1
Prof. N. RathbunOffice: VKC 304, Phone: 740-8895
Office Hours: T 2-3:30; TH 8:30-9:30 11-12:30; or by appt. Email:
IR 443 Formulation of US Foreign Policy
Fall 2013
T/TH9:30-10:50 am
VKC 256
Course Description and Objectives:
This course provides an overview of U.S. foreign policy decision-making, with an emphasis on the numerous inputs to the decision-making process in Washington, DC. We will investigate the foundations of American ideology and the changing perceptions of America’s place in the world. We will examine the different models of decision-making and their critiques. The class disaggregates the executive into functional parts, as well as investigates the relationship between the larger society, public opinion, the media and lobbying and the government. With the strong theoretical and functional basis for analyzing foreign policy developed in the first part of the class, we will then examine the foreign policy process in practice in several different contemporary issue areas, from aid to intervention and nonproliferation to intelligence gathering. The course is designed around a simulation of Washington policy making that will develop in stages throughout the semester. The culmination of the course will be a task-force analysis and recommendation for improving the decision-making process.
Course Requirements and Grading:
Evaluations will be based on your performance in the following areas:
Class Participation10%
Close Reading Analyses15%
Policy Memo15%
Policy Project25%
Task-Force Paper35%
Please note that class participation and attendance at all class meetings is expected. This is a seminar, not a lecture course, and the quality of the course as a whole depends on everyone’s preparation and participation. In addition, each student will write a policy memo, a group policy project (numerous pieces with separate due dates – see below), and a task-force paper. There is no final. The final Task-Force Paper is due on the final date scheduled by the Registrar’s office, Thursday December 12 at noon.
Course Assignments:
Class Work – In addition to class participation in discussion, each student will write 3 discussion questions based on the readings every week. These will be posted under the Blackboard discussion forum by 5pm Mondays.
In addition, each student will write three close reading analyses of the weekly readings, to be assigned the first week of classes. These will be posted to blackboard by Monday at 5pm before that week’s classes. They should be no more than 4 pages double-spaced. Students will be expected to read all the analyses before class as part of their preparation.
Policy Memo
The policy memo project willassist students in their practical understanding of the bureaucratic policy decision-making process. The memo should be intended for an appropriate Assistant Secretary(or equivalent) at State,Defense, US Trade Representative, etc. It should request some action be taken on your selected topic. It should present at most two options for the Secretary to select from (not including the always available option of doing nothing). You may write on any recent topic of US foreign policy. The proposed action(s) and the most important information for the decision should be included on the first page. More detailed background information useful for the decision should be included on the 2 and 3rd pages. A guide to formatting will be provided on blackboard. The topics could range from security to trade to environmental to political issues. They are due September 17th, to be turned in via Turnitin on Blackboard and in paper format in class.
Policy Project
Together as a class, we will dissect one foreign policy decision – intervention in Syria -- along different organization and institutional lines in the Washington policy arena. Students will volunteer to represent Principals from State (3 students), Defense (4 students, divided among Office of the Secretary of Defense(OSD), Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), NSC (3 students) and CIA (3 students), as well as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (3 students) and major media outlets (3 students). The CIA will prepare a backgrounder on the situation in Syria and possible ramifications of action/inaction (no more than 10 pages single-spaced) DUE OCTOBER 1. STATE and DEFENSEwill EACH prepare a position paper with their agencies’ recommended action on the issue (no more than 8 pages single-spaced)DRAFTS DUE OCTOBER 10. The NSC will respond to the DRAFT papers (no more than 8 pages single-spaced) DUE OCTOBER 17. Together, STATE, DEFENSE and NSC will agree on a single detailed action plan for the US (no more than 8 pages single-spaced, drawn from early drafts) DUE OCTOBER 24. All of this will be leaked to the media throughout the effort. The students representing major media outlets will write 3-4 stories on the issue and the way the US government is handling the issue, one at each point in the process (no more than 2 pages single spaced each). DUE DATES ARE OCTOBER 15, OCTOBER 29, NOVEMBER 19 AND NOVEMBER 26. Finally, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a hearing on the issue and issue questions to the lead agency to respond on the issue. The students representing the senior staff on the SFRC will write the questions for the lead agency and CIA, DUE OCTOBER 31. The Principals, led by Defense,and CIA will write responses to the SFRC questionsDUE NOVEMBER 14. The SFRC staffers will writea backgrounder on the issue for the SFRC members, including the pros and cons and a recommendation to the Committee for action following receipt of answers (no more than 8 pages single-spaced)DUE NOVEMBER 21. We will analyze and interpret the process in the final week of the class.
All products will be posted on Blackboard to the appropriate discussion link. Students will receive grades for each part of their project. Students will also provide feedback, which will be taken into account in the overall grade. More detailed explanation of the assignments and criteria will be explained in class. Deadlines must be met. No extensions will be provided.
