1. WHAT IS PEACE? Why do definitions matter? Measurement and outcome depend on it Where does peacemaking fit into our priorities? Defense budget = >20% (over 1 trillion); State Dept + USAID = 53 billion Peace as a series of steps: Ending war: Cease fires/ armistices/ surrenders Preventing the outbreak of specific instances of major conflict (e.g. peacekeepers, diplomacy, war by other means) The institutionalization of security (e.g., the Security Council, NATO, the NPT) The institutionalization of structural peace (e.g., Bretton Woods and economics, the UN, democratization, free trade, state-building, dramatically expanding soft power resources) Constructing a hegemony that stresses the morality of peace

2. HOW DO WE SECURE PEACE? SOME DOMINANT IDEAS Accumulate arms to deter; balance power by encouraging everyone to proliferate; think very carefully about what kinds of weapons are used to reduce security dilemmas Limit the proliferation of weapons, esp. WMDs or pursue missile shields to make them irrelevant Figure out better models of collective security or great power arrangements by either fixing the UN or coming up with alternatives; work on intl. courts to punish rogue leaders Expand peacekeeping and/or humanitarian intervention; rework intl. law to rethink sovereignty Increase economic dependency, trade, and development Spread democracy or at least the hegemony of human rights norms Keep America focused on security and keep us at the helm

3. WHY DO NATIONS TYPICALLY DECIDE TO END WAR? SOME FINDINGS FROM KEGELY AND RAYMOND, HOW NATIONS MAKE PEACE Modern morality: War, even if uninvited, is to be avoided and ended quickly. Is this always a good idea? Rational choice theory: Cost benefit analysis and moral hazard (if I start/end a war what will happen to me?) Standard operating procedures and informational issues Resource exhaustion Leadership change and domestic stability Third parties enter: mediation vs. arbitration Third parties withdraw support Uncertainty and thinking about the next step: Wars stop when outcomes are clear, certain, and palatable The value of norms and institutions

4. WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AFTER WAR? JUSTICE AND SOME OF THE MORAL QUESTIONS: Should winners be able to take from the losing side? How much? From whom? Should winners reshape losers for future advantage? Should winners punish (some?) losers to prevent future aggression? For the sake of retribution? To create justice? Should winners occupy losers to prevent future hostility? Should winners selectively forgive losers to create allies?

5. WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN AFTER WAR? FINDINGS FROM KEGLEY AND RAMOND’s RESEARCH ON BELIGERENT STATES OVER TIME The punishment of human rights violations… There are trade-offs Territory shouldn’t be taken & populations shouldn’t be punished Ongoing self-defense issues Self-determination claims that emerge over time Historical claims that emerge over time

6. KEGLEY AND RAYMOND GO TO IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN Military and political strategies should have been in sync from the start; they weren’t Postwar planning needed to be part of the military strategy Winning and losing publics (here & Iraq) need to be prepared for peace so that both sides better understand what their leaders are doing why Victors should not ignore the passion for vengeance, but should temper it by targeting retribution Unconditional surrender and dictated peace settlements tend not to work out… This is critical for the Taliban Winners need to keep an eye on their allies’ ambitions Losers have responsibilities in making peace work if doing so is just; winners need to make that happen