POLITICAL SCIENCE 586-1
Seminar in International Relations – U.S. National Security Policy
Spring 2009
Northern Illinois University
Christopher Jones
Office: ZU 415
Phone: 753-7040
E-mail: cmjones@niu.edu
Class Time: Tuesday 3:30-6:10
p.m. in DU 466
Office Hours: Wednesday 1:00-4:00
p.m. or by appointment
INTRODUCTION
This graduate seminar examines
the challenges and issues confronting contemporary U.S. national security
policymakers and the many factors that influence the policies that emerge. Its
central aim is to develop M.A. and Ph.D. students’ abilities to analyze
policy in a thoughtful and critical manner and to communicate this analysis to
others. This capacity requires a strong understanding of theoretical and
practical concepts, substantive policy issues, and extensive literature from
the academic and policy communities.
Through reading and directed discussion and analysis, the first goal of
the course is to probe a wide range of real and potential threats to U.S.
national security. Terrorism, of course, will be a key focus. We will discuss
this form of political violence as a general issue as well as explore some modern variants, such as cyber terrorism and the potential
use of “dirty bombs” (radiological dispersion devices). Other topics include
nuclear proliferation, new transnational security threats, a rising China in
East Asia, a resurgent Russia, European security, the war in Afghanistan,
military intervention, dependency on foreign sources of oil, and the war in
Iraq.
The course’s second purpose is to discuss policy options to reduce
the most pressing national security challenges and to develop strategies to
prevent or counter the principal threats to the survival and vital interests of
the United States. Over the course of the
semester, we will discuss and analyze arms control, national missile defense, options
for addressing terrorism, whether to contain or engage China, the best strategy
for responding to a resurgent Russia, NATO’s collective defense and security
roles, deciding when and how to intervene militarily, options for ensuring
America’s energy security, and the most effective means for dealing with and
moving beyond the current state of affairs in Iraq. In addition to considering
the federal government’s existing policy options, students will be strongly
encouraged to formulate and consider new approaches. Hopefully, this exercise
will allow us to have some fun putting ourselves in the shoes of national
security policy-makers without sharing their ulcers.
Given the time constraints associated with a semester, the course’s
treatment of national security policy must be selective. There are clearly
additional subjects that could be included. The choice of topics is designed to
demonstrate the diverse nature of contemporary security policy, which emerges
from the intersection of geopolitics and globalization as well as from patterns
of continuity and change within the post-9/11 security environment. In
particular, the course draws a clear distinction between foreign policy and
security policy, placing emphasis on the central threats to the safety and
survival of the United States. Military history, strategic culture, weapons
systems, intelligence, and the mechanics of the national security
decision-making process, while by no means irrelevant to our investigation, will
not be a central focus. Instead this seminar is concerned with substantive policy issues and responses.
In light of our semester-long examination of contemporary security
issues, threats and responses, the third goal of the course will consider the overall
direction and nature of U.S. grand strategy as we approach the second decade of
the twenty-first century and the beginning of a new presidential administration.
Presently, the United States is at a critically important juncture in its
history, politics, and relationship with the rest of the world. Thus it is
essential the course conclude with a serious consideration of America’s global
standing, George W. Bush’s national security strategy, Barak Obama’s emerging
strategic direction, and a range of competing grand strategies available to
U.S. policy makers in 2009 and beyond.
The fourth and final objective of the course is for each student to
produce a major, high quality piece of research and writing related to the
focus of the course and his or her future educational, professional, or
personal goals.
Since this is a graduate course intended for political science doctoral
students and serious M.A. students, it will be conducted as an interactive
seminar. I will interrupt our meetings from time to time to introduce material,
provide background information or to share my thoughts, but the majority of our
time will be devoted to a group discussion and analysis of the established
literature related to contemporary U.S. national security policy. Therefore, everyone’s full participation is essential
and expected. All required readings
for a particular week are to be completed by each student before arriving in
class; and each member of the class should be prepared to summarize, react to,
and draw from the readings in depth (see “seminar participation” and “weekly
seminar meetings” below).