Task-Force Paper
The task-force paper will analyze the decision-making process in the United States, its problems and successes, and make a recommendation for how to improve it. The paper will take into account the various positions of stake-holders and the mass public. The task-force paper should evaluate one area of foreign policy decision-making. Questions to consider are: what are the goals for the US in the area at issue, how are they determined, weighed and mediated by the institutional structures (both in and outside of government), what are the problems in the process, why do they exist, what can be changed and how? While all recommendations necessarily would involve significant political investment, students should try to make reasonable (though not necessarily likely to be successful) proposals. The paper will take into account the readings and simulation from the course and outside analyses. Students should propose a strategy (be specific!) to achieve the recommendation, taking into account the political and institutional issues. Anticipate skeptics, address their concerns and alternatives and why your recommendation is better. Try to address the risks of the proposed strategy. Predict what is likely to occur if your strategy is followed. Use headings to direct the reader. Normal MLA or Chicago style citations should be used. The paper should be 5000-7000 words, including a 1-page, single-spaced executive summary. Students will work in groups of 2 or 3. It is due on the scheduled final date, Dec 12 at NOON, to be turned in via Turnitin on Blackboard, together with a paper copy in my box in VKC 330.
Course Readings:
The following books are required for the course. They may be purchased at USC Bookstore or on-line. All other readings are posted on Blackboard or available via the library as an e-book or via the web. Students are expected to read all the required readings before the Tuesday class in addition to the class preparation above.
Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2nd ed. (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999).
Colin Dueck, Reluctant Crusader (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006).
Statement for Students with Disabilities
Any student requesting academic accommodations based on a disability is required to register with Disability Services and Programs (DSP) each semester. A letter of verification for approved accommodations can be obtained from DSP. Please be sure the letter is delivered to me (or to TA) as early in the semester as possible. DSP is located in STU 301 and is open 8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The phone number for DSP is (213) 740-0776.
Statement on Academic Integrity
USC seeks to maintain an optimal learning environment. General principles of academic honesty include the concept of respect for the intellectual property of others, the expectation that individual work will be submitted unless otherwise allowed by an instructor, and the obligations both to protect one’s own academic work from misuse by others as well as to avoid using another’s work as one’s own. All students are expected to understand and abide by these principles. Scampus, the Student Guidebook, contains the Student Conduct Code in Section 11.00, while the recommended sanctions are located in Appendix A: Students will be referred to the Office of Student Judicial Affairs and Community Standards for further review, should there be any suspicion of academic dishonesty. The Review process can be found at:
Course Outline and Readings
- Traditions and History
Aug 27, 29 Introduction
Readings:
Dueck, introduction.
Walter McDougall, Promised Land, Crusader State:The American Encounter with the World since 1776(Houghton-Mifflin 1997), pp. 1-12
Washington’s Farewell Address.
The Federalist Papers nos. 2-5, 8-11, 14-16, 23-31, 34, 74-75. (skim to remind yourself)
Sept 3, 5 Role of Ideas
Readings:
Dueck, ch. 1, 2
Jeffrey Legro, Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order (Cornell 2005), ch. 2.
Walter Russell Mead, Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How it Changed the World(Knopf 2001), ch. 7, pp. 218-263.
Sept 10, 12 American Traditions
Dueck, ch. 3, 4
John Ikenberry, After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars (Princeton 2001), ch.3, pp. 50-79
Brian Rathbun, “The ‘Magnificent Fraud’: Trust, International Cooperation and the Hidden Domestic Politics of American Multilateralism after World War II,” International Studies Quarterly 55 (2011): 1-21.
- Foreign Policy Analysis
Sept 17, 19 International Theory and Foreign Policy Analysis
Readings:
Valerie M. Hudson, “Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations.” Foreign Policy Analysis, 1, 1 (March2005): 1-30.
Steven E. Lobell, Norrin M. Ripsman, and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, eds., Neoclassical Realism, the State, and Foreign Policy. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).pp. 13-31.
Robert Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics.(Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1976).Chap. 1.
****************Policy Memo Due September 17th*******************
Sept 24, 26 Decision-Making Models
Readings:
Graham Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Explaining the CubanMissile Crisis. 2nd ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1999.Ch. 1, 3, 5 (skim case to be familiar and critique it).
Oct 1, 3 Critiques and Extensions
Readings:
David Welch. 1992. "The Organizational Process and Bureaucratic Politics Paradigms: Retrospect and Prospect." International Security 17: 116-146.
