University of Kansas Dr.
Philip A. Schrodt
Spring 2006, 1:00-1:50 MWF Blake 114 Blake
Hall 523, 864-9024
Office hours: M 2:30-4:30, W 9:30-11:00 email:
schrodt@ku.edu
Political Science 572
U.S. National Security Policy
Course Description
The goal of this course is to assist students in acquiring knowledge about the theories, contemporary issues and bureaucratic structures involved with U.S. national security policy. The course operates on two levels: the theoretical and the applied. At the theoretical level, we will study in detail the theories and strategies guiding the formulation of national security policy. At the applied level, we will consider what these plans and concepts look like when they are actually implemented in an uncertain world fraught with domestic and international political interests. In view of the [likely] release of the Quadrennial Defense Review, this semester the course will place special emphasis on the future course of the U.S. military in light of the past four years of experience in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the “global war on terrorism.”
The prerequisites for this course are six hours of political science, including POLS 170 (Introduction to International Relations). This course fulfills the "International Law and Relations" subfield of the distribution requirements for the political science major.
Readings
The following paperbacks are available at the Oread Bookstore in the Union and other local bookstores:
John Baylis, James Wirtz, Eliot Cohen and Colin S. Gray. 2002. Strategy in the Contemporary World. (Oxford University Press)
Thomas P.M. Barnett. 2004. The Pentagon’s New Map (Putnam)
Paul J. Bolt, Damon V. Coletta and Collins G. Shackelford, Jr. (eds.) 2005. American Defense Policy (8th edition) (Johns Hopkins University Press)
In addition, there are a few readings from the World Wide Web. Most of this supplementary material is listed on the syllabus, but there may be some additional material, particularly on Iraq and the QDR—we are dealing with issues that are very current. Web material and any handouts are part of the assigned readings and will be covered on the exams.
Keep up with the assigned readings. The lectures will build on, rather than repeat, the material covered in the textbooks, so it will be to your advantage to least skim the readings ahead of time. Note that many of the readings for this class—particularly Bolt, Coletta and Shackelford—are quite dense: this is not your typical dumbed-down, cartoons-and-white-space textbook (Barnett, on the other hand, is obnoxiously chatty, although still without cartoons). A very wide variety of perspectives are presented, and you will need to integrate these. In the words of former KU professor Cliff Ketzel, this is the departure lounge, not the baggage claim.
Any overhead projector slides used during the lectures (as well as the syllabus, paper assignments and other material) will be available at the web site:
http://people.ku.edu/~schrodt/pols572/
Your grade will be based on the following:
(1) Midterm (Monday 13 March) 25%
(2) Defense policy futures paper (due Friday, 5 May) 35%
(3) Final exam (10:30 - 12:30 Monday 15 May) 30%
(4) Attendance, quizzes and other exercises 10%
Details on the paper will be handed out in class. Exams are in-class and involve a combination of short-answer and essay questions. Any student in this course who has a disability that may prevent him/her from fully demonstrating his/her abilities should contact me personally as soon as possible so that we can discuss accommodations necessary to ensure full participation.
This class will combine lectures with opportunities for discussion of various policy issues and trends in national security policy. Informed discussion based on the readings and thoughtful consideration of the issues is encouraged: There are no right or wrong answers on these topics (nor do I claim to know the future), but there are informed and uninformed answers.
Attendance will be taken randomly and when there appears to be a problem. There will be several quizzes involving basic facts concerning military policy. If you end up near the borderline on grades and your involvement in discussion has convinced me that you know more than was reflected in your written work, I will adjust the grade accordingly. Informed discussion cannot hurt your grade.
The World Wide Web, while a fabulous resource that I enthusiastically endorse and encourage you to use, appears to have substantially increased the occurrence of plagiarism in student papers. Or, more pessimistically, it has just increased our ability to detect plagiarism. Whatever the case, I will be using a near-zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism in this class, and all papers will go through the TurnItIn.com web site—you will need to learn how to do this (it is straightforward). If the paper turns out to contain plagiarized material, you will have the option of either taking an “F” on the paper, or writing a new paper on an entirely different topic assigned by me (the new paper will be due on the day of the final; it will be graded zero—not “F”—if it also contains plagiarized material—yes, this has happened...). Per standard KU requirements, all instances of plagiarism will be reported to the College of Arts and Sciences office.
The official word on this from KU: “The issue of digital plagiarism has raised concerns about ethics, student writing experiences, and academic integrity. KU subscribes to a digital plagiarism detection program called Turnitin.com which may be used to check papers submitted in this course. You may [will] be asked to submit your papers in a digital format (email attachment, BlackBoard digital drop box or on disk) so that your paper can be checked against web pages and databases of existing papers. Although you may never have engaged in intentional plagiarism, many students do incorporate sources without citations; this program can alert me to your academic needs.”
Schedule of Class Topics
Notes: BCS = Bolt, Coletta and Shackelford
BWCG = Baylis, Wirtz, Cohen and Gray
Barnett
= Barnett
While every effort has been made in
insure the accuracy of this syllabus, mistakes have a way of sneaking in,
particularly on dates and accidentally repeated material. If something appears to make little or
no sense, please call this to my attention as soon as possible.
Some of “weeks” do not correspond to calendar weeks, though for this semester
most of them do.
The United States has a curious military experience in many respects. The country was formed almost entirely through military conquest but was insulated from European and Asian conflict for most of its history; defense spending is a very large component of the national budget and the military comprises a vast and politically sophisticated bureaucracy, yet the military is entirely dependent on civilian political institutions and has never attempted a coup. We will start by reviewing these themes from a theoretical and historical perspective, and with this background, consider contrasting views on the current U.S. policy in Iraq.
30 Jan: Quiz on military ranks
6 Feb: Quiz on military units
From 1950 to 1990, most U.S. military planning and deployment was directed against a superpower rival, the Soviet Union. This situation changed radically with the demise of the Soviet Union and its military alliances, but due to institutional inertia the impact on policy has been uneven. In addition, warfare may—or may not—have undergone fundamental changes during this period. Nuclear strategy and arms control dominated military policy during most of the Cold War. In the post-Cold War period, it has receded into the background, but some of the weapons, and all of the technology, are still out there. This section will consider these and other issues of strategy at the dawn of the 21st century.
Monday,
13 March: Midterm Exam
The United States defense establishment is probably the largest bureaucratic organization in the world. The relationship between the military and the civilian components of the government is complex—and historically controversial—and has gone through a number of changes throughout United States history. We will consider both the institutional aspects of defense—relations between the military and civilian components of government, and planning within the Department of Defense itself.
This section will look at three contemporary issues that vary widely in terms of their demands on the military. Prior to 9/11, peacekeeping was the dominant logistical challenge to the military: they were ambivalent about the task, despite generally doing it very well, and the issue has reemerged in the guise of “stabilization operations” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. system for collecting and analyzing strategic intelligence was widely criticized following 9/11, and it is still unclear what, if any, effect the post-9/11 reforms have had. Finally, terrorism has shifted from being a relatively minor issue for the military to being a major policy issue, but offers very different challenges than are found in conventional warfare.
9/11 and the subsequent U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq temporarily interrupted an intense debate about the future challenges facing the U.S. military. While the U.S. has demonstrated complete military superiority in conventional conflict, it is not clear whether conventional conflict will be the primary task of the military in coming years. Given this ambiguity over the “who”, “where” and “how” of future conflicts, there are a variety of perspectives about how the military should be planning for the future.