Chapter 20: Foreign and Military Policy

Kinds of foreign policy Majoritarian – perceived to benefit many – perceived to burden many – Example: military – dominant figure: president

Kinds of foreign policy Client – perceived to benefit few – perceived to burden many – Example: companies with contracts to support foreign nations agriculture industrial military – dominant figure: Congress

The Constitutional and Legal Context foreign policy conflict – president commander in chief of armed forces can “make” war negotiate treaties

The Constitutional and Legal Context foreign policy conflict – Congress funds military action can “declare” war ratifies treaties

The Constitutional and Legal Context foreign policy conflict – “Box Score” of foreign policy President – wins more often in foreign affairs than in domestic affairs – not as powerful as other democratic heads of government – foreign policy power is double-edged sword » president strong enough to act in “good” cases » is strong enough to act in “bad” cases

The Constitutional and Legal Context foreign policy conflict – Box Score” of foreign policy Congress – has the power to restrict funding of foreign policy – has gone to court over presidential actions Courts – have mostly sided with the president – allowed internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII – did not allow nationalization of steel industry during Korean War States – almost NO power in foreign policy

The Constitutional and Legal Context – Checks on Presidential Power more political than Constitutional greatest Constitutional check on presidential power is Congress’s power of the purse War Powers Act – president must report to Congress » in writing » within 48 hours of committing troops

The Constitutional and Legal Context – Checks on Presidential Power War Powers Act – Congress must assent » within 60 days » by declaration of war or similar legal proclamation – president must withdraw if Congress does not agree

The Constitutional and Legal Context – Checks on Presidential Power War Powers Act – if both chambers of Congress pass a resolution of withdrawal » president must withdraw troops » president may not veto (found unconstitutional) – has not been used effectively to curb presidential power

The Constitutional and Legal Context – Checks on Presidential Power Intelligence Oversight – CIA must inform Congressional Intelligence Committees on covert actions – Committees cannot disapprove the actions – they can pass legislation to block it for specific time period

The Machinery of Foreign Policy Old School = almost all by secretary of state America becomes a world power – president takes a more active roll – agencies (re)formed to deal with details some new some old

The Machinery of Foreign Policy America becomes a world power – National Security Council helps president to coordinate all that activity – give account of views of different agencies » causes conflict – help president choose from various options » loser may go to Congress for help – oversee implementation of presidential program

The Machinery of Foreign Policy America becomes a world power National Security Council members – chaired by president – must include » vice president » secretary of state » secretary of defense – may include » director of CIA » chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff » attorney general

The Machinery of Foreign Policy Broad outline of foreign policy – public opinion – elite opinion Watershed event = World War II – first highly “popular” war (good vs. evil) – seemed successful (evil was defeated) – USA emerged as a superpower nation – shift from isolationist to internationalist feelings

The Machinery of Foreign Policy Backing the President – “Rallying around the flag” – public usually gives support to US when it confronts foreign nations in a crisis situation – presidential popularity often RISES even if the situation turns out badly – sometimes though, not as much in certain places – occurs most often when America is attacked or threatened

The Machinery of Foreign Policy Backing the President – “Rallying around the flag” – Leeriness of going to war disappears once the conflict starts support grows desire to win at (nearly) all costs – Effects of war dead rising death numbers make public want an escalation put a quick end (and victory) to the conflict

The Machinery of Foreign Policy Backing the President – “Rallying around the flag” – Groups with highest levels of anti-war sentiments Democrats African-Americans post-graduate degree holders

Mass Public Opinion vs. Elite Opinion – Most of the public is ill-informed about foreign affairs – Political elites are better informed but opinions of elites can change more quickly – Mass opinion tends to stay supportive of the war/soldiers

Mass Public Opinion vs. Elite Opinion – General trends elites – more liberal and internationalist view – favor giving economic aid – favor defending allies mass opinion – less internationalist – want to keep economic aid in America – protectionist economic policies

Cleavages Among Foreign Policy Elites Elite Opinion – more importance mass opinion agrees with actions without directing action deeply divided includes – members of government – key private organizations (think tanks) – media

Cleavages Among Foreign Policy Elites Worldview – an idea of critical problems facing the USA decent solutions to those problems – becomes dominant when world events seem to support the view

Cleavages Among Foreign Policy Elites Worldview – evolution of modern views Isolationist – memories of WWI – opposition to getting involved in foreign conflicts