Morton Halperin, Priscilla Clapp and Arnold Kanter (2006), Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. Brookings Institution Press, ch. 2. (ebook)
Oct 8, 10 Bureaucratic Politics and the Executive
Readings:
Morton Halperin, Priscilla Clapp and Arnold Kanter (2006), Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy, 2nd ed. Brookings Institution Press, chs. 3, 6-8. (ebook)
Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, 5th ed., Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012, ch. 4
Oct 15, 17Societal Level Analysis & Political Psychology
Readings:
Brian Rathbun (2007), “Hierarchy and Community at Home and Abroad: Evidence of a Common Structure of Domestic and Foreign Policy Beliefs in American Elites,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 51:379-404.
Richard K. Herrmann, Philip Tetlock, and Penny S. Visser, "Mass Public Decisions to Go to War: A Cognitive-Interactionist Framework." AmericanPolitical Science Review, 93, 3 (September 1999), 553-73.
Ole R. Holsti, "Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lipmann Consensus." International Studies Quarterly 36, 4 (December 1992): 439-66.
Oct 22, 24Mass Media and Lobbying
Readings:
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, "The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy."London Review of Books, 28, 6 (March 23, 2006). (Skim for argument and why divisive)
Jerome Slater, "Two Books of Mearsheimer and Walt." Security Studies, 18, 1 (2009): 4-57.
Matthew Baum and Philip B.K. Potter (2008), “Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis,” Annual Review of Political Science, pp. 39-65.
Jon Western,“The War over Iraq: Selling War to theAmerican Public,”Security Studies, 14:1 (2005), pp. 106-139.
Jon Western, “Sources of Humanitarian Intervention: Beliefs, Information, and Advocacy in the U.S. Decisions on Somalia and Bosnia,” International Security 26:4 (Spring 2002), pp. 112-42.
Oct29, 31 Presidents and Elites
Readings:
Dueck, ch. 5, 6
William Howell.Power without Persuasion: The Politics of Direct Presidential Action. (Princeton University Press, 2003), ch 5.
BrandiceCanes-Wrone, William G. Howell, and David E. Lewis. 2008. “Toward aBroader Understanding of Presidential Power: A Reevaluation of the Two Presidencies Thesis.” Journal of Politics 70:1–16.
Howell, William G., and Jon C. Pevehouse. 2007. While Dangers Gather: Congressional Checks on Presidential War Powers. Princeton University Press,ch. 1-2. (ebook)
- Foreign Policy Case Studies
Nov 5, 7Aid & Development
Readings:
William Easterly, ed. Reinventing Foreign Aid. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008. (ebook), chs 1, 2, 16.
Carol Lancaster, Foreign Aid: Diplomacy, Development, Domestic Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007. (ebook), ch. 3.
Nov 12, 149/11 Intelligence
Readings:
Richard K. Betts, “Two Faces of Intelligence Failure: September 11 and Iraq’s Missing WMD.” Political Science Quarterly, 122, 4 (Winter 2007-08): 585-606.
Uri Bar-Joseph and Jack S. Levy, “Conscious Action and Intelligence Failure.”Political Science Quarterly, 124, 3 (Fall 2009): 461-88. pp. 461-76 only.
Richard A. Falkenrath, “The 9/11 Commission Report.”International Security,29, 3 (winter 2004/05): 179-90.
Amy B. Zegart, “September 11 and the Adaptation Failure of U.S. IntelligenceAgencies.”International Security, 29, 4 (Spring 2005): 78-111.
The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Norton 2004) [skim]
Nov 19, 21 Iraq and Afghanistan Wars
Readings:
Michael J. Mazarr, “The Iraq War and Agenda Setting.”Foreign Policy Analysis 3:1 (January 2007):1-23.
Abdulkader H. Sinno, Organizations at War in Afghanistan and Beyond. (Ithaca:Cornell University Press, 2008), ch.1 and 9. (ebook)
Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, "Quagmires in the Periphery: Foreign Wars and EscalatingCommitment in International Conflict." Security Studies, 7:3 (Spring 1998),94-144.
Robert Jervis, "Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failure: The Case of Iraq," TheJournal of Strategic Studies 29 (February 2006), 3-52.
Nov 26 Arms Control, Nonproliferation and Counter-proliferation
Readings:
Obama’s Prague Speech, 2011.
Peter Crail, Daniel Horner, and Daryl G. Kimball, 2011, “Pursuing the Prague Agenda: An Interview With White House Coordinator Gary Samore.” Arms Control Today.
Nina Rathbun, forthcoming. “Glass Half Full? Evaluating the Impact of New U.S. policy on the Legitimacy of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime” in Jeffrey Fields (ed),The Sum of its Parts: The Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime, States and Competing Interests, (University of Georgia Press).
Scott D. Sagan & Jane Vaynman (2011). “Introduction: Special Issue Reviewing the Nuclear Posture Review,” The Nonproliferation Review, 18:1, 17-37
Tom Z. Collina, 2012, “Pentagon to Revise Nuclear Guidance,” Arms Control Today.
Dec 3 and 5 Conclusions and Policy Simulation Analysis
(Re)Read all submitted parts of the Policy Simulation.