Sociology 2:Class 20: Globalization &

Conflict 3

Copyright © 2008 by Evan Schofer

Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements

• No office hours today• Appointments available…

• Final exam: Tuesday June 10• Midterm review sheet handed out last week

– Also on course website

• Format similar to midterm• Topics: All course material… with main emphasis on

material covered after the midterm

• Today’s Class: Globalization & Conflict• Bush foreign policy; Iraq, Afghanistan

Review: Anti-Western Movements

• “Modern” anti-Western movements are just like other social movements. They rely on:

– Ex: Al Qaeda

• Resource mobilization: resources, organizational capacity

• Political opportunity structure: allies, lapses in repression

• Framing: Use of symbols, imagery (often religious).

Review: Weak States & Conflict

• Hironaka: Weak states & external resources are the primary drivers of civil war

• Not “ethnic” or Islamic” identity

– Example: Weakness in Afghanistan allows a continuing insurgency

• ALSO: weakness in Pakistan, which creates a safe haven

– Ex: Iraq: Unstable gov’t creates opportunities• Money & weapons coming from: Iran, Saudi Arabia,

former soviet republics, Syria, etc. etc., etc….

Weak States & Conflict• In the news: NY Times June 2, 2008• Taliban Leader Flaunts Power Inside Pakistan• PESHAWAR, Pakistan — With great fanfare, the Pakistani Army flew journalists to a rugged

corner of the nation’s lawless tribal areas in May to show how decisively it had destroyed the lairs of the Taliban, including a school for suicide bombers, in fighting early this year.

• Then, just days later, the usually reclusive leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Baitullah Mehsud, held a news conference of his own, in the same region, to show just who was in charge. He rolled up in an expensive-looking Toyota pickup packed with heavily armed Taliban fighters [and] announced he would press his fight against the American military across the border in Afghanistan.

• Mr. Mehsud’s jaunty appearance in his home base, South Waziristan, a particularly unruly region of Pakistan’s tribal areas, underscored the wide latitude Pakistan’s government has granted the militants under a new series of peace deals, and its impact in Afghanistan, where NATO and American commanders say cross-border attacks have surged since talks for those peace deals began in March.

• The impunity of Mr. Mehsud’s behavior has outraged the Bush administration, which is pressing the Pakistani government to arrest and prosecute him.

• “Bringing Baitullah Mehsud, the head of this extremist group in South Waziristan — capturing him and bringing him to justice, which is what should happen to him,” is what the United States wants from Pakistan, Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte said last month in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

• But the Pakistani government, which at times has considered Mr. Mehsud an ally and is now fearful of his power, appears reluctant to hunt him down. Days before his news conference, Pakistani forces pulled back from his realm in South Waziristan as part of the peace deals.

Weak States & Conflict

• Video: Return of the Taliban• http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/taliban/• Chapters 1-3, 6-7

– Chapters 4-5 if time allows…

Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy

• Daalder, Ivo H. and James M. Lindsay. “The Bush Revolution.”

• What was foreign policy like before Bush?– Historically, the US was “isolationist”

• Rarely got involved in international affairs

– But, US emerged as dominant global power after World War II

• President Truman established new ideas about how the US should wield power in the world: the “Truman Doctrine”

US Foreign Policy• The Truman Doctrine

• “The hallmark of Truman’s foreign policy revolution was its blend of power and cooperation.”

• “He… calculated that US power could be more easily sustained, with less chance of engendering resentment, if it were embedded in multilateral institutions.” p. 159

– Truman worked with other countries to create multi-lateral institutions (IGOs)

• World Bank, IMF, GATT, etc., to manage the global economy

• The United Nations to address global political issues• NATO (“North Atlantic Treaty Organization”) to deal with

issues of international security– To balance against the power of the Soviet Union

US Foreign Policy

• Truman Doctrine (cont’d)• “Washington actively cultivated friends and allies….

International organizations, and especially military alliances, were a key instrument in foreign policy.

• NATO, but also arms control treaties, etc…

– Key policies of the Truman doctrine:• Deterrence: developing military capabilities that deter

(discourage) others from attacking you• Containment: Keeping your enemies from expanding

their territory & influence.

Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy

• Truman Doctrine (cont’d):– Example: The cold war: US vs. Soviet Union

• Don’t attack it directly (risk World War III)• Instead, build strong multi-national alliances to oppose

the Soviet Union (NATO)• Limit expansion… and all other communist insurgencies

– Ex: Korean War, Vietnam War

• Containment will weaken & marginalize the Soviet Union… eventually lead to collapse

– Ex: First gulf war: Contain Saddam Hussein• Work with other nations to limit his aggression

– Push him out of Kuwait...– NOTE: First gulf war really did involve many nations…

The Bush Revolution

• Issue: Bush foreign policy represents a big break from the past:

• “Not a revolution in America’s goals abroad, but how to achieve them”:

• “He relied on the unilateral exercise of American power rather than on international law and institutions to get his way.”

• “He championed a proactive doctrine of pre-emption and de-emphasized reactive strategies of deterrence and containment.” p. 153

The Bush Revolution

• The logic of Bush (#2) foreign policy: The US is the only super-power… therefore:– 1. US can best achieve security by “shedding

constraints of friends, allies, and international institutions.”

• In a dangerous world, the US shouldn’t ‘dither about’, negotiating with Europeans… better to act alone.

– 2. America should “use its strength to change the status quo in the world”

• Don’t wait to be attacked (like Pearl Harbor, or 9/11)• Instead: seek out dangers, preemptively destroy them• Result: Regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan…

Bush & Realism

• Issue: Bush foreign policy tends to reflect ideas of “realism”

• Key advisors studied the theory: e.g, Condeleeza Rice

– Realism: • States are the main actors on the world stage

– International organizations = unimportant

• Military force (or threat of force) is the main currency…

– Consequence: a state-centric approach• Main approach to terrorism is “regime change” in Iraq &

Afghanistan

– Issue: If Al Qaeda is a loose social movement, is this likely to be effective?

Complex Interdependence, Soft Power

• Other theories (CI, WPT) stress the importance of IGOs, norms, & “soft power”

• Realism believes that countries only respond to military threats… But…

– CI suggests that multilateral approaches can be extremely effective

– Not glamorous (like the TV show “24”)… but it works

• Ex: Cold war: US vs. Soviet Union• Ex: Milosevic in Serbia (Clinton)

– US & rest of world lined up against him… and he backed down after a very small air campaign.

Effectiveness of War

• Issue: Is war an effective means of wielding global power?

• Compared to multilateral negotiation…• Governments obviously think so… or else they wouldn’t

start so many wars. • But, what does the evidence say?

• 1. In fact, states that initiate wars are not especially likely to win…

• Historically, it is more like 50/50• States are routinely overconfident about military power.

Effectiveness of War

• 2. War tends to weaken/destabilize states• And, weak states lead to civil wars (Hironaka)• Example: Iraq• Result: dangerous instability

• 3. War is incredibly, massively, unbelievably, stupendously, ridiculously expensive

• Ex: Iraq war = 3 Trillion (Stiglitz)

– Many countries & empires have bankrupted or destroyed themselves by starting wars…

• Rome, Spain, Germany, Japan, Britain, Soviet Union…• It is easier to think of failures than successes.

Costs of War

• Security threats are just that… threatening• Fear can lead to unwise decisions about risk• We MUST consider costs of war… and balance that

against other uses of that money– Providing health care that will certainly save lives– Investing in education, infrastructure– Etc.

• Not to mention tragic human cost…– Innocent people WILL die when you start a war

• Costs of the Iraq war:• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgq5suMXCV8

Saddam, Al Qaeda & the War on Terror

• Argument: We need the Bush doctrine because our new enemies are crazy…

• They are evil, they hate Americans• Can’t be reasoned with, only killed

– Example: Hitler – must be opposed

– This argument comes up in every conflict• Ex: Soviet Union… • In fact, historical evidence suggests that most enemies

(particularly states) can be reasoned with…• Truly crazy ones are rarely powerful… can easily be

defeated.

