U.S. emerged as unchallenged world power:

1. economy is untouchable

2.military is unmatched

3. holds what is called "soft power": the exports of american ideology

4. became increasingly involved in foreign local disputes

those who believed in the use of hard power during the coldwar

Eventually the Hawks of the cold war became doves b/c they realized that we were the only world power so therefor we could not afford to get involved in foreign affairs that did not directly affect us.

those who believed in diplomacy and soft power during the coldwar.

After the coldwar these doves became hawks because they believed that due to the fact we were the only world power it was our responsibility to intervene in foreign affairs

1. after the attacks all of our policies shifted to the belief that we were engaged in a war on terror

2. complete 180 degree turn from 2000

3. Bush became a "muscular wilsonian"

 4. our policy is now the belief that it is the U.S. responsibility to make the world safe for democracy

5. no matter the phrase at the time, we are in a war against radical islam

6. Al Queada represents a small fraction of the Islamic world jus as the KKK represents a small piece of the U.S.

7. most specifically we are at battle with two Islamic sects- wahabi, salafi

1. the countries that are involved are almost all failed or failing states

2. These corrupt governments were sometimes funded by westerners

3. Radical Islamists began appearing due to these discrepancies

4. most money came from oil that benefitted foreigners rather than to modernize itself

5. the 9/11 attacks were against the "far enemy", in hope to cripple the "near enemy"

1. so focused on war on terror everything else went out the window

2. lost sight of civil liberties

3. abandoned international laws on POW's

based on a mechanist approach

application of balance of power politics

1. a-historical, does not take into account current relations

2. does not take into account values

3. does not take into account trade and commerce

***most states in the world do not have a security dilemma, but those who do make up most of the world's tension***

Ex: China/Taiwan

India/Pakistan

Israel/Syria

What is Strategy?

1. refers to a plan for providing scarce means to achieve a nation's goals

2.without a framework of linking resources to goals there is no strategy

3. scarce resources do not allow for all goals to be accomplished, therefor you must have priorities

4. if there is a mismatch between resources and goals, you have risks

1. relates goals to limited resources against an adversary who opposes your desired goals

2. strategy establishes priorities, at times these priorities shift. If you have no priorities then you do not know how to allocate resources.

"He who guards to much guards nothing at all"

3. must look at resources as a means of directing power

5 questions strategies serve to answer

1. what is the desired outcome?

2. what conditions must prevail in order to accomplish goals?

3. what steps are necessary to achieve the needed conditions?

4. what are the instruments of power you are going to use?

5. what are the costs and risks associated with your strategy?

***In 2007 the Department of Homeland Security released strategy documents. They examined internal changes after 9/11. This created the Northern Command which is a command post specifically for the continental U.S.***

1. creation of a director of national intelligence

a) over the CIA

b) includes over 16 agencies

c) purpose was to correct flaws, one of the flaws being the lack of communication between agencies

2. national strategy for pandemic influenza

3. National infrastructure protection plan

4. national strategy for combatting terrorism

5. New strategies to protect us against natural disasters, which was influence by hurricane katrina

1. no effort to bring these national strategies together

2. Where do the priorities fall into place due to scarce resources?

3. none of these strategies provide criteria on laying out resources to achieve goals

4. lays out goals, but does not lay out how the goals are to be achieved

***sets very high bar for U.S. armed forces***

1. must be committed to fighting long war against terrorism

2. must meet the challenge of a near-peer competitor, EX: China

3. should be affective against structured army like China, but also should be capable to go against counter insurgent groups like in Afghanistan

1. intelligence

2. special forces

3. communication/cooperation

1. emphasis on high tech military techniques, EX: smart bombs, UAV's

*** Keeping China in mind as near competitor***

1. Besides middle east, more troops are being deployed to Asia

2. Less are being deployed to Europe

3. multi-billion dollar projects to improve bases in the pacific

4. navy is committed to the Pacific

5. both strategic and tactical subs are being deployed in the Pacific

***With this the U.S. has improved security with Japan, and also sustains security with South Korea***

1. political and diplomatic downfall may occur due to this idea

2. may lead to arms race

***Or China may view this as a compliment that U.S. views them as a top competitor***

1. Does U.S. really view China as political equal?

2. QDR report does not support this

3. China found the QDR report to be complimenting, but also patronizing in the sense that why does the U.S. have to tell China that they are political stake holders

