POLITICAL SCIENCE 685: AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY MAKING

                                                                             

Spring 2010

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 464

 

Office Hours:  Wednesday 1:30-4:30 p.m. or by appointment

   

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This graduate seminar has three objectives. The first goal is to familiarize students with the extensive literature related to the formulation, implementation, and oversight of contemporary American foreign policy. Specifically, we will examine a broad range of scholarly articles and book chapters related to different elements of the U.S. foreign policy making process. The hope is this review will provide enough theoretical and substantive knowledge to conduct future research in the field, teach related undergraduate courses, and successfully complete comprehensive examinations. To aid each of these efforts, there are lists of recommended readings (grouped by subject) throughout the syllabus. Also the structure of the course’s final examination will resemble the comprehensive examinations given by the department’s international relations faculty.

 

The second purpose of this course is to consider who truly makes contemporary American foreign policy. Scholars of U.S. foreign relations have long debated the relative influence of various government and nongovernmental actors. Some individuals contend the president primarily shapes foreign policy. Other observers argue the chief executive is just one of a number of significant actors. Which perspective is most accurate? Is there one correct explanation or is the answer dependent on other variables? We will consider these questions throughout the semester and try to reach some meaningful conclusions during the final class meeting.  The course, moreover, is organized around this issue. Each week we will consider a specific actor’s capacity to shape foreign policy in light of its formal authority, interests, political advantages and disadvantages, and the broader contemporary policy-making arena. Institutions to be discussed include the presidency, presidential advisers and the National Security Council, Department of State, the U.S. intelligence community, Department of Defense, Congress, interest groups, and the media. We will also devote attention to public opinion and how foreign policy actors interact within specific “action-channels” or policy processes.

 

A third objective is to identify and discuss a range of theories and models that scholars have traditionally employed to understand foreign policy making. Attention will be given to analytical frameworks that attempt to capture the entire foreign policy process as well as ones that focus selectively on specific actors or relationships. We will discuss models involving rational choice, bureaucratic politics, crisis decision making, interest group politics, organizational behavior, intergovernmental relations, presidential management, small group decision-making, public opinion, media influence, procedural issue areas, and other relevant subjects. Besides being a central part of the foreign policy analysis literature, many of these sub-systemic theories provide insight into the relative influence of particular actors within the foreign policy process. Thus an examination of this material advances the course’s two leading objectives.   

CLASS FORMAT

 

Since this is a graduate course intended for political science doctoral students and serious MA students, it will be conducted as an interactive seminar. I will interrupt our meetings from time to time to introduce material 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 American foreign policy making. Therefore, everyone’s full participation is essential and expected. All required readings for a particular week are to be completed by everyone 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).  

 

 

GRADED REQUIREMENTS

 

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 Tuesday, May 4 and be worth 25 percent of the course grade. The class meeting on Tuesday, April 27 will be devoted to drawing conclusions about the material and, to the extent possible, preparing for this test. The examination must be completed to earn a passing grade and credit for the course. However, students enrolled under an audit or satisfactory/unsatisfactory grade option are exempt.

 

The second requirement is preparation of an original research paper related to the American foreign policy making since 1945, which is due in my office Monday, April 26 at 3:30 p.m. (This is not a class day.)  To earn a passing grade and credit in the course, this assignment must be completed. However, students enrolled in the course under an audit or satisfactory/unsatisfactory grade option are exempt. Contemporary subjects are particularly encouraged. Acceptable approaches include the following:

 

1.      the use of key factors (independent variables) or an existing theory to explain a significant U.S. foreign decision, policy, or action (dependent variable);

2.      an analysis of actor’s relative influence within the contemporary foreign policy process;

3.      an analysis of an actor’s relative influence with regard to another actor, an issue area, a time period, a piece of legislation, an event, a presidential administration, a foreign state, or some other relevant factor since 1945;

4.      an analysis of a significant contemporary change or continuity within the U.S. foreign policy process;

5.      a descriptive case study based on an accepted case study model;

6.      an analysis that supplements, corrects, sharpens, or extends an existing theory, thesis, or model related to U.S. foreign policy-making;

7.      the development and application of a new theory of foreign policy-making; or

8.      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 commonly used by international relations and foreign policy scholars, such as those set forth in International Studies Quarterly, Foreign Policy Analysis, the American Political Science Review, or The Chicago Manual of Style. 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 department starred paper or presented at a relevant professional meeting and then submitted to an appropriate journal for possible publication. 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 my office on Friday,  February 12 at noon. At a minimum, it should provide the proposed study’s research question, analytical approach, temporal boundaries, and a tentative bibliography of five quality sources. Paper presentations will be delivered in class on Tuesday, April 13 and Tuesday, April 20. The order of presentation will be determined by lottery. If, however, the class size is unusually large, we will invoke the seniority rule where Ph.D. and second-year MA students give in-class presentations and first-year MA students make an oral presentation during an appointment with the instructor. 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 paper grade.

 

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; (3) completion of any additional assignments, and (4) one brief oral report to the class on a foreign policy theory. 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.

 

 

WEEKLY SEMINAR MEETINGS

 

Generally, each class meeting will be divided into two portions separated by a brief break. In the first part of class, the instructor will introduce the week’s topic. The focus will move to a relevant theory of foreign policy making related to the week’s topic. Additional theories may be introduced or referenced by the instructor. Next the class as whole will proceed to discuss the assigned readings for the week. The main focus will involve identifying and discussing the publications’ central theses or research questions and their key findings.

 

After the break, the second portion of the class will be devoted to identifying and evaluating a particular actor’s role and relative influence within the U.S. foreign policy process. In an effort to focus the assigned readings and make these discussions more fruitful, we will employ a specific set of questions throughout the semester. This framework will also help the class draw comparisons and conclusions at the end of the semester. Please make an effort to formulate tentative answers before arriving at class each week.

 

Please note that participation is 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.

