Sociology 2: Class 20: Globalization & Conflict 4 Copyright © 2013 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission

In the news… Afghanistan Taliban Call Off Talks as Karzai Urges Faster U.S. Transition March 15, 2012 KABUL, Afghanistan — Prospects for an orderly withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan suffered two blows on Thursday as President Hamid Karzai demanded that the United States confine troops to major bases by next year, and the Taliban announced that they were suspending peace talks with the Americans. Getting talks started with the Taliban has been a major goal of the United States and its NATO allies for the past two years, and only in recent months was there concrete evidence of progress. The Afghan president was reacting to widespread Afghan anger over the massacre by an American soldier of 16 civilians in Kandahar last Sunday, and the decision of the military authorities to remove him from Afghanistan. The Taliban statement, issued in English and Pashto on an insurgent web site, said talks with an American representative had commenced over the release of some Taliban members from the Guantánamo Bay prison, but accused the American representative of changing the preconditions for the talks. “Acknowledging their involvement in Qatar talks was a significant move for the Taliban. They expected that the U.S. would move quickly with confidence building measures,” said Michael Semple, a Fellow at the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School. “The transfer of Taliban leaders to Qatar was top on the list. The Taliban announcement of suspending engagement in Qatar is a response to their frustration at the US’s slowness to deliver.” Mr. Semple said a series of crises to beset the Americans in the Afghanistan conflict since the start of the year had added another layer of uncertainty to the talks, emboldening Taliban hardliners to press back against the peace effort. “The Taliban also believe that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in disarray and their hardliners want to take advantage of that by launching a new fighting season.” Still, the Taliban statement appeared to leave open the door to a resumption of the process, terming their move a “suspension.”

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: Thursday, March 21, 1:30-3:30pm –NOTE: not during the “normal” class time… Final exam review sheet on website Course Evaluations available online! Feedback welcome! Today’s Class: War and Conflict in Afganistan

In the news… Afghanistan (cont’d) “Acknowledging their involvement in Qatar talks was a significant move for the Taliban.” Mr. Semple said a series of crises to beset the Americans in the Afghanistan conflict since the start of the year had added another layer of uncertainty to the talks, emboldening Taliban hardliners to press back against the peace effort. “The Taliban also believe that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan is in disarray and their hardliners want to take advantage of that by launching a new fighting season.” Still, the Taliban statement appeared to leave open the door to a resumption of the process, terming their move a “suspension.” Angry over its exclusion from the first round of talks.. President Karzai’s government has tried to establish its own track for peace talks… The Taliban statement repeated previous declarations by the insurgents that they viewed Afghan government officials as puppets of the Americans and would not hold talks with them. “Hamid Karzai, who cannot even make a single political decision without the prior consent of the Americans, falsely proclaimed that the Kabul administration and the Americans have jointly started peace talks with the Taliban,” the statement said.

In the news: Drone Strikes Lull in Strikes by U.S. Drones Aids Militants NT Times. WASHINGTON — A nearly two-month lull in American drone strikes in Pakistan has helped embolden Al Qaeda and several Pakistani militant factions to regroup, increase attacks against Pakistani security forces and threaten intensified strikes against allied forces in Afghanistan, American and Pakistani officials say. The insurgents are increasingly taking advantage of tensions raised by an American airstrike in November that killed two dozen Pakistani soldiers in two border outposts, plunging relations between the countries to new depths. The Central Intelligence Agency, hoping to avoid making matters worse while Pakistan completes a wide-ranging review of its security relationship with the United States, has not conducted a drone strike since mid-November.

Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy Daalder, Ivo H. and James M. Lindsay. “The Bush Revolution.” What was foreign policy like before Bush and 9/11? –Historically (19 th century), 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: Truman Doctrine 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.

Foreign Policy: Truman Doctrine Truman Doctrine (cont’d): –Example: The cold war: US vs. Soviet Union Don’t attack it directly (don’t 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 George W. Bush foreign policy represents a big break from the past (2000-8): “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 = less important 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 Society Theory, complex interdependence /institutionalism, and constructivism –Winning people over to your side and taking the moral “high ground” can be very effective –Not glamorous… 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 Leaders are routinely overconfident about effectiveness military power.

Effectiveness of War 2. War tends to weaken/destabilize target states Civil war, insurgency, disorganization often result –Example: Iraq “Political opportunities” for terrorism & insurgency 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 scary… 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: Video\The_3_Trillion_Shopping_Spree.flv

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 –Hitler was an exception… but not typical…

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy Problems with the Bush Doctrine 1. Substantial evidence supports new theories like Complex interdependence and World society theory 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 the Bush Doctrine 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 terrorist threats come from social movements Concrete terrorist organizations aren’t that hard to disrupt But, we DO need help from countries around the world to combat the broader anti-US social movements –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 in US wars generate anti-US “terrorists”…

Reflections: Bush Foreign Policy 4. 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 environmental problems…

Obama and Afghanistan What is Obama doing differently? Pragmatism: No big dreams of reshaping the world Afghanistan: Shift toward counterinsurgency and nation building efforts Obama apparently hopes to push Taliban to the negotiating table… Video: Obama’s War Chapter 1 (5:47 to end – 6 min), 3 all (11 min) 4 (up to 6:00 – 6 min) Chapter 5 (1:35-5:40 – 4 min)

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

Reflections: Foreign Policy What should the US do? 3. Work through strong multilateral forces, not individual weak intermediaries –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 (e.g., Afghanistan) Alliances are unstable; today’s friend may be an enemy

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. –Efforts deal with disease, famine, humanitarian crises 5. Don’t forget about domestic issues Obviously, militaries are needed But the US spends a HUGE amount on its military… –Arguably, priorities could be shifted modestly without harming overall US defensive capability.

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.