***QDR is pulling the armed forces in two different directions***

1. counter insurgency: ground forces, technology, intelligence, weapons

2. air force and navy: rebuilding, mobilizing, growth/advancement

1. with help from congress money could be spent on other areas besides military

2. army cut back 40%

3. U.S. intelligence cut back 30%

4. Soft power was cut back as well

5. numerous occasions where foreign services could not afford to hire new diplomats

6. United States Agency for International Development was cut way back: 60's and 70's= 15,000... 1990's= 3000

7. many U.S. consulates over seas were shut down

Reconstructionist skills lost due to Clinton Administration

1. now in Iraq we are employing civilians as provincial reconstruction teams

2. these teams specialize in water, electricity, police forces etc...

3. these teams were highly ineffective until late 2007 due to the lack of security for these civilians

4. For a long time insurgents specifically targeted these groups in hopes of discouraging their efforts

***this is still the case in Afghanistan***

5. Anthropologists have been hired in Afghanistan to help civilians/soldiers to learn who they are interacting with and what their culture is like

1. must provide jobs for those who have or would be recruited into these terrorist groups

2. must establish a peaceful political integration

3. there must be a strong police/intelligence agency to track down and fight these groups

***Ex: indonesia, with help from U.S. and Australia developed a national police force independent from the indonesian military that has successfully captured and prosecuted numerous terrorist leaders present in their country

"The Long War" (1st Administration)

***After 9/11 the Bush Administration decided...***

1. they would seek out all terrorists

2. seek out all safe havens

3. utilize all tools of war

***In this setting the whole world would be a battlefield***

1. Bush administration believes this is merely a metaphor

2. concentration was mostly on afghanistan and pakistan

***although terrorist groups are found in germany, france, and england, bush was unwilling to make these countries "battlegrounds"

"The Long War" (2nd Bush Administration)

***In 2005 Bush broadens his tools***

1. emphasizes intelligence, diplomacy, and police work (these modifications can be explained by the result of a learning curve)

***One of the problems of the 2nd administration is them coenciding with the law. Bush attempts to apply law of war***

1. doesnt work because law of war is directed on states, and terrorist groups for the most part are not backed by their government

2. therefor it seems to be a misuse of techniques

***more problems with the utilization of the law of war***

1. war ends when one government surrenders or a truce is signed

2. thus, how can the war end when there is no clear leader of terrorists who holds the power to surrender?

3. POW's are then possibly never released

Guidelines reguarding treatment of POW's

&

Bush's interpretation of these guidelines

***Geneva Convention is main component of POW regulations***

1. Bush states that terrorists are not granted these rights set forth

2. thus he can hold them as long as he/government wants

3. Bush's justification is that these individual's were not soldiers but merely "enemy combatants", thus the laws of war are not being infringed upon

4. many combatants have been detained at camps, but have never been processed in the U.S. criminal system

5. Bush maintained that due to the laws of war, he could do with them as he sees fit

***many critics argue that this is a ploy by the Bush administration and other neo-cons to restore the "presidency"

1. it passed through congress due to fear of democrats

2. this act attempts to undue the rulings set down by the S.C. on the Bush administration

3. Bush attempts to alter this by stating the courts have no right to intervene on grounds of habeus corpus for captured combatants

1. prior administrations dealt with terrorism through criminal law proceedings

2. this administration deals with them through the laws of war which are dictated by the administration

1. S.C. gave the administration an out by stating that this could be changed through simple legislation

2. these captives no matter what had to be tried in a constitutional regulated court

3. military commission act then setup tribunals to try them in hope of still having the upper hand

4. this did not necessarily work according to plan because there are now JAG lawyers who are truly fighting for their clients

***the U.S. is a signatory on many treaties that protect prisoners rights against cruel and unusual treatment***

1. Bush administration argues that these treaties did not apply because these "interrogations" were not taking place on U.S. soil

2. Congress overrules this with the McCain Ammendment which states that cruel and unusual treatment is not appropriate anywhere at any time

***one of the provisions of the military commissions act dealt with whether the interrogation techniques must follow those used by the military***

1. Bush administration argued that CIA could use techniques beyond those of the military

1. Gates notes that the state dept. cannot control both departments

2. Defense dept. runs pretty much everything in Iraq

3. State dept. must be beefed up

4. This lack of balance did not begin with Iraq, but rather WWII

Transition of power between State Dept. and Defense Dept.