There are three components of the final course grade. The first is a written final examination that will
resemble the format of a comprehensive examination given by the department’s
international relations faculty. That is, it will encompass multiple sections
and essay questions. It will be administered during the university’s final
examination period on Thursday, May 7 and be worth 25 percent of the course
grade. The class meeting on Tuesday, April 28 will be partially devoted to
drawing conclusions about the material and preparing for this test. The
examination must be completed to earn a passing grade and credit for the
course. However, students auditing the courses are exempt.
The second requirement is preparation of an original research paper related to contemporary
U.S. national security policy since September 11, 2001, which is due in the
Political Science main office on Monday, April 27 at 3:30 p.m. The paper
must also be submitted to Safe Assign on the course’s Blackboard site by this
day and time. To earn a passing grade and credit in the course, this project
must be completed. However, students auditing the course are exempt. Acceptable
approaches include the following: the use of key factors (independent
variables) or an existing theory to explain a significant U.S. national
security decision, policy, or action (dependent variable); a descriptive case
study and accompanying case notes based on an accepted case study model; a
policy paper that advocates a creative proposal to a pressing national security
challenge; a comparative analysis; the development and application of new
theory related to national security; an analysis of a significant contemporary
change or continuity related to U.S. national security policy; development of a
new U.S. grand strategy; an analysis that supplements, corrects, sharpens or
extends an existing national security theory, thesis, model or policy; or some
other approach approved by the instructor.
Regardless of the selected approach, the analysis must meet certain
basic requirements. First, it should be carefully written and edited with
regard to prose, grammar, spelling, diction, format, and word-processing.
Second, it should be properly documented and draw upon a diversity of well
integrated materials including whenever appropriate both primary and secondary
sources. Third, it should be 20 to 25 full
pages in length with standard size type (12 pt.), double-spacing, one-inch
margins, and page numbers. Title pages, abstracts, appendices, tables, figures,
endnotes, and bibliographies do not account toward the minimum page
requirement. Fourth, the final paper should contain the following components:
(1) title page, (2) abstract, (3) introduction (e.g., problem identification,
research question, and significance), (4) background section and/or literature
review, (5) research design, overview of analytic approach or method, (6)
analysis or test, (7) findings and/or conclusion, (8) any necessary ancillary
material (e.g., appendix, tables, and figures), and (9) a bibliography or works
cited page. The paper should also have identifiable subsections and
subheadings. Fifth, the text, format, and citation of sources should conform to
style guidelines in The Chicago Manual of
Style or journals, such as the International
Studies Quarterly and the American Political Science Review. Sixth,
write with authority, use an analytical, third person voice and avoid the use
of me, my, I, we, our, you, and your within the final draft. Lastly, it is
expected that all papers will be of a written and analytical quality such that
with modest revisions, they could be accepted as a M.A starred paper,
incorporated into a future doctoral dissertation, or presented at a relevant
professional meeting of scholars. Thus everyone should be prepared to defend
their choice of research questions and methods, and devote the necessary time
and hard work to create a high quality
paper.
The research paper assignment, which is worth 50 percent of the final
course grade, includes a submission of a research
design statement and a brief oral
presentation. The one-page, word-processed research design statement is due
in class on Tuesday, February 10, at
minimum, should provide the proposed study’s research question, analytical
approach, temporal boundaries, and a tentative bibliography of at least five
quality sources. Paper presentations will be delivered in class on Tuesday, April
14 and Tuesday, April 21. The order of presentation will be determined by
lottery. On the day of the presentation, copies of a word-processed outline or
overview (e.g., talking points) must be distributed to all members of the
seminar. Details about the length and content of the paper presentations will
be discussed later in the semester, but the exercise has a twofold purpose. On
the one hand, it is designed to give students practical experience in
presenting and defending their work in public. On the other hand, it should
improve the quality of the papers by allowing the class to comment
constructively on each study before the final submission. The expectation is
that both the research design statement and in-class presentation will be well
prepared. Failure to complete these requirements as intended by the due dates
will significantly reduce the final paper grade.
This independent research project tailored to each student’s interests.