 

 
QUESTION SET FOR SEMINAR DISCUSSIONS

 

1.      What is the actor’s formal role in foreign policy? Does the actor have particular duties or responsibilities?

2.      Does the actor have particular or special interests?

3.      Does the actor have bargaining advantages or assets when interacting with others?

4.      Does the actor have bargaining disadvantages or weaknesses when interacting with others?

5.      To what degree, is the actor able to exert influence within the contemporary U.S. foreign policy process? Are any qualifications necessary?

 

 
COURSE POLICIES AND LOOSE ENDS

 

1.      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.

 

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 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.

 

3.      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.

 

4.      Submitting Completed Work: Research design statements and research 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.

 

5.      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.

 

6.      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.

 

7.      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.

 

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

 

9.      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.

 

 
READING MATERIAL

 

To avoid the expense of purchasing several books, the assigned readings consist of journal articles and book chapters that have been placed on two-hour library reserve. (The reserve room is located on the first floor of the library.) If a particular printed item has been checked out, it may be possible to obtain another copy in the relevant periodical or book stacks of the library.

 

Please note that most or all of the readings will also be available on electronic reserve, which will allow you to obtain the readings without visiting the reserve room. The library will provide a link for such access.

 

There are two books available for purchase at the university bookstore. I have made a conscious effort to keep the material affordable and up-to-date as possible. Therefore, the texts are recently published paperback editions.

 

 

Required Material:

ŸJournal articles and book chapters on library print and electronic reserve.

 

 

Recommended Material:

ŸWittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

 

This book  provides solid theoretical and substantive background information as well as useful references to additional literature. It will be particularly helpful to students with little background in the subject matter, or who have not studied American foreign policy for a number of years.  

 

If students proceed in this direction, this recommended reading should be treated as background information and completed before the required articles and chapters. The remaining readings, which are listed alphabetically, can be completed in any order. In some cases, it would make sense to read certain selections before others. However, scholars rarely have clearly defined “road maps” when they conduct their research. Thus an important part of academic training is learning to relate and integrate pieces of scholarly literature.  

 

 
COURSE SCHEDULE AND READING ASSIGNMENTS

 

Important Dates:

February 12:                Research design statements are due in instructor’s office at 12:00 p.m.

April 13 & 20:            Research paper presentations

April 26:                      Research papers are due in the instructor’s office (Zulauf 415) at 3:30 p.m.

April 27:                      Course conclusion and review for final examination

May 4:                         Final examination

 

Week 1

January 12: Course Introduction

 

Week 2

January 19: Perspectives on Foreign Policy Making

Relevant Theories: rational actor model, political process model, governmental (bureaucratic) politics model

 

Required Readings:

1.      Allison, Graham T. and Phillip Zelikow.1999. “Model I: The Rational Actor.” Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2d ed. New York: Longman. 13-26.

 

2.      Allison, Graham T. and Phillip Zelikow.1999. “Model III: Governmental Politics.” Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2d ed. New York: Longman. 255-313.

 

3.      Hilsman, Roger. 1998. “Policy-Making Is Politics.” In Readings in the Politics of United States Foreign Policy, ed. Jerel A. Rosati. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. 1-10. 

 

4.      Perlmutter, Amos. 1974. “The Presidential Political Center and Foreign Policy: A Critique of the Revisionist and Bureaucratic Political Orientations.” World Politics 27:87-106.

 

5.      Wittkopf, Eugene R. and James M. McCormick. 2008. “Introduction: The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 1-16.

 

Week 3

January 26: The President and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 327-333 and 494-505.

 

Relevant Theories: presidential governance models, crisis decision-making

 

Required Readings:

1.      Fisher, Louis. 2008. “Costly Presidential Wars,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 169-183.

 

2.      Greenstein, Fred I. 2004. “Lessons of the Modern Presidency,” In The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush (2nd edition). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 211-223.

 

3.      Hastedt, Glenn P. and Anthony J. Eksterowicz. 1999. “Presidential Leadership and American Foreign Policy: Implications for a New Era.” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (3rd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 123-139.

 

4.      Nelson, Michael. 2008. “Person and Office: Presidents, the Presidency, and Foreign Policy,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 159-167.

 

5.      Silverstein, Gordon. 1994. “Judicial Enhancement of Executive Power.” In The President, the Congress, and the Making of Foreign Policy. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

 

6.      Sofaer, Abraham, D. 2007. “Presidential Power and National Security.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 37:101-123.

 

Recommended Readings:

1.      Burke, John P. and Fred I. Greenstein. 1989. How Presidents Test Reality: Decisions on Vietnam, 1954 and 1965. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

2.      Fisher, Louis. 1995. Presidential War Power. Lawrence, KS: Kansas University Press.

3.      George, Alexander L. 1989. Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of Information and Advice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

4.      Greenstein, Fred I. 2004. The Presidential Difference: Leadership Style from FDR to George W. Bush, 2nd ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

5.      Hastedt, Glenn P. and Anthony J. Eksterowicz, eds. 2005. The President and Foreign Policy: Chief Architect or General Contractor? Hauppauge, NY: Nova Publishers.

6.      Hermann, Charles F. 1969. “International Crisis as a Situational Variable.” In International Politics and Foreign Policy, ed. James N. Rosenau. New York: Free Press. 409-421.

7.      Hilsman, Roger. 1967. To Move a Nation: The Politics of Foreign Policy in the Administration of John F. Kennedy. New York: Doubleday and Company.

8.      Johnson, Loch and James M. McCormick. 1977. “Foreign Policy by Executive Fiat.” Foreign Policy 28:117-138.

9.      Kellerman, Barbara and Ryan J. Barilleaux. 1991. The President as World Leader. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

10.  Koh, Harold Hongju. 1988. “Why the President (Almost) Always Wins in Foreign Affairs: Lessons of the Iran-Contra Affair.” Yale Law Journal 97:1255-1342.

11.  Kohl, Wilfrid L. 1975. “The Nixon-Kissinger Foreign Policy System and U.S.-European Relations: Patterns of Policy Making.” World Politics. 28:1-43.

