Department of Political Science
Web: http://polisci.rutgers.edu
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Phone: 732-932-9283
89 George Street
Fax: 732-932-7170
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1411
The more that I find out, the less that I know
Billy Joel
Political Science 319
Issues of American Foreign Policy
Fall 2015
http://fas-polisci.rutgers.edu/licklider/
Roy Licklider
licklide@rci.rutgers.edu
848 732-9249
CAREERS: Students often want information about jobs related to international
affairs. There is a good deal of useful information on the department website at
www.polisci.rutgers.edu/undergrad/careers.
DROP-IN OFFICE HOURS (616 Hickman): Monday and Wednesday 1-2
OTHER TIMES BY APPOINTMENT
WHAT IS THIS COURSE ABOUT? This course is concerned with what policy the
American government should adopt toward several foreign policy issues in the next
decade or so, including nuclear weapons, militant Islam in the Middle East,
international financial crises, and planning for the eventual decline of the United
States as a hegemonic power with particular concern for China. It assumes that
policy reflects choice by human beings, although their perceptions and options are
restricted, sometimes in ways they may not understand themselves. This implies that
it is useful to discuss what this government ought to do in order to both judge and
influence its decisions.
These topics have at least four things in common. (1) They all require analysts to
clarify their goals, establish realistic alternatives, try to determine the consequences
of these alternatives, and then choose. We call this process policy analysis, and it is
at the heart of the course. Indeed, I hope that you will learn the process so that you
can apply it to problems and issues which we cannot foresee. (2) None of the
alternatives available may be particularly attractive, but that does not relieve us of
the obligation to choose, since some will be clearly worse than others. (3) All are set
in the future, so we do not know with confidence the possible alternatives or their
consequences. (4) None of these issues has been resolved. Your other teachers and I
do not agree on the answers to these questions ourselves. You should have no
illusions that, at the end of this course, you will be able to answer these questions
with great confidence (indeed many students are less sure after the course than
before it began). However, you should certainly be more knowledgeable about the
different arguments and issues involved. The reading, lectures, and discussions will
2
expose you to different viewpoints, and in the required papers you will have to state
fairly positions with which you disagree.
GRADING POLICY:
Paper #1
20%
Paper #2
20%
Reading quizzes (top 6 grades)
15%
Groupwork (top 4 grades)
15%
Sakai discussion participation 10%
Final exam at scheduled time
20%
NOTE: Students must complete at least one version of both papers and the final
exam in order to pass the course. For a detailed example of how grades are
calculated, see the appendix.
PAPERS: The papers are based on an idea by Anatol Rapoport, a social scientist at
the University of Michigan. In a conventional debate, the winning side presents its
own position more persuasively than its opponent. In a Rapoport debate, the winner
is the first side to present its opponent's position to its opponent's satisfaction. The
idea behind this unusual device is that you do not really understand an issue until
you can argue persuasively for the side with which you disagree. The papers require
you to make the best arguments first in favor and then against a statement. You
should then state your own position, which may be one of the two or another one
altogether, and explain why the others are less persuasive to you (that is, compare the
different positions).
The papers should be no more than five double-spaced pages or about 1500
words. They are designed to be done using only the assigned reading materials; they
require thought rather than research and are graded accordingly. They must be
written in standard English; students with writing problems will be required to go to
the Writing Centers, and papers which cannot be comprehended will not be accepted.
Late papers without a reasonable excuse will be reduced a full letter grade for each
class period that they are late. Papers may be rewritten for credit if the original grade
was C+ or below; the second version will be graded independently and averaged
with the first to calculate the grade for that paper. Students must talk to whoever
graded the paper before rewriting it. Rewritten papers will be accepted for three
weeks after the originals have been returned.
Because of the size of this class, a political science graduate student may be
assigned as a grader. To ensure that our grading standards are the same, we begin
each assignment by grading and exchanging papers until we are giving the same
grades to the same papers. After this agreement has been reached, each of us will
grade one-half of the remaining papers or exams. When rewriting a paper or
3
discussing an exam graded by the grader, you should first talk to the grader (office
hours will be scheduled). Only after such discussion may grades be appealed to me.
All papers must be submitted twice: in conventional written form on the due
date and electronically to turnitin.com through Sakai a few days later. All papers
will be submitted to Turnitin, an anti-plagiarism system which automatically
compares the text of material to millions of published sources, web sites, and student
papers, including all papers submitted to this class for the past several years.
READING QUIZZES: Nine reading quizzes will be given during the semester at the
beginning of class; they will not be announced in advance, and no makeups, excuses,
or rewrites will be accepted. Each quiz will require you to demonstrate, in fifty
words or less, that you have read a specified part of the reading assignment for that
day, even if you did not understand it; the obvious way to do this is to outline the
major points and noting a few things which are unique to the assignment. Written
notes (but no books or xeroxes) may be used; all computers must be closed during the
quiz. Quizzes will be graded pass or fail. Students with six passing grades will get
an A for the reading portion of their final grades; those with five will get a B, those
with four will get a C, those with three will get a D, and those with fewer than three
will get an F.