After the first day of class, the paper assignment will not be discussed
extensively in class. Students will receive feedback on their research design
statement and are strongly encouraged to consult with the instructor as often
as they wish to ensure they have the direction and support that they need to be
successful in writing a high quality paper.
The third graded requirement is class
participation. Components of this grade include: (1) regular attendance (no
more than one absence), (2) regular and thoughtful participation in seminar
discussions; and (3) completion of any additional assignments, such as a brief
oral report to the class on an additional reading or special preparatory work
for a particular seminar meeting. Failure to fulfill any one of these
expectations will significantly reduce the participation grade that is worth 25
percent of the final course grade.
In general, relevant in-class participation will be evaluated according
to the following scale with plus and minus grades being possible. The
instructor will note the quantity and quality of class members’ participation
on a weekly basis so a fair grade can be assigned at the end of the semester.
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
Each student is also strongly encouraged (but not required) to draft a
fairly succinct written summary of one week’s readings and discussion. The
final item would be distributed to all members of the seminar so it could be
used to prepare for the final examination. Students in past years have found
these summaries to be extremely beneficial. If there is consensus among the
students in the seminar, one student should volunteer to serve as the
coordinator of this collegial group study initiative. This activity is
performed and supervised entirely by the students. It is not a requirement of
the course.
Please note that participation is largely voluntary. However,
everyone’s involvement is essential and expected. As discussed above, regular
and thoughtful participation will be rewarded. The instructor may call on
students if he finds that it is the only way that they will participate.
Seminar participants are expected to stay on topic, to refrain from dominating
or hiding during discussions and to demonstrate respect and tolerance for
others at all times.
In an effort to focus the assigned readings and make the seminar
discussions more fruitful, we will employ a specific set of questions
throughout the semester. This framework will also help the class draw
conclusions at the end of the semester. Please make an effort to formulate
tentative answers before arriving at class each week. Whether we address all
these questions or additional questions will depend on the week’s topic.
Makeup Exams: A makeup final
examination 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 examinations 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.
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 some impact on their coursework
for which they may require accommodations should notify the Center for
Access-Ability Resources (CAAR) on the fourth floor of the Health Services
Building. CAAR will assist students in making appropriate accommodations with
course instructors. It is important that CAAR and instructors be informed of
disability-related needs during the first two weeks of the semester.
Late Assignments: A research paper
or assignment submitted after the due date will be penalized by a deduction of
ten points or one letter grade per day. Since students will have had several
weeks to write their papers and prepare other assignments, this standard will
be waived only in extreme
circumstances supported by documentation.
Submitting Completed Work: Assignments and papers should be handed-in to me personally or given
to a department secretary to be time-stamped. If a student selects other modes
of delivery, he or she does so at their own risk. Students are also requested
to retain their completed work on paper and their computer should the
instructor request additional copies. Check with the instructor before sending
any completed work via e-mail.
Academic Dishonesty: In
preparing their work and meeting the requirements of this course, members of
this seminar are expected to adhere to all the rules, regulations, and
standards set forth by the Department of Political Science, Graduate School,
Northern Illinois University, and the scholarly community. This statement
encompasses intentional and unintentional plagiarism, cheating on examinations,
using, purchasing or stealing others' work, misusing library materials, and so
forth. Failure to honor these rules, regulations, and standards could result in
a failing course grade and/or disciplinary action. Students will be required to
submit their paper assignments to the Safe Assign system on the course’s
Blackboard site.
Incomplete Requests:
Incompletes are major burden to both the student and the instructor. Such petitions
will be granted rarely and 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.
Additional Assignments: The instructor reserves the right to assign additional reports,
presentations, or short papers if the quality of the class discussion is less
than satisfactory or he believes such assignments will enhance students’
understanding of the material.
To avoid the expense of purchasing several books, all the assigned
readings consist of journal articles, reports, and other documents that have
been placed on two-hour library reserve. The reserve room is located on the
first floor of the library. A hard copy of each reading is on file there, In
addition, all of the readings are available on electronic reserve, which allows
access to the readings without visiting the reserve room. The readings may be
accessed through the course’s Blackboard site. Students enrolled under a
different course number will be provided a link that they can use to obtain the
readings.
