POLITICAL SCIENCE
681-1:
U.S. National Security
Policy
Spring
2011
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 1:30-4:30 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, missile
defense, a rising China in East Asia, a resurgent Russia, NATO and European
security, the war in Afghanistan (with some attention to Pakistan), dependency
on foreign sources of oil, and new transnational security
threats.
The
course’s second purpose is to discuss
policy options to reduce the most pressing U.S. national security challenges and
to develop strategies to prevent or
counter the principal threats to the survival and vital interests of the United
States. We will also consider the theoretical and strategic bases of policy
alternatives identified in the course readings and discussions. In this regard,
it is important for students to have a solid understanding of international
relations theory. Furthermore, students
will be encouraged to formulate and consider approaches beyond the U.S.
government’s policies. 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, Barak Obama’s emerging strategic direction, and a range of competing
grand strategies available to U.S. policy makers in 2011 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 scholarly 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 10 and be worth 25 percent of the course
grade. The class meeting on Tuesday, May 3 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, May 2 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 15,
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 19 and Tuesday, April 23. 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 class
meeting, 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
15:
Research design statements are due at the beginning of class.
April
19 & 26:
Research paper presentations
May
3:
Research papers are due in the POLS main office at 3:30 p.m.
May
4:
Course conclusion and review for final examination
May
10:
Final examination
Week
1: January 18 - No Class
No
assigned readings.
Week 2: January 25 -
Course Introduction and Grand Strategy
Michele A. Flournoy and Shawn Brimley. 2008. Finding Our Way: Debating American Grand
Strategy (Washington, DC: Center for New American
Security).
http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/FlournoyBrimley_Finding%20Our%20Way_June08.pdf (Be familiar with the various strategic
options detailed in this publication on pp. 23-148)
National Security
Strategy, May 2010 (Read the entire document.) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf
Harvey M. Sapolsky, Eugene Gholz, and
Caitlin Talmadge. “America’s Security Strategy.” U.S. Defense Politics: The Origins of
Security Policy. New York: Routledge. Chapter 2.
U.S. Department of
Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review
Report, February 2010
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf (You only need to read the Executive
Summary).
Week 3: February 1 -
Terrorism
Max Abrahms. 2008.
“What Terrorists Really Want.” International Security 32
(4):78-105.
Daniel Byman. 2007. “U.S. 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.
Robert A. Pape. 2003. “The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.” American Political Science Review 97
(3):1-19.
Marc Sageman. 2008. “The Next Generation of Terror.” Foreign Policy 165 (March/April):
37-42.
Jessica Stern. 2010.
“Mind over Martyr: How to Deradicalize Islamist
Extremists.” Foreign Affairs 89 (1):
95-108.
Week 4: February 8 -
Nuclear Proliferation
Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/npt
Francis Gavin. 2009.
“Same As It Ever Was: Nuclear Alarmism, Proliferation, and the Cold War.” International Security 34 (3):
7-37.
Josef Joffe and James W. Davis. “Less Than Zero: Bursting the New
Disarmament Bubble.” Foreign Affairs
90 (1): 7-13.
Peter R. Lavoy. 2006. “Nuclear Proliferation over the Next Decade:
Causes, Warning Signs, and Policy Responses.” Nonproliferation Review 13
(3):433-454.
Keir A. Lieber and Daryl Press. 2009. “The Nukes We Need: Preserving
America’s Deterrent.” Foreign Affairs
88 (6): 39-51.
Scott D. Sagan. 1996-97.
“Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb.” International Security 21
(3):54-86.
Gregory L. Schulte. 2010. “Stopping
Proliferation Before It Starts.” Foreign
Affairs 89 (4): 85-95.
Week 5: February 15 -
What to Do about Iran? A Case Study in Proliferation
Eric S. Edelman, Andrew
F. Krepinevich, and Evan Braden Montgomery. 2011. “The
Dangers of a Nuclear Iran.” Foreign
Affairs 90 (1): 66-81.
