ThemesReactions to 9/11Approaches to War on TerrorismRecommendations for Approaching War on

TerrorismLessons Learned from 9/11Effects and Contexts of Globalization with

Regard to National SecurityAccounting for US Reaction to 9/11 and

Approaches to War on TerrorismDifferent types of scholars

Stephen Walt, Beyond Bin LadenWalt a realist providing proscriptions for what Bush

administration should do to combat terrorism. Written in immediate aftermath of 9/11.

Basically a plan based on an understanding of the realities of a globalized world, with the restraints on the US and the problems such a world generates.

Understands the world in terms of states, and in terms of order and threats to order. Starts with an understanding of the international contexts, then moves to considerations of US policy.

Walt: Lessons of 9/11Maintaining US predominant position in the world is

expensiveThe US is not universally liked.The most important threats to order and security are from

failed states. As such, failed states are not just a humanitarian problem.

The US must have allies in order to operate effectively in the world.

Observations:As “lessons,” these are new realizations; their opposites

wre assumed previously.But why? Were these not obvious before 9/11? Previous

experiences with terrorists, Somalia and other failed states, criticisms of US in Middle East, Muslim world, elsewhere.

Goals:Manage War on Terrorism Coalition, which

includes conferring with allies, partnerships with less than desirable regimes, compromise on various treaties, dialogue with PRC and closer relationship with Russia

Action: Move into Iraq, coalition of the willing, rejection of Global Warming and ICC treaties

Get Control of WMD’s, including dealing with loose nukes in Russia and elsewhere, arms control treaties.

Action: Iraq as source of WMDs

Goals:Rebuild ties with Arab and Muslim World:

pressure on Israel to settle Palestinian problem

Action: Dealing with Iraq as spreading democracy, Roadmap for Palestinian state

Reconstruct AfghanistanAction: Weak still, still US presence 10 years

after invasion

Problems:Difficult to rebuild AfghanistanDifficulty of resolving Palestinian questionMore active the US is, the more likely it is to

stir further resentment.

Are these the reasons why the Administration did not pursue the goals Walt provides or were unable to achieve those goals?

Leffler: Bush Doctrine After 9/11Leffler is an historian of American history

General argument is that Bush Doctrine:Has in its component parts deeper roots in

past policies than critics allege, and is also more nuanced and potentially more effective than critics charge

But, nevertheless, as a whole it is a radical departure from the past, and as such is not a bold or particularly effective policy.

Articulation vs. Reality of Bush StrategyArticulation:Emphasis on values (freedom and democracy) not

interestsEmphasis on alliances (but not necessarily

multilateralsim)Emphasis on addressing global injustice as a normative

goal through the mechanism of market capitalismReality:An attempt to meld an emphasis on values with a

realpolitik focus on interestsQuestion: why? A sign of the inevitability of realpolitik?

A sign that realpolitik must be cloaked with a rhetoric of values and justice?

Components of Bush DoctrinePre-emptive action as both acceptable and

necessary based on threat of terrorismAttempt to deter threats by maintaining a

preponderance of powerUse power to promote democracy and

freedom as well as deter threats and keep peace

Articulated as “a balance of power that favors peace” (and thus as a mixture of realist with Wilsonian conceptions)

Historical Roots of Bush StrategyCold War policy really not of containment, but of

gaining and maintaining a predominance of power that would lead to the transformation of the Soviet Union.

Cold War and other instances of unilateral actionsLong history of pre-emptive actions to eliminate

threats, particularly in Latin America, and articulation of doctrine of preemption in Clinton administration.

Emphasis on democratic peace that goes back to the 1980s.

Question: accurate understanding?

Critique of Bush DoctrineWilsonian and subsequent pursuit of democracy and

freedom linked to a community of power that emphasized self-determination and international institutions, as well as international law, not unilateral predominance and hegemony.

Balance of power implies equilibrium rather than hegemony and predominance, and assumes US balancing, not being balanced against

Balance of power also assumes states, not the transformation of states or engagement with failed states.

Threatens existing community of power without putting anything positive in its place.

Thus it does depart from historical policies as a whole and is not coherent.

Pateman: Globalization and American ExceptionalismPateman a New Zealand scholarArgument: 9/11 showed that the US, due to globalization, not

exception in its security; as with everyone else, it is vulnerable to terrorism. But Bush responded with an articulation of American exceptionalism that emphasized unilateral rather than multilateral approaches to the problem. In doing so, he followed a developing trend in US foreign policy that emphasized unilateral exceptionalism and was unable to fully digest the implications of globalization.

Thus:American policies incorporate an understanding of

exceptionalismThe question is whether that understanding will lean

toward unilateral or multilateral approaches.Affected by development of policies and incomplete

American globalization

Roots of ExceptionalismAmerican creed that asserts that as nation

embracing liberal values, the US has a unique role to play in the world

Geography and wealthContinuing influence from early history

forward of moral and particularly Christian principles.

Effects of American ExceptionalismUS understood as not just unique, but exemplary–

an example and role model for everyone else.US has a duty to spread American valuesNationalism expressed as national pride and

belief that US best nation in the world.Provides a lens for understanding foreign policy,

in that roughly before WWII, exceptionalism grounded an isolationist reluctance to become involved in the world, and after WWII grounded a policy of involvement in ordering and transforming the world.