12.  Mann, Thomas E. 1990.  A Question of Balance: The President, the Congress and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

13.  Melanson, Richard. 2005. American Foreign Policy since the Vietnam War, 4th ed. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

14.  Mitchell, David. 2005. Making Foreign Policy: Presidential Management of the Decision-Making Process. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

15.  Neustadt, Richard E. 1990. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership: FDR to Reagan. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

16.  Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership: FDR to Reagan. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

17.  Peterson, Paul E. 1994. “The President’s Dominance in Foreign Policy Making.” Political Science Quarterly 109:215-234.

18.  Peterson, Paul E. 1994. The President, the Congress, and the Making of Foreign Policy. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press with special attention to Gordon Silverstein’s chapter, “Judicial Enhancement of Executive Power.”

19.  Pfiffner, James P. and Roger H. Davidson. 1999. Understanding the Presidency, 2d. ed. New York: Addision Wesley.

20.  Pious, Richard. 1979. The American Presidency. New York: Basic Books.

21.  Rosati, Jerel and Stephen Twing. 1998. “The Presidency and U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War,” In James M. Scott, ed. After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War World. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. 29-56.

22.  Schlesinger, Arthur. M., Jr. 2004. The Imperial Presidency. New York: First Mariner Books/Houghton Mifflin.

Ÿ Additional sources, including many journal articles, presidential memoirs, and studies on particular administrations, are also available.

 

 

Week 4

February 2: Presidential Advisers, the National Security Council, and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 333-363.

 

Relevant Theories:  presidential management models, groupthink, and multiple advocacy

 

Required Readings:

1.      Burke, John P. 2005. “The Neutral/Honest Broker Role in Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Reassessment.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 35:229-257.

 

2.      Daadler, Ivo H. and I.M. Destler. 2000. “A New NSC for a New Administration.” Brookings Institution Policy Brief #68.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb68.htm

 

3.      Daadler, Ivo H. and I.M. Destler. 2009. “In the Shadow of the Oval Office,” Foreign Affairs 88 (1): 114-129.

 

4.      George, Alexander L. 1989. “Presidential Management Styles and Models.” In Presidential Decisionmaking in Foreign Policy: The Effective Use of Information and Advice. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 145-167.

 

5.      Kemp, Geoffrey. 1999. “Presidential Management of the Executive Bureaucracy,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (3rd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 157-172.

 

6.      Mulcahy, Kevin V. and Harold F. Kendrick.1998. “The National Security Advisor: A Presidential Perspective,” In Readings in the Politics of United States Foreign Policy, ed. Jerel A. Rosati. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. 53-69.

 

Recommended Readings:

1.      Auger, Vincent A. 1997. “The National Security System after the Cold War.” In United States Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. 42-73.

2.      Best, Richard A., Jr. 2001. The National Security Council: An Organizational Assessment. Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

3.      Bock, Joseph G. 1987. The White House Staff and the National Security Assistant: Friendship and Friction at the Water’s Edge. New York: Greenwood Press.

4.      Daadler, Ivo H. and I.M. Destler. 2008. “How National Security Advisers See Their Role,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 185-197.

5.      Destler, I.M. 1972. “Comment: Multiple Advocacy: Some Limits and Costs.” American Political Science Review. 66:786-790.

6.      Destler, I.M. 1977. “National Security Advice to U.S. Presidents: Some Lessons from Thirty Years.” World Politics 29:143-176.

7.      Destler, I.M. 1980. “National Security Management: What Presidents Have Wrought.” Political Science Quarterly 95:573-588.

8.      Destler I.M., Leslie H. Gelb, and Anthony Lake. 1984. Our Own Worst Enemy: The Unmaking of American Foreign Policy. New York: Simon and Schuster. Chapter 4.

9.      George, Alexander L. 1972. “The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy.” American Political Science Review 66:751-785.

10.  Haney, Patrick J. 1997. Organizing for Foreign Policy Crisis: Presidents, Advisers, and the Management of Decision Making. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

11.  Hart, Paul ‘t. 1990. Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small and Policy Failure. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

12.  Inderfuth, Karl F. and Loch K. Johnson, eds. 2004. Fateful Decisions: Inside the National Security Council. New York: Oxford University Press.

13.  Janis, Irving L. 1982. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Failures, 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

14.  Johnson, Richard Tanner 1974. Managing the White House. New York: Harper & Row.

15.  Kengor, Paul. 2002. Wreath Layer or Policy Player: The Vice President’s Role in Foreign Policy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.  

16.  Menges, Constantine Christopher. 1988. Inside the National Security Council: The True Story of the Making and Unmaking of Reagan’s Foreign Policy. New York: Simon & Schuster.

17.  NSC Oral History Reports,  http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nsc/oralhistories.aspx

18.  Prados, John. 1991. Keepers of the Keys: A History of the National Security Council from Truman to Bush. New York: Morrow.

19.  Preston, Andrew. 2006. The War Council: McGeorge Bundy, the NSC, and Vietnam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

20.  Preston, Thomas. 2001. The President and His Inner Circle: Leadership Style and the Advisory Process in Foreign Affairs. New York: Columbia University Press.

21.  Rothkopf, David, J. 2005. Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Powers. New York: PublicAffairs.

22.  Shoemaker, Christopher. 1992. The NSC Staff: Counseling the Council. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ÿ Additional sources, including journal articles and memoirs of former national security advisers, are also available.

 

 

Week 5

February 9: The State Department and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 368-378.

 

Relevant Theory: classic organizational theory

 

Required Readings:

1.      Abrams, Elliott. 1989. “Why Everyone Hates the State Department and What to Do About It.” The National Interest 17:85-88.

 

2.      Clarke, Duncan L. 1987. “Why State Can’t Lead.” Foreign Policy 66:128-142.

 

3.      Holmes, J. Anthony. 2009. “Where Are the Civilians? How to Rebuild the U.S. Foreign Service.” Foreign Affairs 88 (1):149-160.

 

4.      Jones, Christopher M. 2006. “The Other Side of Powell’s Record.” American Diplomacy (Winter):1-19. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/item/2006/0103/jone/jonesc_powell.html

 

5.      Rockman, Bert. 1981. “America’s Departments of State.” American Political Science Review 75:911-919.

 

6.      Zeller, Shawn. 2007. “Who’s In Charge Here?” Foreign Service Journal 84 (December):20-28; and Edward Peck. 2007. “Chief-of-Mission Authority: A Powerful but Underused Tool.” Foreign Service Journal 84 (December):29-32. (Two readings in same packet). 

