details related to undergraduate programs and activities. To reach the site, go to http://polisci.niu.edu




Midterm Exam:             October 8

Final Exam:                               December 8



·        Reading assignments are to be completed by the appropriate date before arriving at class.

·        (X) marks an eligible reading for one of the five required summary paper assignments.


August 25: Introduction

•No required readings



-Chapter 1 in Snow, National Security for a New Era



August 27: Defining America’s National Interest


•Pages 48-63 in Snow, National Security for a New Era

•Sam C. Sarkesian. 1995. “National Interests and National Security,” In U.S. National Security: Policymakers, Processes, and Politics, 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. 3-21. (Reserve List) (X)



-Owens, Mackubin Thomas. 2009. "The Bush Doctrine: The Foreign Policy of Republican Empire.” Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 23-40, Jan.

-Rofe, J Simon

. 2008. “'Under the Influence of Mahan': Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and their Understanding of American National Interest.” Diplomacy & Statecraft, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 732-745, Dec.

- Pham, J. Peter. 2008. “What Is in the National Interest? Hans Morgenthau's Realist Vision and American Foreign Policy, American Foreign Policy Interests, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 256-265, Sept-Oct.”



September 1: National Capabilities: The Tools of Security

•Walter Russell Mead. 2004. “America’s Sticky Power,” Foreign Policy 141 (March/April):46-53. (Reserve List) (X)

•Richard L. Armitage and Joseph S. Nye, Jr.  2007. CSIS Commission on Smart Power: A Smarter, More Secure America

http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf, pages 1-14 only. (Reserve List) (X)



-Choi, Kang

. 2008. “The U.S. at Crossroads: The 44th Presidential Election and Its Aftermath.”  The Journal of East Asian Affairs, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1-38, Fall-Winter.

- Hug, Aziz. 2008. “Imperial March.” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, no. 7, pp. 44-55, winter.



September 3: America’s Global Standing

•Immanuel Wallerstein. 2002. “The Eagle Has Crashed Landed,” Foreign Policy 131 (July/August):60-68. (Reserve List) (X)

•Joseph S. Nye, Jr. “Recovering America’s Leadership,” Survival 50 (1):55-68. (Reserve List) (X)



-Michele A. Flournoy and Shawn Brimley. 2008. Finding Our Way: Debating American Grand Strategy (Washington, DC: Center for New American Security).

-John Lewis Gaddis. 2002. “A Grand Strategy of Transformation.” Foreign Policy 133 (November/December):50-57.



September 8: National Strategy in the Post-9/11 Era

The National Security Strategy of the United States (September 2002) http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf (Reserve List) (X)



-Smith, Gayle, 2007. Beyond Borders.” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas, no. 3, pp. 64-73, Winter.

-Fiona B. Adamson. 2006. “Crossing Borders: International Migration and National Security.” International Security 31 (1):165-199.   

-Shlomi Dinar. 2002. “Water, Security, Conflict, and Cooperation.” SAIS Review 22 (2):229-253.      

-Laurie Garrett. 2005. “The Lessons of HIV/AIDS.” Foreign Affairs 84 (4):51-64.

-Marc A. Levy. 1995. “Is the Environment a National Security Issue?” International Security 20 (2):35-62.               

-J. Stephen Morrison and Johanna Nesseth Tuttle. 2008. A Call for a U.S. Strategic Approach to the Global Food Crisis (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies Press).

-Michael Vatis. 2002. “Cyber Attacks Protecting America’s Security against Digital Threats.” ESDP Discussion Paper ESDP-2002-04, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, June 2002.



September 10: Grand Strategy and Force Structure

• Pages 241-255 in Snow, National Security for a New Era

• Pages 283-287 in Snow, National Security for a New Era  

• Kathy Gill. 2007. “Military Conscription, Recruiting, and the Draft,” http://uspolitics.about.com/od/electionissues/a/draft.htm (Reserve List) (X)



-National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002, 2006.

-Richard N. Haass. 2008. “The Age of Nonpolarity.” Foreign Affairs 87 (3):44-56.   

-Barak Obama. 2008. “Renewing America’s Leadership.” Foreign Affairs 86 (4):2-16.

-Fareed Zakaria. 2008. “The Future of American Power.” Foreign Affairs 87 (3):18-43.