Christopher Hemmer.
2007. “Responding to Nuclear Iran.” Parameters 37(3):
42-53.
James M. Lindsay and Ray
Takeyh. 2010. “After Iran Gets the Bomb: Containment
and Its Complications.” Foreign
Affairs 89 (2): 33-48.
Mohsen M. Milani. 2009. “Tehran’s Take: Understanding Iran’s U.S.
Policy.” Foreign Affairs 88 (4):
46-62.
Shiping Tang. 2009. “The
Security Dilemma: A Conceptual Analysis,” Security Studies 18 (3):
587-623.
Iran Country
Profile:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/806268.stm;
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/iran/index.html
(see recent updates related to Iran’s nuclear and missile
programs)
Week 6 (Part I): February 22 - Missile
Defense
Barry Blechman and Jonas Vaicikonis.
2010. “Unblocking the Road to Zero: U.S.-Russian Cooperation on Missile
Defenses.” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists 66 (6): 25-35.
George N. Lewis and
Theodore A. Postol. 2010. “How U.S. Strategic
Antimissile Defense Could Be made to Work.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 66
(6): 8-24.
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. Available at http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bm-threat.htm
Steven A. Hildreth. 2007. “Ballistic Missile Defense: Historical
Overview.” CRS Report for Congress, 9
July. http://www.cdi.org/PDFs/RS22120.pdf
Jeff Sessions. 2008.
“Ballistic Missile Defense: A National Priority.” Strategic Studies Quarterly
(Summer):22-30.
Peter
D. Zimmerman with Cheryl Loeb. 2004. “Dirty Bombs: The Threat Revisited.”
Defense Horizons 38 (January): 1-11.
Week 6 (Part II):
February 23 – The Future of American Power
● Attend Joseph S. Nye,
Jr. Lecture on campus.
● Read: Joseph S. Nye,
Jr. 2010. “The Future of American Power.” Foreign Affairs 89 (6): 2-12. (If I can
make Nye’s full, forthcoming book available, The Future of Power, I
will.)
Week 7: March 1 - 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.
Robert D. Kaplan. 2010.
“The Geography of Chinese Power.” Foreign
Affairs 89 (3): 22-41.
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 8 -
Resurgent Russia
Charles Kupchan. 2010. “NATO Final’s Frontier.” Foreign Affairs 89 (3): 100-112.
Robert Legvold. 2009. “The Russia File: How to Move Toward a
Strategic Partnership.” Foreign
Affairs 88 (4): 78-93.
Vladimir Putin. 2007.
Speech at the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy. February
10.
Stephen Sestanovich. 2008. “What Has Moscow Done? Rebuilding
U.S.–Russian Relations.” Foreign
Affairs 87 (6):13-28.
Andrei Shieifer and Daniel Treisman.
2011. “Why Moscow Says No: A Question of Russian Interests, Not Psychology.” Foreign Affairs 90 (1):
122-138.
Dmitri Trenin. 2009. “Russia Reborn: Reimagining Moscow’s Foreign
Policy.” Foreign Affairs 88 (6):
64-78.
Deborah Welch Larson and
Alexi Shevchenko. 2010. “Status Seeks: Chinese and Russian Responses to U.S.
Primacy.” International Security 34
(4): 63-95.
Week 9: March 15 -
Spring Break
Week 10 – March 22:
NATO, the EU, and European and Global Security
The
North Atlantic Treaty, http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm
Ronald
D. Asmus. 2008. “New Purposes, New Plumbing:
Rebuilding the Atlantic Alliance.” The
American Interest (November/December):1-8.
Zbigniew Brzezinski. 2009. “An
Agenda for NATO: Toward a Global Security Web.” Foreign Affairs. 88 (5):
2-20.
William Drozdiak. 2010. “The Brussels Wall.” Foreign Affairs 89 (3): 7-12.
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.