 

Recommended Readings:

1.      Bacchus, William I. 1974. Foreign Policy and the Bureaucratic Process: The State Department’s Country Director System. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

2.      Bacchus, William I. 1983. Staffing for Foreign Affairs: Personnel Systems for the 1980’s and 1990’s. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

3.      Campbell, John Franklin. 1971. The Foreign Affairs Fudge Factory. New York: Basic Books.

4.      Dizard, Wilson, Jr. 2001. Digital Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy in the Information Age. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.

5.      Clarke, Duncan. 1989. American Foreign Policy Institutions: Toward a Solid Foundation. New York: Harper & Row.

6.      Estes, Thomas S. and E. Allan Lightner, Jr. 1976. The Department of State. Westport, CT: Praeger.

7.      Hook, Steven W. 2003. “Domestic Obstacles to International Affairs: The State Department Under Fire at Home,” PS: Political Science & Politics 36 (January):23-29.

8.      Miller, Robert Hopkins. 1992. Inside An Embassy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

9.      Pacy, James S. and Daniel B. Henderson. 1992. “Career Versus Political: A Statistical Overview of Presidential Appointments of the United States Chiefs of Mission Since 1915.” Diplomacy & Statecraft 3:382-403.

10.  Price, Don K. 1960. The Secretary of State. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: (The American Assembly) Prentice-Hall.

11.  Pringle, Robert. 1977. “Creeping Irrelevance at Foggy Bottom.” Foreign Policy 29:128-139.

12.  Rockman, Bert A. 1981. “America’s Department of State: Irregular and Regular Syndromes of Policy Making.” American Political Science Review 75:911-9.

13.  Rubin, Barry M. 1985. Secrets of State: The State Department and the Struggle over U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

14.  Scott, Andrew M. 1969. “The Department of State: Formal Organization and Informal Culture.” International Studies Quarterly.13:1-18.

15.  Silberman, Laurence H. 1979. “Toward Presidential Control of the State Department.” Foreign Affairs 57:872-893.

16.  Stearns, Monteagle. 1996. Talking to Strangers: Improving American Diplomacy At Home and Abroad. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

17.  Warwick, Donald P. 1975. A Theory of Public Bureaucracy: Politics, Personality and Organization in the State Department. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

18.  Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Ÿ Additional sources, including journal articles and memoirs of former secretaries of state, are also available.

 

 

Week 6

February 16: No Class – Instructor at Professional Conference; Work on paper assignment.

 

 

Week 7

February 23: The Intelligence Community and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 388-406.

 

Required Readings:

1.      Fessenden, Helen. 2005. “The Limits of Intelligence Reform,” Foreign Affairs 84 (November/December):106-120.

 

2.      Johnson, Loch. 2009. “A Shock Theory of Congressional Accountability for Intelligence” In Loch K. Johnson, ed. The Handbook of Intelligence Studies. Abington, UK: Routledge. 343-360.

 

3.      Lowenthal, Mark M. 1999. “Tribal Tongues: Intelligence Consumers, Intelligence Producers,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (3rd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 253-266.

 

4.      Pillar, Paul. 2008. “Intelligence, Policy, and the War in Iraq,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 235-245.

 

5.      Wirtz, James L. 2009. “The American Approach to Intelligence Studies.” In Loch K. Johnson, ed. The Handbook of Intelligence Studies. Abington, UK: Routledge. 28-38.

 

Recommended Readings:

1.      The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States. 2004. Authorized Edition. New York: W.W. Norton.

2.      Andrew, Christopher. 1995. For the President’s Eyes Only: Secret Intelligence and the American Presidency from Washington to Bush. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

3.      Bamford, James. 1983. The Puzzle Palace: A Report on America’s Most Secret Agency. New York: Penguin Books.

4.      Bamford, James. 2001. Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency from the Cold War through the Dawn of a New Century. New York: Doubleday.

5.      Berkowitz, Bruce D. and Allan E. Goodman. 2000. Best Truth: Intelligence in the Information Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

6.      Garthoff, Douglas F. 2007. Directors of Central Intelligence as Leaders of the U.S. Intelligence Community, 1946-2005. Dulles, VA: Potomac Books.

7.      Godson, Roy S. 2000. Tricks or Trump Cards: U.S. Covert Action and Counterintelligence. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

8.      Hulnick, Arthur S. 1999. Fixing the Spy Machine. Westport, CT: Praeger.

9.      Johnson, Loch K. 1989.  America’s Secret Power: The CIA in a Democratic Society. New York: Oxford University Press.

10.  Johnson, Loch K. 1996. Secret Agencies: U.S. Intelligence in a Hostile World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

11.  Johnson, Loch. 2000. Bombs, Bugs Drugs, and Thugs: Intelligence and America's Quest for Security. New York: New York University Press.

12.  Johnson, Loch and James J. Wirtz. 2007. Strategic Intelligence: Windows into a Secret World. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

13.  Jones, Christopher M. 2001. “The CIA under Clinton: Continuity and Change.” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 14:503-528.

14.   Lowenthal, Mark M. 2006. Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

15.  Olmsted, Kathyrn S. 1996. Challenging the Secret Government: The Post-Watergate Investigations of the CIA and FBI. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

16.  Richelson, Jefferey T. 2008. The U.S. Intelligence Community. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

17.  Sims, Jennifer E. and Burton Gerber, eds. 2005. Transforming U.S. Intelligence. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

18.  Steele, Robert David. 2000. On Intelligence: Spies and Secrecy in the Open World. Fairfax, VA: AFCEA International Press.

19.  Tenet, George. 2007. At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. New York: HarperCollins.

20.  Treverton, Gregory P. 2001. Reshaping National Intelligence for an Age of Information. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

21.  Weiner, Tim. 2007. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. New York: Doubleday.

22.  Zegart, Amy B. 1999. Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

23.  Zegart, Amy. 2006. “An Empirical Analysis of Failed Intelligence Reforms Before September 11.” Political Science Quarterly 121(1):33-60.