September 15: Private Security Contractors and Companies in the Post-9/11 Era

• Deborah Avant. 2004. “Think Again: Mercenaries,” Foreign Policy 143 (July/August):20-28. (Reserve List) (X)

• Council on Foreign Relations Online Debate: Private Security Contractors, December 2007, http://www.cfr.org/publication/15032 (Reserve List) (X)



-Percy, Sarah. 2009. "Private Security Companies and Civil Wars.” Civil Wars, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 57-74, Mar.

-Spearin, Christopher

. 2006. "Special Operations Forces a Strategic Resource: Public and Private Divides.” Parameters, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 58-70, winter.

-Rosen, Frederik. 2008. "Commercial Security: Conditions of Growth.” Security Dialogue, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 77-97, Feb.

-Campbell, Alastair. 2007. "Private Security Companies in Iraq: Mercenaries, Misfits or Misunderstood?The World Today, vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 20-22, Dec.

-Spearin, Christopher

. 2007. "Contracting a Counterinsurgency? Implications for US Policy in Iraq and Beyond.” Small Wars and Insurgencies, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 541-558, Dec.



September 17: Terrorism: America’s New Global War

•Chapter 12 in Snow, National Security for a New Era

Bush, George W. 2009. "George W. Bush: ‘America Reshaped Our Approach to the Middle East.’" 2009. Middle East Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 75-80, Spring. (X)



-Gregg, Heather S. 2009. "Fighting Cosmic Warriors: Lessons from the First Seven Years of the Global War on Terror.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 188-208, Mar.

-McCabe, Thomas R. 2009. "The Information Confrontation with Radical Islam.” Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 99-121, Jan.

-Swazo, Norman K.

 2008. "My Brother Is My King": Evaluating the Moral Duty of Global Jihad.” International Journal on World Peace, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 7-47, Dec.

-Foot, Rosemary. 2008. "Exceptionalism Again: The Bush Administration, the "Global War on Terror" and Human Rights.” Law and History Review, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 707-725, fall.

September 22: Terrorists and Dirty Bombs – The Threat of Radiological Dispersion Devices

•Peter D. Zimmerman with Cheryl Loeb. 2004. “Dirty Bombs: The Threat Revisited,” Defense Horizons 38 (January):1-12.  http://www.hps.org/documents/RDD_report.pdf. (Reserve List) (X)



-Jason D. Ellis. 2003. “The Best Defense: Counterproliferation and U.S. National Security.” The Washington Quarterly 26 (2):115-133.

-Executive Summary of the Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (a.k.a. “Rumsfeld Report), July 15, 2008.

-Steven A. Hildreth. 2007. “Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical Overview.” CRS Report for Congress, 9 July.

-Jeff Sessions. 2008. “Ballistic Missile Defense: A National Priority.” Strategic Studies -Quarterly (Summer):22-30.

-Graham Allison. 2004. “How to Stop Nuclear Terrorism.” Foreign Affairs 83 (1):64-74.

-Matthew Bunn. 2008. Securing the Bomb 2008 (Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC: Project on Managing the Atom, Harvard University, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative), Chapter 1.         

-Matthew Bunn. 2008. Securing the Bomb 2008 (Cambridge, MA and Washington, DC: Project on Managing the Atom, Harvard University, and the Nuclear Threat Initiative), Executive Summary. 



 September 24: How Should America Respond to Terrorism? Part I - Challenges & Policy Making Dilemmas including the Tension between National Security and Civil Liberties

•Henry Munson. 2004. “Lifting the Veil: Understanding the Roots of Islamic Militancy,” Harvard International Review 25(4), http://www.harvardir.org/articles/1184 (Reserve List) (X)

 Katya Drozdova and Michael Samoilov. 2002. “National Security: Security and Liberty,” Hoover Digest, http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/4477836.html (Reserve List) (X)



-Max Abrahms.  2008. “What Terrorists Really Want.International Security 32 (4):78-105.

-Daniel Byman. 2007. “US Counter-terrorism Options: A Taxonomy.” Survival 49 (3):121-150. 25

-Thomas Homer-Dixon. 2002. “The Rise of Complex Terrorism.” Foreign Policy 128 (January/February): 52-62.



