Midterm 1 Flashcards
deterrance
dissuading someone from an action by frightening that person with the consequences of the action
self-defense
military action taken in response to an attack
preemptive war
war used against imminent threat (you have strong bases that they are about to attack you)
preventative war
threat is less than imminent but have strong basis that it will become much greater with time
alliances
union formed for mutual benefit or interests
military assistance
weapons, advisers, financing, and other aids to an organization (pro-american government or rebel group)
coercive diplomacy
threats (ex: official protest, issuing public condemnation, withdrawal of ambassador, suspending diplomatic relations, imposing economic sanctions)
covert action
secret operations of intelligence agencies to defend interest in areas where military not suitable and diplomacy won’t work
coercive
relating to or using force or threats.
(ultimate example is war)
diplomacy
formalized system for states to conduct official relations
Democratic Idealism
Neocolonialism
pressure to control influence other country
Imperialism
extending a country’s power through force
Jentleson Argument
4Ps are framework that help analyze priorirites for FP
Basic goal of FP
self-preservation and defend democracy
Jentleson - Power
(R) Ability to get others to do what you want, defined by military (coercive) or economic (conditionality)
Jentleson - Peace
(L) all aiming for this, sees world as system of cooperation to achieve common interest of reducing war risk (interest conflict with this, so organizations are best fit to make action)
Jentleson - Prosperity
give high priority to economic interests either economist (collective prosperity) or private benefit of elite (imperialism/neo-colonialism/exploitation)
Jentleson - Principles
(C) give priority values, ideals, and beliefs US stands for, rooted in Democratic Idealism (“right” makes “might” in long run, others will follow, DPT/soft theory)
Examples of 4P Complementary
1947 Marshall Plan. FA program to reconstruct in EU. Used power to preserve economic interest, install democratic principles, and keep peace.
Examples of 4Ps Conflicting
Tianmen massacre meant they got limited sanctions because economic interests and power > principles of social support
Examples of 4Ps Failure
Iraq in 2003, power failed to eliminate threat, principles backfired peace, market not stabilized for prosperity, peace not established
Nye Argument
(C) Soft Power is power, does not need material resources; important in domestic politics and sets agenda to attract others in world politics without coercion
Counterargument to Nye
power does not mean resources because it doesn’t always get you what you want (ex: Vietnam or 9/11)
Detracts to Nye Argument
Soft power difficult to observe, most effective in similar cultures and democracies, achieves general goals than specific ones
Krauthammer Argument
(R) Prediction that US would be unipolar and increase war risk from WMD from rogue states correct
Krauthammer Example
Detracts to Nye Argument
Soft power is difficult to observe, most effective in similar cultures and democracies, and achieves generic goals than specific ones
Posen Argument
Abandon current strategy for restraint to: protect specific security interests, small army fight only necessary wars, incentivize others to build own security
Posen Reasoning
US spends too much money on unecessary militarization bc geostrategic , causes SOFTBALANCING (CH and RUS vs UN); US involved in preserving values where not wanted (hostility towards US aka Iraq), and Free-Riding & Moral Hazard at our expense
Posen New Strategy
Other states will maintain balance of power (asia keep track of china), fight terrorists without nation building (more intelligence efforts, less intervention), and limit nuclear proliferation by sharing safety rules and threats
Brooks Argument
(L) engagement with alliances is disproportionately beneficial to us, should keep it as it prevents war outbreaks and insecurity, keeps economy going, makes cooperation easier
Brooks Counterargument
Little evidence that we would save money, counterbalance is diplomacy and we use too (ex: coordinated with Asian countries to oppose Beijing claims in SCHSea), manages relationships and keeps regional insecurity from nuclear proliferation
Lynn-Jones Argument
(L) Pro-democratization as it benefits citizens, promotes peace (DPT), serves US interests (reduce threats, refugees, and better economic partners)
Lynn-Jones Counterargument
DPT is real, democratic process keeps peaceful resolution, democracy resolves internal conflict and prevents backsliding,
Brands Argument
(L) democratic absolutism is not the answer, wisdom in restraint and engagement.
Brands Examples
For Activism, Reagan assert US power to SK, Philipp, CHile, LA to establish stronger democratic regimes, Against Activism, BUSH’s freedom agenda in Iraq invasion, For Restraint, US intervention aiding rebels in Libya and hestiant engagement to not overreach. Against Restraint, Jimmy Carter in Iran and Nicaragua was destabilizing.
Waltz Argument
Spread of nuclear proliferation is good for stability because MAD, hard to deter Soviet Union from proliferation, Peace under three conditions
Walts Argument Conditions
1) No preventative war (one is building nuclear while other already has) 2) survive a retaliatory attack aka secure 2nd strike forces, 3) No accidental use (instability, rogue leaders)
Waltz Evidence
Civilians see nuclear war more negatively, ex: Truman military wanted to bomb Korea but preventative war not democratic, BUT Pakistan initiated preventive war with Indida; organizational impediments is China nuclear army development
Sagan Counter argument
Waltz conditions are not realistic, states have conflicting interests within themselves, military is nuclear trigger happy while civilian opinion is under control
Sagan Argument
Nuclear proliferation potimists are confused on what rational states would do, non-proliferation is the answer, add
Edelman argument
pessimism about diplomatic efforts and sanctions to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, more robust military would
Actors in FP Decisions
President, Congress, Appointments, Ambassadors, National Security Council, Public, Interest Groups, Media
Tannenwald Argument
deterrence as theory isn’t enough to explain why war hasn’t happened yet, there’s global normative prohibition on using weapons first (taboo)
Tannewald Argument Conditions
Taboo is necessary to explain non-use, it regulates existing activities even if no official rules exist, it categorizes nuclear into unacceptable weapon, permissive side effect is conventional weapons don’t receive same ciriticsm