24.  Zegart, Amy, B. 2007. Spying Blind: The CIA, FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Ÿ Additional sources, including journal articles and memoirs of former CIA directors and intelligence officers, are also available.

 

 

Week 8

March 2:  The Defense Department and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 378-388 and 396-398.

 

Required Readings:

1.      Allison, Graham T. and Phillip Zelikow.1999. “Model I: The Rational Actor.” Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2d ed. New York: Longman. 143-196. E841.A44 1999

 

2.      Desch, Michael C. 2007. “Bush and the Generals,” Foreign Affairs 86 (May/June):97-108.

 

3.      Glain, Stephen. 2009. “The American Leviathan.” The Nation, 9 September 2009. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090928/glain

 

4.      Locher, James R. III. 2001. “Has It Worked? The Goldwater-Nichols Reorganization Act.” Naval War College Review LIV, 4 (2001):95-115.

 

5.      Myers, Richard B. and Richard Kohn, et al. 2007. “Salute and Disobey? The Civil-Military Balance, Before Iraq and After.” Foreign Affairs 86 (September/October 2007):147-156.

 

6.      Withers, George, et al. 2008. “Ready, Aim, Foreign Policy.” Latin America Working Group Education Fund, Center for International Policy, and Washington Office on Latin America.

            http://www.wola.org/media/LAWG-Combo-ForeignPolicy-5.pdf

 

Relevant Theory:  organizational process model/organizational behavior paradigm

 

Recommended Readings:

1.      Binnendijik, Hans, eds. 2002. Transforming America’s Military. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.

2.      Blackwell, James A., Jr. and Barry M. Blechman. 1990. Making Defense Reform Work. Washington, DC: Brassey’s (U.S.).

3.      Blechman, Barry M. and Stephen S. Kaplan. 1978. Force without War: U.S. Armed Forces as a Political Instrument. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

4.      Boot, Max. 2008. “The Struggle to Transform the Military,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 223-234.

5.      Clarke, Duncan. 1989. American Foreign Policy Institutions: Toward a Solid Foundation. New York: Harper & Row.

6.      Cohen, Eliot A. 1999. “Civil-Military Relations: Causes of Concern.” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (3rd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 195-205.

7.      Feaver, Peter D. and Richard H. Kohn, eds. 2001. Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

8.      Feaver, Peter D. 2003. Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

9.      Godson Roy, Ernest May, and Gary Schmitt. 1995. U.S. Intelligence at the Crossroads: Agendas and Reforms. Washington, DC: Brassey’s (U.S.).

10.  Halberstam, David. 1972. The Best and the Brightest. New York: Random House.

11.  Halberstam, David. 2001. War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals. New York: Scribner.

12.  Herspring, Dale R. 2005. The Pentagon and the Presidency: Civil-military Relations from FDR to George W. Bush. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

13.  Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil Military Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. There is also a 1981 edition.

14.  Huntington, Samuel P. 1962. The Common Defense: Strategic Programs in National Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

15.  Jordan, Amos. A., William J. Taylor, Jr., and Lawrence J. Korb 1999. American National Security: Policy and Process, 5th ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

16.  Kozak, David C. and James M. Keagle. 1988. Bureaucratic Politics and National Security: Theory and Practice. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

17.  Lederman, Gordon Nathaniel. 1999. Reorganizing the Joint Chiefs of Staff: The Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986. Westport, CT Greenwood Press.

18.  Locher, James R., III. 2002. Victory on the Potomac: The Goldwater-Nichols Act Unifies the Pentagon. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

19.  Luttwak, Edward N. 1985. The Pentagon and the Art of War. New York: Touchtone.

20.  Snider, Don M. and Miranda A. Carlton-Carew. 1995. U.S. Civil-Military Relations: In Crisis or Transitions? Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic & International Studies.

21.  Stevenson, Charles A. 2006. SECDEF: The Nearly Impossible Job of Secretary of Defense. Dulles, VA: Potomac Books.

22.  Stevenson, Charles A. 2006. Warriors and Politicians: U.S. Civil-Military Relations under Stress. New York: Routledge.

23.  Stockton, Paul N. 1997. “When the Bear Leaves the Woods: Department of Defense Reorganization in the Post-Cold War Era.” In U.S. Foreign Policy after the Cold War, eds. Randall B. Ripley and James M. Lindsay. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

24.  Zegart, Amy B, 1999. Flawed by Design: The Evolution of the CIA, JCS, and NSC. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Ÿ Additional sources, including many journal articles, are also available.

 

 

Week 9
March 9: No Class – Spring Break
 

 

Week 10

March 16: The Congress and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, Chapter 12.

 

Relevant Theory: principal-agent model (new institutionalism)

 

Required Readings:

1.      Carter, Ralph G., James M. Scott, and Charles M. Rowling. 2004. Setting a Course: Congressional Foreign Policy Entrepreneurs in Post-World War II U.S. Foreign Policy. International Studies Perspectives 5:278-299.

 

2.      Lindsay, James M. 1992. “Congress and Foreign Policy: Why the Hill Matters.” Political Science Quarterly.” 107:607-628.

 

3.      Lindsay, James M. 1994. “Congress, Foreign Policy, and the New Institutionalism.” International Studies Quarterly 38:281-304.

 

4.      Lindsay, James M. 2008. “The Shifting Pendulum of Power: Executive-Legislative Relations on American Foreign Policy,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 199-211.

 

5.      Scott, James M. 1997. “In the Loop: Congressional Influence in American Foreign Policy.” The Journal of Political and Military Sociology. 25:47-75.

 

Recommended Readings:

1.      Bacchus, William I. 1997. The Price of American Foreign Policy: Congress, the Executive, and International Affairs Funding. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

2.      Bax, Frans R. 1977. “The Legislative-Executive Relationship in Foreign Policy: New Partnership or New Competition.” Orbis 20:881-904.

3.      Campbell, Colton C., Nicol C. Rae, and John F. Stack, Jr. 2003. Congress and the Politics of Foreign Policy. Upper Saddle Rier, NJ: Prentice Hall.