GlobalizationThe contemporary understanding of

exceptionalism is being deployed in world that is undergoing globalization and has seen the end of the Cold War:

Globalization may have had as much to do with the end of the Cold War as US actions

No more superpower conflictUnipolar worldGreat links among countries and citizens;

porous bounaries, shrinking distances

Early Responses to End of Cold War and GlobalizationBush I administration: between a skeptical view of

globalization (it changes nothing important) and a transformational view (states still important, but they must operate differently than before).

Strategy was to further globalization in the understanding it meant Americanization and the spread of American values. Operated on the basis of a generally inclusive and multilateral approach to spreading freedom, democracy, human rights, market capitalism and international cooperation.

Iraq war generally multilateral, approved UN intervention in Somalia to restore order and for humanitarian purposes.

Problems of Globalized World that were revealed by Somalia:Weak/failed states the main sources of

instability and threatsLack of legitimate governance is what causes

civil conflictNew wars are driven by tribal, ethnic identitiesMedia have the ability to internationalize

conflictsNational boundaries are porous with regard to

security threatsResponses by the international community are

largely determined by the US position

US Reaction to Somalia incidentsCriticism that such interventions, because they

are not linked to vital US interests, should stopClinton administration changed strategy

More unilateral approachBlocked UN interventions in Bosnia and RwandaWhen it did intervene, it did so through NATO

and by using air powerMoves in multilateral direction blocked by

Republicans in Congress

Project for New American CenturyGroup of neo-conservatives who were influential in

Bush II campaign and administration whose writings reinforced unilateral understanding of exceptionalism:

Prevent rise of any rival superpowerUse force preemptively against potential threatsConfront rather than contain rogue states such as

IraqUse power and ideas to spread American values

in post Cold War world just as US did in winning the Cold War

Reactions to 9/11US vulnerable despite military power and

status as superpowerNot everybody admires US values or thinks

US hegemony benignGeorge BushResponded with characteristic exclusivist,

moralist, Christian understanding of exceptionalism:

World divided between good and evilMultilaterial action only on US terms

Afghanistan and Iraq: DifferencesAfghan War: multilateral approach that led to

military success– non-exclusivist understanding of exceptionalism

Iraq: unilateral approach and exclusivist exceptionalism that demonstrates the ascendancy of the neo-conservatives and the problems of that approach. Also demonstrated general trend of Bush policy:

React aggressively to failed statesExceptionalism conceptualized in terms of valuesSeek international support on own terms and

reserve right to act unilaterally and preemptively

Why this policy and why does public accept it?Policy:Bush’s religious viewsAdministration’s desire for moral and intellectual

clarity and decisiveness over debate and weighing of costs and benefits

Belief that US policymakers create reality rather than react to it

Public acceptance:Identity as ChristiansUnevenness of US globalization: US citizens still

isolated an do not experience globalization as others do

Problems with policyInability of administration to clearly define

enemiesWillingness to cooperate with any state

against terrorists– neglect of civil rights, return of Cold War cooperation with authoritarian regimes.

Emphasis on military meansNeglect of rule of law and liberal values in

fighting terrorism

Desch: Illiberal LiberalismGenerally conservative American political scientistArgument: Both the origins and problems of post 9/11

approach not influence of 9/11 nor the displacement of liberal values by religion or security concerns, but the influence of liberalism itself. Left unchecked, the internal workings of liberalism turns into an illiberal hostility to pluralism and civil rights.

Follows in footsteps of Hartz and others that there is a “tyrannical compulsion” in liberalism, that it responds “hysterically” to alien motives and that liberal analysis tends to see the world in either/or terms.

Lockean and Kantian LiberalismLockean liberalism assumes rationality, easy political and

economic development, favors democracy over order and condemns revolutions. Makes liberal policy at times utopian, counter-revolutionary and arrogant.

Kantian liberalism privileges the notion of democratic peace (that democratic

nations will not go to war unless forced because citizens will restrain officials).

Privileges international organizationArgues for political uniformity (republican democracy)

rather than pluralism for purposes of peaceThus holds that states have a moral duty to enter a world

order and that states in such an order may make the amoral decision for coerce other states to change their regime to accord with the liberal democratic ideal, just as individuals have the right to create a state and force others to obey it.

Effects of Kantian Understanding of Democratic PeaceA liberal foreign policy could morally force states

to accept a liberal democratic government even if its citizens did not want it. The imperative of democratic peace trumps self-determination

While will probably remain at peace with other democracies, will be likely to engage in conflicts with weaker non-democracies

Can combine with non-liberal analyses to produce understandings of benign hegemony and altruistic imperialism

Can lead to aggressive efforts at democracy promotion

Leads to activist and expansionist policies.

Illiberal Responses to TerrorismNeo conservatives are generally liberals, differing

from Wilsonians only in their preference for unilateralism. So neo-conservative agenda really a liberal agenda

Overstate the threat posed by terrorismPrefer eliminating to containing threatsAggressive democracy promotionUse force in humanitarian interventionsDomestically:

Curtail civil liberties based on hostility to what is not liberal

Hysteria in the face of what is not understood. Opponents who condemn liberalism must be crazy or evil because liberal precepts are rational and self-evident.

SolutionIf the problem is liberalism, making policy

more liberal will not eliminate the illiberal elements.

Must have none-liberal understanding to check liberalism.

Best solution is to have liberal view for domestic affairs, but realism for foreign policy.

ComparisonsLessons of globalization: learned in 2001 or

earlier?US rejects globalization or is not globalized?What are the roots of the Bush approach? In

past policies, in American culture or in ideology?

Are the problems with American policy due to its adherence to the past or is break with the past? With its incoherence or in its liberal coherence? In its realism or lack of realism?