September 29: How Should America Respond to Terrorism? Part II – Evaluating Policy Options in the Global War on Terrorism

• David Tucker. 1998. “Responding to Terrorism,” Washington Quarterly 21(1):103-117. (Reserve List) (X)

• “Terrorism: How Should We Respond?” Choices for the 21st Century Education Program, Watson Institute for International Studies, Brown University, http://www.brown.edu/Research/Choices/resources/documents/terrorism_options_002.pdf (Reserve List) (X)



-John Williams. 2008.”Space, scale and Just War: meeting the challenge of humanitarian intervention and trans-national terrorism.” Review of International Studies, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 581-600, Oct.

-Robert A. Pape. 2003. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.” American Political Science Review 97 (3):1-19.



October 1: Nuclear Proliferation and Challenges to Arms Control

Peter R. Lavoy. 2006. “Nuclear Proliferation over the Next Decade: Causes, Warning Signs, and Policy Responses,” Nonproliferation Review 13 (3):433-454. (Reserve List) (X)

Richardson, Michael. 2008. "The PSI: stemming the nuclear danger.” 
New Zealand International Review, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 12-16, Mar-Apr. (Reserve List) (X)



-Pilat, Joseph F.

 2008. "NATO Nuclear Forces and the New Nuclear Threats.” 
International Journal, vol. 63, no. 4, pp. 875-892, Autumn.

-Fitzpatrick, Mark. 2008. "US-India Nuclear Cooperation Accord: Implications for the Non-proliferation Regime.” Asia-Pacific Review, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 76-85, May.

-Scheber, Thomas K

. 2007. "U.S. Nuclear Policy and Strategy and the NPT Regime: Implications for the NATO Alliance.” Comparative Strategy, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 117-126, Mar.



October 6: Nuclear Proliferation and National Missile Defense

•Pages 226-241 in Snow, National Security for a New Era

• Center for Nonproliferation Studies. 2005. “A Look at National Missile Defense and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System,” NTI Issue Brief (December). http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_72.html. (Reserve List) (X)

•Jeff Sessions, “Ballistic Missile Defense: A National Priority,” Strategic Studies Quarterly 2(2):22-30. (Reserve List) (X)



-Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal. 2008. “The Logic of Zero.” Foreign Affairs 87 (6):80-95.

-Nader Elhefnawy. 2008. “The Next Wave of Nuclear Proliferation.” Parameters 38 (3):36-47.

-Christopher Hemmer. 2007. “Responding to Nuclear Iran.” Parameters 37(3): 42-53.

-Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty

-Scott D. Sagan. 1996-97. “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb.” International Security 21 (3):54-86.



October 8: Midterm Examination

No assigned readings.


October 13: China: The World’s Next Superpower?

• Peter Van Ness. 2004. “China’s Response to the Bush Doctrine,” World Policy Journal 21 (4):38-47. (Reserve List) (X)

• Esther Pan. 2006. “The Scope of China’s Military Threat,” Council on Foreign Relations Backgrounder, http://www.cfr.org/publication/10824/scope_of_chinas_military_threat.html. (Reserve List) (X)



-Thomas J. Christensen. 2006. “Fostering Stability or Creating a Monster? The Rise of China and U.S. Policy toward East Asia.” International Security Vol. 31(1):81-126.

-Aaron L. Friedberg. 2005. “The Future of U.S.-China Relations: Is Conflict Inevitable?” International Security 30 (2):7-45.      

-Alastair Iain Johnston. 2003. “Is China a Status Quo Power?” International Security 27 (4):5-56.



October 15: Discussion & Debate – Should America Contain or Engage a Rising China?

•Jonathan Spence. 2005. “The Once and Future China.  Foreign Policy 146 (January/February):44-50. (Focus on Brzezinski-Mearsheimer debate.) (Reserve List) (X)

• David M. Lampton. 2007. “The Faces of Chinese Power, Foreign Affairs 86 (1):115-127. (Reserve List) (X)



-David Shambaugh. 1996. “Containment or Engagement of China? Calculating Beijing’s Responses.” International Security 21 (2):180-209.



