U.S. Foreign Policy Comprehensive Exam - June 2007

Answer three (3) of the following questions:

1) Ole Holsti wrote the following in his article "Models of International Relations and Foreign Policy":

[T]he primary differences [in the study of international relations and foreign policy] tend to be between two broad approaches. Analysts of the first school focus on the structure of the international system, often borrowing from economics for models, analogies, insights and metaphors, with an emphasis on rational preferences and strategy and how these tend to be shaped and constrained by the structure of the international system. Decision-making analysts, meanwhile, display a concern for domestic political processes and tend to borrow from social psychology and psychology in order to better understand the limits and barriers to information processing and rational choice....[B]oth approaches are necessary and neither is sufficient.

What are the main criticisms of realism and the rational actor model within the decision-making literature? Are these criticisms valid? What is the evidentiary base for the decision-making literature as opposed to realism? Do you agree that the decision-making literature offers a necessary but not sufficient alternative to realism? Why or why not? (At minimum, you should include Allison, Janis, Janis and Mann, Jervis, Khong, McDermott, Morganthau, and Waltz.)

2) The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Act is arguably the most significant change to U.S. civil-military relations since the 1947 creation of the Department of Defense. Discuss this assertion by: (a) describing the main changes which resulted from implementation of the Goldwater-Nichols Act; and (b) assessing the significance of these changes, drawing on both theories of civil-military relations and examples from recent policy disputes.

3) Discuss some of the social science findings regarding the public's support for military interventions abroad. What determines whether the public more likely to support an intervention at the start? Does the public always rally-around-the-flag when presidents authorize the use of force? Will the public automatically withdraw support as casualties mount?

4) The Bush Administration has asserted that nuclear arms control was important during the Cold War but that it is no longer relevant for U.S. foreign policy. Describe U.S. arms control policies during the Cold War, and discuss how policymakers used arms control policies in shaping U.S. Cold War strategies. Then evaluate the argument that arms control no longer is relevant for U.S. national security policy today.

5) Reforms after the Iran-contra scandal changed the way in which the National Security Council system had operated during the first six years of the Reagan Administration. However, a question remains about whether the NSC system that emerged after Iran-contra has been essentially a return to the NSC system of the Nixon-Ford-Carter years, or whether the NSC system in the last twenty years has operated differently than it ever operated before. Provide an answer to this question.

6) JOINT RESOLUTION to authorize the use of United States armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

"Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1. Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for Use of Military Force".
Section 2. Authorization for Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) That the president is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements
(1) Specific Statutory Authorization -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of Other Requirements -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
--Passed by Congress on September 14, 2001

Though the September 14, 2001 Joint Resolution authorizing the use of force states that "Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution," it would seem that the resolution in effect vitiates the essence of the War Powers Resolution for the foreseeable future. On the other hand, it might be argued that the way in which the War Powers Resolution was enforced already had deprived it of any significance. Discuss the validity of these two assertions about the War Powers Resolution.

7)

For the first time since the dawn of the Cold War, a new grand strategy is taking shape in Washington....According to this new paradigm, America is to be less bound to its partners and to global rules and institutions while it steps forward to play a more unilateral and anticipatory role in attacking terrorist threats and confronting rogue states seeking WMD. The United States will use its unrivaled military power to manage the global order. – G John Ikenberry, "America's Imperial Ambition," Foreign Affairs, Sept-Oct, 2002.

Some authors have argued that ideology has driven the emergence of the grand strategy John Ikenberry describes. For example, it has been said that the neo-conservative ideological agenda to promote U.S.-style democracy globally combined with an ideology of American exceptionalism to result in the U.S. pursuit of global hegemony. Variants of this argument include other ideological factors as well, such as racism and gender.

Analyze this argument – that ideology has led to the current U.S. grand strategy – by elaborating the argument, and then by considering the limitations of such an ideological explanation for providing a valid interpretation of the Bush Administration's foreign policy.