Renee de Nevers. 2007. “NATO’s International Security Role in the
Terrorist Era.” International
Security 31(4):34-66.
Mary Elise Sarotte. 2010. “Perpetuating U.S. Preeminence: The 1990
debate to ‘Bribe the Soviets Out’ and Move NATO In.” International Security 35 (1):
110-137.
Week
11: March 29 - Afghanistan (and Pakistan)
Stephen
Biddle, Fotini Christia, and
J. Alexander Thier. 2010. “Defining Success in
Afghanistan.” Foreign Affairs 89(4):
48-60.
Robert
D. Blackwill. 2011. “Plan B in Afghanistan.” Foreign Affairs 90 (1):
42-50.
Michael
O’Hanlon. 2010. “Staying Power: The U.S. Mission in Afghanistan Beyond 2011.” Foreign Affairs 89 (5):
63-79.
Seth
G. Jones. 2008. “The Rise of Afghanistan’s Insurgency.” International Security 32 (4):
7-40.
Paul
D. Miller. 2011. “Finish the Job: How the War in Afghanistan Can Be Won.” Foreign Affairs 90 (1):
51-65.
Paul Staniland. 2011. “Caught in the Muddle: America’s Pakistan
Strategy.” Washington Quarterly 34
(1): 133-148.
U.S. Government
Accountability Office. “Afghanistan’s Security Environment.” 2010.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10613r.pdf
Week 12: April 5 -
Energy Security
Energy Security
Leadership Council. 2008. A National
Strategy for Energy Security: Recommendations to the Nation on Reducing U.S. Oil
Dependence. http://www.secureenergy.org/policy/national-strategy-energy-security
Eugene Gholz and Daryl G. Press. 2010. “Protecting ‘The Prize’: Oil and
the U.S. National Interest.” Security
Studies 19 (3): 453-485.
Christof Ruhl. 2010. “Global Energy After the Crisis: Prospects and
Priorities.” Foreign Affairs 89 (2):
63-75.
Daniel Yergin. 2006. “Ensuring Energy Security.” Foreign Affairs 85
(2):69-82.
Frank Verrastro and Sarah Ladislaw. 2007. “Providing Energy
Security in an Interdependent World.”
Washington Quarterly 30 (4):95-104.
David G. Victor and
Linda Yueh. 2010. “The New Energy Order.” Foreign Affairs 89 (1):
61-73.
Week 13: April 12 - New
Transnational Security Threats
Fiona B. Adamson. 2006.
“Crossing Borders: International Migration and National Security.” International Security 31
(1):165-199.
Max Boot. 2009.
“Pirates, Then and Now.” Foreign
Affairs 88 (4): 94-107.
Wesley K. Clark and
Peter L. Levin. 2009. “Securing the Information Highway.” Foreign Affairs 88 (6):
2-10.
Shlomi Dinar. 2002. “Water,
Security, Conflict, and Cooperation.” SAIS Review 22 (2):229-253.
Gregory D. Koblentz. 2010. “Biosecurity
Reconsidered: Calibrating Biological Threats and Responses.” International Security 34 (4):
96-132.
Marc A. Levy. 1995. “Is
the Environment a National Security Issue?” International Security 20
(2):35-62.
William J. Lynn, III.
2010. “Defending a New Domain: The Pentagon’s Cyberstrategy.” Foreign Affairs 89 (5):
97-108.
Week 14: April 19 -
Paper Presentations
Week 15: April 26 -
Paper Presentations
Week 16: May 3 –
Conclusion & Grand Strategy: Where Do We Go from
Here?
Revisit all the readings
listed under Week 2.
“Review” readings and
class notes from Weeks 2-13.
For a summary of future
threats and challenges, you may wish to review:
National Intelligence
Council. 2008. Global Trends 2025: A
Transformed World (Washington, DC: Government Printing
Office).
http://www.dni.gov/nic/PDF_2025/2025_Global_Trends_Final_Report.pdf
Week 16: May 10 - Final
Examination