October 20: NATO and European Security

•“The Origins of the North Atlantic Treaty,” http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/1.htm (Reserve List) (X)

• “The North Atlantic Treaty,” http://www.nato.int/archives/1st5years/chapters/2.htm (Reserve List) (X)

•The North Atlantic Treaty, http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm (Reserve List) (X)



-Ronald D. Asmus. 2008. “New Purposes, New Plumbing: Rebuilding the Atlantic Alliance.” The American Interest (November/December):1-8.

-Ivo Daalder and James Goldgeier. 2006. “Global NATO.” Foreign Affairs 85 (5):105-113.

-Renee de Nevers. 2007. “NATO’s International Security Role in the Terrorist Era.” International Security 31(4):34-66.           



October 22: The New, Global NATO (with discussion of the War in Afghanistan)

Christopher M. Jones. 2006. “NATO's Transformation.” In Old Europe, New Security: Evolution for a Complex World, Janet Adamski, Mary Troy Johnston and Christina Schweiss. eds. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited.71-84. (Reserve List) (X)



-Ryan Hendrickson. 2007. “The Miscalculation of NATO’s Death.” Parameters 37 (1):98-114.

-William Maley. 2008. “Stabilizing Afghanistan: Threats and Challenges.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Policy Brief (October):1-8      

-John Owen. 2003. “Why American Hegemony is Here to Stay.” International Politics and Society 1:71-86.



October 27: The Soviet Union, the Cold War, and a Resurgent Russia in the Post-9/11 Era

-Chapter 4 in Snow, National Security for a New Era



Chapter 5 in Snow, National Security for a New Era

-Alexi Arbatov. 2008. “Russia and the United States – Time to End the Strategic Deadlock.” Carnegie Moscow Center and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Briefing 10 (3):1-12.     

-Vladimir Putin. 2007. Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy. February 10.

-Eugene B. Rumer and Celeste A. Wallender. 2003. “Russia: Power in Weakness?” The Washington Quarterly 27 (1):57-73.

-Dimitri K. Simes. 2007. “Losing Russia: The Costs of Renewed Confrontation,” Foreign Affairs 86 (6):36-52.

-Stephen Sestanovich. 2008. “What Has Moscow Done? Rebuilding U.S.–Russian Relations.” Foreign Affairs 87 (6):13-28.

-Dmitri Trenin. 2008. “Thinking Strategically about Russia.” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Policy Brief (December):1-7.

-Yuliya Tymoshenko. 2007. “Containing Russia.” Foreign Affairs 86 (3):69-82.



October 29: The Challenge of Iran

Hunter, Robert E.. 2008. "A New American Middle East Strategy?Survival, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 49-66, Dec-Jan. (Reserve List)  (X)

• Andrew J. Grotto. 2006. “Crib Sheet: Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions,” Center for American Progress, 24 April, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/cp_iran.html. (Reserve List)  (X)Vali Nasr and Ray Takeyh. 2008. “The Costs of Containing Iran,” Foreign Affairs 87 (1):85-94. (Reserve List)  (X)



-McCreary, John; Posner, Richard A. 2008. "The Latest Intelligence Crisis.” Intelligence and National Security, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 371-380, June.

-Drezner, Daniel W.

. 2008. “The Future of US Foreign Policy.” Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, no. 1, pp. 11-35, 2008

- Vakil, Sanam. 2007. “Tehran Gambles to Survive.” Current History, vol. 106, no. 704, pp. 414-420, Dec.

-Kamrava, Mehran

. 2007. "Iranian National-Security Debates: Factionalism and Lost Opportunities.” Middle East Policy, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 84-100, summer.

-Bahgat, Gawdat

. 2007. "Iran and the United States: The Emerging Security Paradigm in the Middle East.” Parameters, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 5-18, summer.



November 3: America’s Energy Security: Maintaining Access to the World’s Oil Supply

•Pages 392-395 in Snow, National Security for a New Era

Flynt Leverett and Pierre Noel. 2006. “The New Axis of Oil,” The New America Foundation (July), http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_new_axis_of_oil. (Reserve List) (X).



-Energy Leadership Council. 2008. A National Strategy for Energy Security: Recommendations to the Nation on Reducing U.S. Oil Dependence.

-Robert Mabro. 2007. “The Oil Weapon: Can It Be Used Today?” Harvard International Review 29 (3).