4.      Crabb, Cecil V., Jr. and Pat M. Holt. 1992. Invitation to Struggle: Congress, the President and Foreign Policy, 4th ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

5.      Crabb, Cecil V., Glenn Antizzo, and Leila S. Sarieddine. 2000. Congress and the Foreign Policy Process: Modes of Legislative Behavior. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University.

6.      Dahl, Robert. 1950. Congress and Foreign Policy. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

7.      Deese, David A. 1994. The New Politics of American Foreign Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

8.      Fisher, Louis. 1985. Constitutional Conflicts between Congress and the President. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

9.      Fisher, Louis. 2000. Congressional Abdication on War and Spending. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.

10.  Franck, Thomas M. and Edward Weisband. 1979. Foreign Policy by Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.

11.  Henehan, Marie T. 2000. Foreign Policy and Congress: An International Relations Perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

12.  Hersman, Rebecca K.C. 2000. Friends and Foes: How Congress and the President Make Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

13.  Hinckley, Barbara. 1994. Less than Meets the Eye: Congress, the President and Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

14.  Howell, William G. and Jon C. Pevehouse. 2007. “When Congress Stops Wars: Partisan Politics and Presidential Power.” Foreign Affairs 86 (September/October):95-107.

15.  Koh, Harold Hongju. 1990. The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power after the Iran-Contra Affair. New Haven: Yale University Press.

16.  Krepon, Michael and Dan Caldwell, eds. 1991. The Politics of Arms Control Treaty Ratification. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

17.  Lindsay, James M. 1994. Congress and the Politics of U.S. Foreign Policy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

18.  Mann, Thomas. E. ed. 1990.  A Question of Balance: The President, The Congress, and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

19.  Ornstein, Norman J. and Thomas E. Mann. 2006. “When Congress Checks Out.” Foreign Affairs 85 (November/December):

20.  Peterson, Paul E. ed. 1994. The President, the Congress and the Making of Foreign Policy. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

21.  Ripley, Randall B. and James M. Lindsay, eds. 1993. The Congress Resurgent: Foreign and Defense Policy on Capitol Hill.  Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

22.  Robinson, James. 1967. Congress and Foreign Policy Making: A Study in Legislative Influence and Initiative, rev ed.  Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

23.  Rosati, Jerel A. 1984. “Congressional Influence in American Foreign Policy: Addressing the Controversy.” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 12:311-331.

24.  Warburg, Gerald Felix. 1989. Conflict and Consensus: The Struggle between Congress and the President over Foreign Policymaking. New York: Harper & Row.

25.  Weissman, Stephen R. 1996. A Culture of Deference: Congress’s Failure of Leadership in Foreign Policy. New York: Basic Books.

Ÿ Additional sources, including many journal articles, are also available.

 

 

Week 11

March 23: Interest Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 284-305.

 

1.      Abelson, Donald E. Abelson, Donald E. “Think Tanks and U.S. Foreign Policy: An Historical View.” U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State, 7 (3), November 2002: 9-12; and Richard N. Haass. 2002. “Think Tanks and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Policy-Maker’s Perspective.” U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda: An Electronic Journal of the U.S. Department of State, 7 (3), November 2002: 5-8.

 

2.      Bard, Mitchell Geoffrey. 1988. “The Influence of Ethnic Interest Groups on American Middle East Policy.” In The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, (1st edition). Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 57-69.

 

3.      Brenner, Philip, Patrick J. Haney, and Walter Vanderbush. 2008. “Intermestic Issues and U.S. Foreign Policy toward Cuba,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 65-80.

 

4.      John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. 2008. “The Israel Lobby,” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 81-95.

 

5.      John Newhouse. 2009. “Diplomacy, Inc.: The Influence of Lobbies on U.S. Foreign Policy.” Foreign Affairs 88 (3):73-92.

 

6.      Shain, Yossi. 1994. “Ethnic Diasporas and U.S. Foreign Policy.” Political Science Quarterly 109:811-841.

 

Relevant Theories and Concepts: elite theory, pluralism, hyperpluralism, iron triangle (subgovernment) model, think tanks, political diasporas

 

Recommended Readings:

1.      Abelson, Donald. 2006. A Capitol Idea: Think Tanks and U.S. Foreign Policy. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

2.      Adams, Gordon. 1982. The Politics of Defense Contracting: The Iron Triangle. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

3.      Ahrari, Mohammed E., ed. 1987. Ethnic Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Greenwood Press.

4.      Ambrosio, Thomas. 2002. Ethnic Identity Groups and U.S. Foreign Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

5.      Bard, Michael. 1991. The Water’s Edge and Beyond: Defining the Limits to Domestic Influence on United States Middle Policy. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

6.      Bard, Mitchell Geoffrey. 1988. “The Influence of Ethnic Interest Groups on American Middle East Policy.” In The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence, (1st edition). Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Eugene R. Wittkopf. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 57-69.

7.      Bernstein, Richard and Ross H. Munro. 1999. “The New China Lobby.” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (3rd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 71-83.

8.      Grose, Peter. 1996. Continuing the Inquiry: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.

9.      Howe, Russell Warren and Sarah Hays Trott. 1977. The Power Peddlers: How Lobbyists Mold America’s Foreign Policy. New York: Doubleday.

10.  Kotz, Nick. 1988. Wild Blue Yonder: Money, Politics, and the B-1 Bomber. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

11.  Martin, William. 1999. “The Christian Right and American Foreign Policy.” Foreign Policy 114:66-81.

12.  Mearsheimer, John and Stephen Walt. 2007. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

13.  McCool, Daniel. 1989. “Subgovernments and the Impact of Policy Fragmentation and Accommodation.” Policy Studies Review 8:264-287.

14.  Moon, Chung-in. 1988. “Complex Interdependence and Transnational Lobbying: South Korea in the United States.” International Studies Quarterly 32:67-89.

15.  Newsom, David D. 1996. The Public Dimension of Foreign Policy. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press (especially chapters 6, 9 and 10).