1. up to WWII the state dept. controlled foreign affairs

2. Defense dept. did not exist until after WWII

3. State dept. had much larger budget

4. After the war defense dept. took on more power

5. by the time the cold war began the defense dept. held more power

6. Defense dept. even created a state dept. within itself

7. they also created the counterpart of the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency

8. this opened up many civilian jobs

9. Due to this shift in power the defense dept. attracted more qualified individuals and their salaries were higher than those at the state dept.

10. to date the main failure of the two depts. is the absence of a long term strategy that integrates the two

11. only two common focuses are terrorism and wmd's

***problem with the military is that these two subjects are too prominent. Many other subjects i.e. economic stability and religious conflicts are passed on to civilian agencies

1. military does not have the knowledge/credentials to understand and relate to foreign political bodies

2. military strength is in military tactics and weaponology, not political ideological comprehension

3. state depts. expertise is political understanding due to the intelligence agency

***unlike civilian agencies who deal with foreign affairs, the military has the capability to to implement its goals due to its strictly structured hierarchy. State dept. is not as well funded and lacks this structure***

1. central organization

2. disciplinary capabilities

3. massive budget

4. technical know-how

1. recently these groups have rejoined to the likes of before 9/11

2. they have moved their camps to Pakistan in attempt to attack their government

3. these camps consist of non-pakistanis who fly in to train at these camps

4. periodically the pakistani army goes after these groups with no success

5. the army is conflicted because there are some supporters; some of the military leaders want to utilize these insurgents to fight india

6. the Taliban favors the suicide bomber technique which they never used in the past decade, which makes many believe that this is a result of a growing influence from Al Queada

7. it has become common knowledge that these bomb belts are being constructed in western pakistan

8. Fighters now where these belts as part of their uniform, that way if they are about to be captured they can take people with them

9. this belt also gives them a psychological advantage

Four options pertaining to our ongoing conflicts with Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia

1. Attempt a settlement with Iran which gurantees Iran's territorial integrity, in return Iran would agree to not attempt to destabilize Iraq. If this happened we would be able to vacate Iraq quicker

2. Enter into negotiations with Russia. Acknowledge their sphere of influence, in return russia must agree not to enter Eastern Europe and other Baltic countries. this would have Russia leaving nato countries alone and allow U.S. to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan

3. Could tell Europe that the Russians are there problem. This would permit the U.S. to focus on Iraq and Afghanistan. The downside is that Europe would not be able to handle Russia

4. Disengage from Iraq as rapidly as feasible, leaving a minimal force to deal with Al Queada to focus on Afghanistan where Al Queada presence is more abundant, and also have enough soldiers to deal with Russia. Downside would be that the Arab World would be in chaos and pro-american countries would be left vulnerable to retaliation

***unexpressed option 5 would be a continuation of what is going on now***

1. two months after 9/11 the Taliban and Al Queada were ousted from Afghanistan

2. this was endorsed by the UN and Nato because the U.S. was responding to a direct attack

3. two years later a non-endorsed attack began in Iraq

4. most forces were withdrawn from Afghanistan before the Taliban and Al Queada were decapitated

War in Iraq leads back to the advisors of George W. Bush

1. begins in 1991 Gulf War

2. Iraq was set back industrally 30 years

3. after war, harsh UN sanctions against Iraq created huge economic deficits, education system dropped, economy relied on smuggling and the profits went to sadam instead of the population

4. in 2003 U.S. was fighting against 3rd rate army

5. U.S. dismissed 385,000 soldiers and 500,000 beuracrats

6. this led to staggering unemployment rates

***unemployment rates was an incredible opportunity for criminal gangs and insurgents to recruit. When interrogated most of the young insurgents were not religious fanatics but rather were just trying to make money for their families***