Cleavages Among Foreign Policy Elites Worldview – evolution of modern views containment – post-WWII – anti-appeasement – looking to be strong and not weak in face of aggression – policy to contain aggressive expansion of non-friendly nations (USSR)

Cleavages Among Foreign Policy Elites Worldview evolution of modern views disengagement – post-Vietnam » we acted correctly, just not with enough strength » we acted correctly, just not in the right place » we didn’t act correctly, universal containment is a failed policy – “new isolationism” – military actions evaluated as a potential Vietnam

Cleavages Among Foreign Policy Elites Worldview evolution of modern views human rights – confront groups violating human rights – especially » European (cynical view) » acts of genocide or “ethnic cleansing”

The Use of Military Force USA as a great military power is still important many nations, some hostile, have nukes Majoritarian view – many pay with taxes toward military strength – many benefit our nation our allies

The Use of Military Force Client politics – many pay – few benefit the military the corporations supplying the military the politicians whose districts house military facilities – Military-Industrial Complex a unified bloc – military brass – defense contractors

The Defense Budget total spending – most of history small percent of GNP arm for wars disarm afterward – Post WW II slight decline up again for Korea – stayed up – driven by policy of containment

The Defense Budget Total spending – Most Americans believe we are spending about right or too little – Debate still rages about being the World’s Policeman

The Defense Budget Where does the money go? – personnel volunteer army number of women has grown gays in the military – banned – don’t ask, don’t tell – ban lifted (2011)

The Defense Budget Where does the money go? – Big-Ticket Items Cost overruns – difficult to predict costs in the future (during construction) – incentive to understate costs to get approval in the first place – Gold Plating the projects » get the best of everything all at once

The Defense Budget Where does the money go? – Big-Ticket Items Cost overruns – no competition between companies once the contract is awarded – stretch out the contract over many years » gives appearance of cutting the budget » only kicks the costs down the road where inflation raises costs

The Defense Budget Where does the money go? – Small-Ticket Items normal goods are not the issue specially designed accessories for the big-ticket item IS the problem – Readiness low priority Congressmen fight to keep plants and bases no one fights for readiness readiness cuts show immediate results (looks good)

The Defense Budget Where does the money go? – Bases systematic decision making on base closing – 1988 – Commission on Base Realignment and Closure – recommendations sent to Congress » all or nothing » no changes

The Structure of Defense Decision- Making Civilian Control – elected president is C-I-C – Civilian posts secretary of defense – secretary of the army – secretary of the navy (also MANAGES Marine Corps) – secretary of the air force

The Structure of Defense Decision-Making Civilian Control – Command Structure President is C-I-C secretary of defense command authority over national defense branch secretaries enact policies of the above

The Structure of Defense Decision-Making Civilian Control – The four branches separate entities civilian fear of becoming too strong if united into one branches retain own – traditions – power structures

The Structure of Defense Decision-Making Civilian Control – The four branches leads to conflict – good effects » varied views to create over-all picture » Congress has more access points to control the military

The Structure of Defense Decision-Making Joint Chiefs of Staff – active heads of the four branches – presidential appointed and Senate confirmed chairman vice chairman – powers no command power key role in defense planning presidential advisory board

The Structure of Defense Decision-Making Joint Chiefs of Staff – hierarchy Chairman is in charge heads work for chairman (not for the branches)

The Structure of Defense Decision-Making The Services – each service headed by Civilian secretary – purchasing – Congressional relations – public relations Military chief – discipline – training

The Structure of Defense Decision-Making Chain of Command President (CIC) Secretary of Defense Joint Cheifs of Staff Army command Marine Command Navy Comman Air Force Command

The New Problem of Terrorism Bipolar World – USA – USSR Tripolar World? – USA – USSR – PRC Unipolar World – US is only superpower left – terrorism can still strike

The New Problem of Terrorism New Policy – Doctrine of Preemption – US will actively engage terrorist threats – before they can fully grow – we will act alone if needed

The New Problem of Terrorism New Policy – Doctrine of Preemption – Supporters will protect Americans before terrorists can attack us at home – Critics justification for unjust wars ignores United Nations

The New Problem of Terrorism New Policy – Doctrine of Preemption – Lessons do not leave a country too quickly rebuilding takes a long time act in a coordinated manner – civilian – military