16.  Ogene, F. Chidozie. 1983. Interest Groups and the Shaping of Foreign Policy: Four Case Studies of United States Africa Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

17.  Ripley, Randall B. and Grace A. Franklin. 1991. The Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

18.  Shain, Yossi. 1999. Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and their Homelands. New York: Cambridge University Press.

19.  Smith, James Allen. 1991. The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite. New York: Free Press.

20.  Smith, Tony. 2000. Foreign Attachments: The Power of Ethnic Groups in the Making of American Foreign Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21.  Trice, Robert H. 1976. Interest Groups and the Foreign Policy Process: U.S. Policy in the Middle East. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

22.  Vernon, Raymond, Debora L. Spar, and Glenn Tobin. 1991. Iron Triangles and Revolving Doors: Cases on U.S. Economic Policymaking. New York, Praeger.

23.  Wantanabe, Paul Y. 1984. Ethnic Groups, Congress and American Foreign Policy. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Ÿ Additional sources, including many journal articles, are also available.

 

 

Week 12

March 30: Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 250-282.

 

Required Readings:

 

1.      Foyle, Douglas. 2008. “Vox Populi as a Foundation for Foreign Policy Renewal? Unity and Division in the Post-Bush Administration Public Opinion.” Paper presented at the International Studies Association Convention, New York.

 

2.      Holsti, Ole R. 1999. “ Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippman Consensus,” In G. John Ikenberry, ed. American Foreign Policy: Theoretical Essays (3rd edition). New York: Longman. 361-393.

 

3.      Jentleson, Bruce W. 1992. “The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force.” International Studies Quarterly. 36:29-73.

 

4.      Jentleson, Bruce W. and Rebecca L. Britton. 1998. “Still Pretty Prudent: Post-Cold War American Public Opinion on the Use of Military Force.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 42:395-417.

 

5.      Sobel, Richard. 2001. “The Theory of Public Opinion and Foreign Policy.” In Richard Sobel, The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy. Oxford, UK; Oxford University Press. 9-26.

 

Relevant Theories: Almond-Lippmann consensus/thesis, pretty prudent public, rational public thesis, maximalist and minimalist positions

 

Recommended Readings:

1.      Almond, Gabriel A. 1960. The American People and Foreign Policy. New York: Praeger.

2.      Barnet, Richard J. 1990. The Rockets’ Red Glare, When America Goes to War: The Presidents and the People. New York: Simon and Schuster.

3.      Cohen, Bernard. 1973. The Public’s Impact on Foreign Policy. Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Company.

4.      Foyle, Douglas C. 1999. Counting the Public In: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.

5.      Holsti, Ole R. 1996. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

6.      Holsti, Ole R. 2006. Making American Foreign Policy. New York: Routledge.

7.      Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. New York: MacMillan.     

8.      Mueller, John E. 1973. War, Presidents, and Public Opinion. New York: Wiley.

9.      Mueller, John E. 1994. Policy and Opinion in the Gulf War. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

10.  Oneal, John R., Brad Lian, and James H. Joyner, Jr. 1996. “Are the American People ‘Pretty Prudent’ Public Responses to U.S. Uses of Force, 1955-1988,” International Studies Quarterly 40:261-280.

11.  Page, Benjamin I. and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

12.  Powlick, Philip J. 1995. “The Sources of Public Opinion for American Foreign Policy Officials.” International Studies Quarterly. 39:427-451.

13.  Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1991. “Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy.” World Politics 43:479-512.

14.  Rosenau, James N. 1961. Public Opinion and Foreign Policy. New York: Random House.

15.  Sobel, Richard. 1993. Public Opinion in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Controversy over Contra Aid. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

16.  Sobel, Richard. 2001. The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy since Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press.

17.  Wittkopf, Eugene R. 1990. Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

18.  Yankelovich, Daniel and John Immerwahr. 1994. Beyond the Beltway: Engaging the Public in U.S. Foreign Policy Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Ÿ Additional sources, including many journal articles, are also available.

 

 

Week 13

April 6: The Media and U.S. Foreign Policy

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, pp. 305-317.

 

Required Readings:

1.      Bennett, W. Lance. 1994. “The Media and the Foreign Policy Process.” In David A. Deese, ed. The New Politics of American Politics. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 168-188.

 

2.      Gilboa, Eytan. 2003. “Television News and U.S. Foreign Policy: Constraints of Real-Time Coverage.” Press/Politics 8 (4): 97-112.

 

3.      Jakobsen, Peter Viggo. 1996. “National Interest, Humanitarianism or CNN: What Triggers UN Peace Enforcement after the Cold War?” Journal of Peace Research 33:205-210.

 

4.      O’Heffernan, Patrick. 1994. “A Mutual Exploitation Model of Media Influence in U.S. Foreign Policy.” In Lance W. Bennett and David L. Paletz, eds. Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 231-249.

 

5.      Strobel, Warren P. 1999. “CNN Effect: Myth or Reality?” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (3rd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 85-93. E840.D63 1999

 

Relevant Theory: mutual exploitation model

 

Recommended Readings: 

1.      Adams, William C. 1982. Television Coverage of International Affairs. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

2.      Bennett, W. Lance and David L. Paletz. 1994. Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

3.      Berry, Nicholas O. 1990. Foreign Policy and the Press: An Analysis of The New York Times’ Coverage of U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Greenwood Press.

4.      Carpenter, Ted Galen. 1995. The Captive Press: Foreign Policy Crises and the First Amendment. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

5.      Cohen, Bernard C. 1975. The Press and Foreign Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

6.      Cutler, Lloyd N. 1984. “Foreign Policy on Deadline.” Foreign Policy 56:113-128.

7.      Edwards, Lee. 2001. Media Politik: How the Mass Media Have Transformed World Politics. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press.

8.      Entman, Robert M. 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

9.      Gilboa, Eytan. 2002. “The Global News Networks and U.S. Policymaking in Defense and Foreign Affairs.” The Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Paper #2002-6,  June.