-Clifford Singer. 2008. “Oil and Security.” The Stanley Foundation Policy Analysis Brief (January):1-11.



November 5: Responding to America’s Emerging Energy Crisis

•Michael L. Ross. 2008. “Blood Barrels: Why Oil Wealth Fuels Conflict,” Foreign Affairs 87 (3):2-8. (Reserve List) (X)

•Go the “American Energy Independence” web site and read about energy alternatives by clicking on efficiency, hydrogen, renewable, hydrocarbon, and nuclear (on the toolbar at the top of the page). http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/nationalsecurity.html. (Reserve List).



-Frank Verrastro and Sarah Ladislaw. 2007. “Providing Energy Security in an Interdependent World.” Washington Quarterly 30 (4):95-104.

-Daniel Yergin. 2006. “Ensuring Energy Security.” Foreign Affairs 85 (2):69-82.

-David Zweig and Bi Jianhai. 2005. “China’s Global Hunt for Energy.” Foreign Affairs 84(5): 25-38.



November 10: Ethnic and Religious Conflict: An Old Problem in a New Era

• Jerry Z. Muller. 2008. “Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism,” Foreign Affairs 87 (2):18-35. (Reserve List) (X)



-David Callahan. 2002. “The Enduring Challenge: Self Determination and Ethnic Conflict in the 21st Century.” Carnegie Challenge 2002, 1-18.



November 12: Deciding When and How to Intervene

Chapter 13 in Snow, National Security for a New Era



-Alan J. Kuperman. 2000. “Rwanda in Retrospect.” Foreign Affairs 79 (1):94-118.

-James Kurth. 2001. “Models of Humanitarian Intervention: Assessing the Past and Discerning the Future.” American Diplomacy (July). 

-Michael Wesley. 2005. “Toward a Realist Ethics of Intervention.” Ethics and International Affairs 19 (2):55-72.     



November 17: America’s Intervention in Iraq

Chapter 10 (pp. 256-270) in Snow, National Security for a New Era

Pascual, Carlos and Ken Pollack. 2007. “Salvaging the Possible: Policy Options in Iraq,” Policy Paper, No. 2 (September). Washington, DC:  The Brookings Institution. (Reserve List) (X)



-Justin Logan and Christopher Preble. 2006. “Failed States and Flawed Logic: The Case against a Standing Nation-Building Office.” Policy Analysis (January 11):1-29.

-John F. Troxwell. 2006. “Military Power and the Use of Force.” In U.S. Army War College Guide to National Security Policy and Strategy, 2nd ed. J. Boone Bartholomees, Jr. (U.S. Army War College):217-239.

-Garfield, Andrew, 2007. "War and Terror: The U.S. Counter-Propaganda Failure in Iraq.”  Middle East Quarterly, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 23-32, fall.



November 19: Iraq: Where to Do Go From Here & Assessing the Legacies of Iraq

Chapter 10 (pp. 270-290) in Snow, National Security for a New Era



-Stephen Biddle, Michael E. O’Hanlon, and Kenneth M. Pollack. 2008. “How to Leave a Stable Iraq.” Foreign Affairs 87 (5):40-58.

-Daniel Byman. 2003. “Constructing a Democratic Iraq. International Security 28 (1): 47-78.

-Richard N. Haass and Martin Indyk. 2009. “Beyond Iraq.” Foreign Affairs 88 (1):41-58.

-Carlos Pascual and Ken Pollack. 2007. “Salvaging the Possible: Policy Options in Iraq.” Policy Paper, No. 2 (September). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

-Steven Simon. 2008. “The Price of the Surge: How the U.S. Strategy is Hastening Iraq’s Demise.” Foreign Affairs 87 (3):57-76.

-Judith S. Yaphe. 2007. “Republic of Iraq.” In The Government and Politics of the Middle East and North Africa, eds. David E. Long, Bernard Reich and Mark Gasiorowski (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), Chapter 5.



November 24: Iraq, the Revolution in Military Affairs, and the Changing Face of War

Chapter 11 in Snow, National Security for a New Era



November 26: Thanksgiving

No class - no assigned readings



December 1: Course Conclusion

Wrap up loose ends.



December 3: Final Review

Discuss final exam



December 8: Final Examination

12:00-1:50 p.m. in DU 252