Important Dates:
February 10: Research
design statements are due at the beginning of class.
April 14 & 21: Research paper presentations
April 27: Research
papers are due in the POLS main office (Zulauf 415) at 3:30 p.m.
April 28: Course
conclusion and review for final examination
May 7: Final
examination
Week 1: January
13 – Introduction to Course & National Security Policy
No
assigned readings. Professor will provide a foundational lecture on security
studies and U.S. national security policy.
Week 2: January
20 - Terrorism
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.
Henry Munson. 2004.
“Lifting the Veil: Understanding the Roots of Islamic Militancy.” Harvard International Review 25(4).
Robert
A. Pape. 2003. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.” American Political Science Review 97 (3):1-19.
David Tucker. 1998.
“Responding to Terrorism.” Washington Quarterly 21(1):103-117.
Week 3: January
27 - Nuclear Proliferation
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.
Peter
R. Lavoy. 2006. “Nuclear Proliferation over the Next Decade: Causes, Warning
Signs, and Policy Responses.” Nonproliferation
Review 13 (3):433-454.
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.
Summary
of Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
Week 4: February
3 - National Missile Defense, Dirty Bombs, & Nuclear Terrorism
Part I of Class:
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.
Part II of
Class:
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.
Peter D. Zimmerman with Cheryl Loeb. 2004. “Dirty Bombs: The Threat Revisited.” Defense
Horizons 38 (January):1-11.
Week 5: February
10 - New Transnational Security Threats
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.
Week 6: February
17 – No Class (Instructor at Professional Meeting)
Begin
reading for class on China. There is more reading assigned than in previous
weeks. Work on paper assignment.
Week 7: February
24 – Rising China
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.
David M. Lampton. 2007. “The Faces of Chinese
Power,” Foreign Affairs 86
(1):115-127.
David
Shambaugh. 1996. “Containment or Engagement of China? Calculating
Beijing’s Responses.” International
Security 21 (2):180-209.
Jonathan
Spence. 2005. “The Once and Future China,” Foreign
Policy (January/February):44-50.
Week 8: March 3
- Resurgent Russia
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.
Week 9: March 10
- Spring Break
Week 10: March
17 - NATO, European Security & the War in Afghanistan
The North Atlantic
Treaty
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.
Ryan Hendrickson.
2007. “The Miscalculation of NATO’s Death.” Parameters
37 (1):98-114.
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.
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.
Week 11: March
24 - Intervention
David
Callahan. 2002. “The Enduring Challenge: Self Determination and Ethnic Conflict
in the 21st Century.” Carnegie Challenge 2002, 1-18.
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).
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.
Michael
Wesley. 2005. “Toward a Realist Ethics of Intervention.” Ethics and International Affairs 19 (2):55-72.
Week 12: March
31 - Energy Security
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.
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.
Week 13: April 7
– Iraq and the Middle East
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.
Weeks 14 &
15: April 14 & April 21 – Paper Presentations
Week 16: April
28 – Conclusion: U.S. Global Standing and Grand Strategy
Refer
to the three options in the Kolb book (listed under special course readings
below)
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. Also reference: National Security Strategy of the United
States of America, September 2002.
Richard
N. Haass. 2008. “The Age of Nonpolarity.” Foreign
Affairs 87 (3):44-56.
Joseph
S. Nye, J. 2008. “Recovering American Leadership.” Survival 50 (1):55-68.
Barak
Obama. 2008. “Renewing America’s Leadership.” Foreign Affairs 86 (4):2-16.
Immanuel
Wallerstein. 2002. “The Eagle Has Crashed Landed.” Foreign Policy 131
(July/August):60-68.
Fareed
Zakaria. 2008. “The Future of American Power.” Foreign Affairs 87 (3):18-43.
Special Course
Readings
Lawrence J. Kolb. 2003. A New
National Security Strategy in an Age of Terrorists, Tyrants, and Weapons of
Mass Destruction (New York: Council on Foreign Relations). Hard copy on print reserve in library.
National Intelligence Council. 2008. Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World
(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office).