Al Qaeda & the War on Terror• Telvick, Marlena. 2007. “Al Qaeda Today:

The New Face of Global Jihad.”• Describes research of Marc Sageman…

– Issue: The form of Al Qaeda has changed…• In 2001: “Al Qaeda was a hierarchical network with

clear lines of authority leading to Osama bin Laden, who in turn provided funding and/or command and control over autonomous groups”

• “But all of that changed when Al Qaeda's control "more or less evaporated" … after the loss of its sanctuary in Afghanistan.”

• “As a result, the international jihadi movement reverted to what it was before Al Qaeda and bin Laden came to the forefront -- a collection of local people with local grievances who share the same ideology”

Al Qaeda & the War on Terror

• Al Qaeda is destroyed in 2001… but a social movement has emerged:

• "Al Qaeda is operationally dead. There is no Al Qaeda anymore. The social movement is alive and well, but the guys who did Madrid, Casablanca and Istanbul were not Al Qaeda. They were people who were doing operations on behalf of Al Qaeda, but they were not Al Qaeda. The old Al Qaeda is hiding away in caves someplace.“

Al Qaeda & the War on Terror

• Issue for reflection: How would strategies for dealing with Al Qaeda differ if we think of it as a modern social movement?

• Rather than a “traditional” reactionary movement…

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy

• Problems with Bush foreign policy

• 1. Substantial evidence supports new theories like CI and WPT

• Emphasizing the importance of international organizations, rather than military force

– By relying on unilateral force, Bush has pursued a very costly approach…

• And, all costs are being borne by the US.

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy

• Problems with Bush foreign policy

• 2. “Regime change” is harder than it looks• It always involves weakening an existing state• Civil war, subsequent revolution is common

– It often works in the short term: It isn’t hard to change a regime…

• Iraq: gulf war 2• Iran in 1950s: CIA overthrow of democratically elected

leader Mossagedeh; replaced by US puppet

– But, “Friendly regimes” are unstable, war-torn– Result: When dust settles, enemies may come to power– EX: Anti-us groups in Iran; Iranian-backed groups in Iraq.

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy

• 3. The main terrorist threats come from social movements

• Concrete terrorist organizations aren’t that hard to disrupt (“old” Al Qaeda)

• But, we DO need help from countries around the world to combat the broader Al Qaeda social movement

– Multilateralism is helpful…

– The social movement concept of framing is useful• Don’t play into the role of “imperialist bully”• Evidence suggests that large civilian casualties

generate “terrorists”…

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy

• 3. More generally: The main threat to the US (the sole superpower) isn’t any particular terrorist group or country… It is:– “Empire trap”: tendency of dominant powers to:

• 1. Overextend, leading to collapse; and/or• 2. Create many new enemies who “gang up on you”…

– Plus, other non-military threats like global warming…

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy

• What should the US do?• NOTE: Evan’s opinions; not on the final exam…

• 1. Recognize the power of international norms and multilateral institutions– A. Work through multilateral institutions

• Use them as instruments of foreign policy• Spread out the costs of security… get everyone on

board, even if it takes a while

– B. Don’t be uni-lateral; don’t violate norms• This undermines multi-lateral institutions, weakening an

important tool…

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy

• What should the US do?

• 2. Use war as an ABSOLUTELY LAST resort• War is vastly more costly than just about every other

possible strategy• Not to mention moral/human costs…

– Potential for weak states, destabilization, civil war

• 3. Work through strong multilateral forces, not individual weak intermediaries

• Alliances are unstable; today’s friend may be an enemy– Ee\x: Iraq was armed by US to fight Iran in 1980s– Ex: Al Qaeda was armed by US to fight Soviet Union

• Fuels civil war.

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy

• What should the US do?

• 4. Focus on domestic issues• Put money into education, infrastructure, etc…

– Rather than a global military machine

• Obviously, militaries are needed… but the US outspends.

Global Military Spending (2006)

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy

• What should the US do?

• 5. In short: don’t act like a lone superpower• Keep a low profile; stay under the radar• Don’t make enemies, don’t overextend…• Instead: just try to be prosperous.