Sociology 2:Class 20: Globalization &

Conflict 4

Copyright © 2010 by Evan Schofer

Do not copy or distribute without permission

Announcements

• Final exam coming up…• Format similar to midterm• Topics: All course material… with main emphasis on

material covered in weeks 5-10• Final Exam Time:  Friday, March 19, 10:30-12:30pm

• Final exam review sheet• Handed out last week• Available on the web

• Course evaluations available online…

• Today’s Class: Culture & Conflict• Foreign policy and Afghanistan

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… fight 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

• Several theories predict the importance of IGOs, norms, & “soft power”

• Examples: World Polity Theory (WPT), complex interdependence (CI), and constructivism

– Winning people over to your side and taking the moral “high ground” can be very effective

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

• 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

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• Analogy: Hitler – must be opposed

– Negotiating emboldens enemies

– 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.

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” following war 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…

Obama Foreign Policy

• What is Obama doing differently?• Beinart, Peter.  2009.  “Obama Shrinks the War on

Terrorism.”  Time Magazine, December 7, 2009

– Reduce scope and ambition of American efforts• Pragmatism: don’t pursue grandiose dreams of

reshaping he world– Don’t try to defeat all enemies and pave way for global peace

and democracy

• Instead, try to prioritize threats– Afghanistan not Iraq

– So, why ramp up in Afghanistan?• Debated issue; Beinart argues it is to gain leverage for

future negotiations.

Obama and Afghanistan

• What is Obama doing differently?• Afghanistan: Shift toward counterinsurgency and nation

building efforts

• Video: Obama’s War• US has shifted toward counterinsurgency and nation

building efforts in Afghanistan• Chapter 1 (5:47 to end), 3, 4 (up to 6:00), 5 (1:35-end)

• Discussion: Is Obama’s strategy likely to work?

Reflections: 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: 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– Ex: Iraq was armed by US to fight Iran in 1980s– Ex: Taliban was armed with US money via Pakistan to fight

Soviet Union

• Fuels civil war.

Reflections: Foreign Policy

• What should the US do?

• 4. Don’t forget about other international issues• Stabilizing regions (e.g., Afghanistan/Pakistan) is a

laudable goal, but VERY expensive• The US could do a LOT of good more cheaply

– Reducing trade barriers to poor countries– Foreign aid or debt forgiveness, etc.

• Plus issues like global warming, etc…

• 5. Don’t forget about domestic issues• Obviously, militaries are needed… but the US spends a

HUGE amount on its military.

Global Military Spending (2006)

Reflections: Foreign Policy

• What should the US do?

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