10.  Hallin, Daniel C. 1986. The Uncensored War: the Media and Vietnam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

11.  Hess, Stephen and Marvin Kalb, eds. 2003. The Media and the War on Terrorism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

12.  Iyengar, Shanto and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13.  Kovach, Bill. 1996. “Do the News Media Make Foreign Policy?” Foreign Policy 102 (Spring):169-179.

14.  Larson, James F. 1986. “Television and U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Iran Hostage Crisis.” Journal of Communication. 36:108-130.

15.  Livingston, Steven. 1997. Clarifying the CNN Effect: An Examination of Media Effects According to the Type of Military Intervention. Cambridge, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics, and Public Policy. 

16.  Maltese, John Anthony. 1992. Spin Control: The White House Office of Communications and the Management of Presidential News. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.

17.  Nacos, Brigitte Lebens, Robert Y. Shapiro and Pierangelo Isernia, eds. 2000. Decisionmaking in a Glass House: Mass Media, Public Opinion, and American and European Foreign Policy in the 21st Century. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

18.  Norris, Pippa, Montague Kern, and Marion Just, eds. 2003. Framing Terrorism: The News Media, the Government, and the Public. New York: Routledge.

19.  Pearce, David D. 1995. Wary Partners: Diplomats and the Media. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

20.  Sadkovich, James J. 1998. The U.S. Media and Yugoslavia, 1991-1995. Westport, CT: Praeger.

21.  Seib, Philip M. 1996. Headline Diplomacy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

22.  Serafty, Simon, ed. 1990. The Media and Foreign Policy. New York: Macmillan.

23.  Strobel, Warren P. 1997. Late-Breaking Foreign Policy: The News Media’s Influence on Peace Operations. Washington, DC: United States Institute for Peace Press.

Ÿ Additional sources, including many journal articles, are also available.

 

 

Weeks 14-15

April 13 and 20: Research Presentations – No Readings

 

 

Week 16

April 27: Course Conclusion

 

● Probing Interactions within the U.S. Foreign Policy Process

● Seeking to “Explain” U.S. Foreign Policy Making

 

Recommended as Background:

Wittkopf, Eugene R. and  Christopher M. Jones. 2008. American Foreign Policy: Pattern and Process. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, Chapter 13.

 

Required Readings:

1.      Allison, Graham T. and Morton H. Halperin. 1972. “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications.” World Politics 24:40-79.

 

2.      Hicks, Bruce D. 1990. “Internal Competition over Foreign Policy-Making: The Case of U.S. Arms Sales to Iran.” Policy Studies Review 9:471-484.

 

3.      Jones, Christopher M. 1999. “Trading with Saddam: Bureaucratic Roles and Competing Conceptions of National Security.” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (3rd edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 267-285. E840.D63 1999

 

4.      Jones, Christopher M. 2008. “Roles, Politics, and the Battle over the V-22 Osprey.” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 319-338.

 

5.      Ripley, Randall B. and Grace A. Franklin. 1991. The Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. 151-181 and Table 1-3, 18-19.

 

6.      Smith, Steve. 2008. “Policy Preferences and Bureaucratic Position: The Case of the American Hostage Rescue Mission.” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 303-318.

 

Relevant Theories: bureaucratic politics paradigm, procedural issues areas

 

Recommended Readings:  

1.      Allison, Graham T. and Phillip Zelikow. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. New York: Longman.

2.      Carter, Ralph G. 2002. Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

3.      Carter, Ralph G. 2005. Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

4.      Carter, Ralph G. 2008. Contemporary Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy: From Trade to Terrorism, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

5.      Deese, David A. 1994. The New Politics of American Foreign Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

6.      Drachman, Edward R. and Alan Shank. 1997. Presidents and Foreign Policy: Countdown to Ten Controversial Decisions. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

7.      Franke, Volker C. 2002. Security in a Changing World: Case Studies in U.S. National Security Management. Westport, CT. Praeger.

8.      Georgetown University Institute for the Study of Diplomacy: Case Studies, http://www.guisd.org

9.      Goldgeier, James M. 2008. “NATO Expansion: The Anatomy of a Decision.” In Eugene R. Wittkopf and James M. McCormick, eds. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy: Insights and Evidence (5th edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. 339-354.

10.  Halperin, Morton H. 1974. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

11.  Halperin, Morton H., Priscilla Clapp, with Arnold Kanter. 2006. Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

12.  Hilsman, Roger. 1990. The Politics of Policy Making in Defense and Foreign Affairs: Conceptual Models and Bureaucratic Politics, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

13.  Hunt, Michael. 1996. Crises in U.S. Foreign Policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

14.  John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: The Case Program, http://www.ksgcase.harvard.edu.

15.  Kozak, David C. and James M. Keagle. 1988. Bureaucratic Politics and National Security: Theory and Practice. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

16.  Lindblom, Charles E. 1968. The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

17.  National Security Studies, Maxwell School of Citizenship & Public Affairs at Syracuse University and Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University: Case Studies,

http://www.nss.edu/Pages/Cases/Cases.html.

18.  Ripley, Randall B. and Grace A. Franklin. 1991. The Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy, 5th ed. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing.

19.  Rosati, Jerel. 1981. “Development of a Systematic Decision-Making Framework: Bureaucratic Politics in Perspective.” World Politics 33 (January):234-252.

20.  Rosati, Jerel A. and James M. Scott. 2007. “Decisionmaking Theory and Washington Politics.” In The Politics of United States Foreign Policy (4th edition). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. 276-305.

21.  Scott, James M., ed. 1998. After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Chapter 8-14.

22.  Scott, James M. 1998. “Interbranch Policy Making after the End.” In After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. 389-407. JZ1480.A95 1998

23.  Snyder, Richard C., H.W. Bruck, and Burton Sapin. 1962. Foreign Policy Decision Making: An Approach to the Study of International Politics.  Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. (The first edition was published in 1954).

24.  Strong, Robert A. 1992. Decisions and Dilemmas: Case Studies in Presidential Foreign Policy Making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

25.  Strong, Robert A. 2005. Decisions and Dilemmas: Case Studies in Presidential Foreign Policy Making, 2nd ed. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.

Ÿ Additional sources, including many journal articles, are also available.

 

 

Week 16

May 4: Final Examination