GROUPWORK: Five times during the semester, on dates in the syllabus marked (G),
the class will meet in groups of five students at the regular time; groups and rooms
will be announced later. Each group will be given an assignment, analyzing a
problem based on the assigned reading and writing a brief group paper during the
class period. You are not expected to do any research beyond the assigned reading
other than possibly finding a few Internet sources. Make a serious effort to reach
agreement within the group. After the discussion, students who wish to do so may
leave the group and write their own paper; however, they will be penalized one full
grade (since it is much easier to write your own opinion than to work with others
with whom you may disagree). Students who do not contribute may be asked by the
group to leave and write their own papers; they also will be penalized one full grade.
The final paper should include the names of all those who participated in the
process; they will all receive the same grade. Five groupworks are scheduled; the top
four groupwork grades will be averaged and count 15% of your final grade.
SAKAI DISCUSSIONS: In another attempt to obviate the worst effects of a large
class, the Sakai system will be used for on-line discussions of foreign policy issues.
During the last half of the semester, I will post a question related to the assignment
for class discussion and response. Students are encouraged to respond to the
question and to one another for about a week. Their messages will be graded on a
fairly simple system–C for any contribution, B for anything reasonable but not
original, and A for anything which is original and moves the general discussion
4
forward. Only the highest grade for each student for each question will be counted.
This will be 10% of your final grade.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY: There will be a discussion of academic integrity issues
early in the semester. It is recommended that you also consult the university’s
offical statement at http://academicintegrity.rutgers.edu/integrity.shtml
BOOKS REQUIRED FOR PURCHASE (abbreviated in the syllabus by their titles,
available in the Rutgers University Bookstore and New Jersey Books):
ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror by Michael Weiss and Hassan Hassan
India, Pakistan, and the Bomb: Debating Nuclear Stability in South Asia by Šumit
Ganguly and S. Paul Kapur
American Power after the Financial Crisis by Jonathan Kirshner
Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World by Ian
Bremmer
All other materials in the syllabus should be available on the class Sakai site. You
are responsible for having read all assigned materials before the class when they are
assigned. If for some reason the materials are not available, please notify me
immediately.
9/2:
Introduction
I. FOREIGN POLICY AS CHOICE IN A DEMOCRACY
9/8:
“The Geopolitics of the United States,” Stratfor
9/9:
“Policy Analysis and Argument” by Roy Licklider
“The Flow of Policy-Making in the Department of State” by Charlton Ogburn,
Appendix C, H. Haviland Field, The Formulation and Administration of
United States Foreign Policy, pp. 172-177.
“The U.S. Role in a Changing World” (Choice--2012 edition), pp. 22-45
“Coming to Terms with the American Empire” by George Friedman, Stratfor
OPTIONAL READING:
Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign
Policy
Weary Policeman: American Power in an Age of Austerity
Martin Indyk, Kenneth Lieberthal and Michael O’Hanlon, Bending History:
Barak Obama’s Foreign Policy
5
II. NUCLEAR WEAPONS: THE EXISTENTIAL THREAT
9/14: “The Challenge of Nuclear Weapons,” pp. 1-31 (Choices)
Bomb Scare by Joseph Cirincionne, chapters 7-8
9/16: “The Next Nuclear Age” by Robert Kaplan (stratfor, 2012)
“Radioactive Hype” by John Mueller, National Interest, 91 (September/
October 2007), 59-65.
“Botching the Bomb” by Jacques Hymans, Foreign Affairs, 91, 3 (May-June 2012), 4453
OPTIONAL READING:
Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons
Randall Forsberg, Nonproliferation Primer
Wolfgang Panofsky, “Nuclear Insecurity,” Foreign Affairs, 86, 5 (September-October
2007), 109-118
A. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE
9/21: “Russia’s Military Options in Ukraine,” Stratfor
“Russia and the West Move Further Apart,” Stratfor
“Is Ukraine Really European at Last?” Stratfor
“Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault” by John Mearsheimer, Foreign
Affairs, September/October 2014
“A New Policy to Rescue Ukraine” by George Soros, New York Review of
Books, February 5, 2015
B. NORTH KOREA
9/23: North Korea and Nuclear Weapons, pp. 1-13 and 21-24
(G)
“How Not to Deal with North Korea” by Richard Bernstein, New York Review
of Books, 54, 3 (March 1, 2007)
“Hope Over Experience: Denuclearlizing the North” by Mitchell Reiss, National
Interest, 89 (May-June 2007), 20-25
“Changing North Korea” by Andrei Lankov, Foreign Affairs 88
(November/December 2009), 95-105
C. IRAN
9/28: “The Geopolitics of Iran: Holding the Center of a Mountain Fortress,”
6
Stratfor, July 14, 2008
“Iran Through the Looking Glass: History, Reform, and Revolution”
(Choices), pp. 1-45
“Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability”
by Kenneth Waltz, Foreign Affairs, 91, 4 (July-August 2012), 2-5
“Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Discussion,” Foreign Affairs, 91, 5
(September-October 2012), 157-162
9/30: Iran and the Bomb 2: A New Hope, pp. 1-3 (Rose), 4-29 (Ganji), 42-59 (Jervis),
68-71 (Reiss and Takeyh), 75-79 (Kroenig), and 80-85 (Kohl)
10/5: PAPER #1: “If Iran succeeds in getting nuclear weapons, the U.S. should go to
war to conquer and disarm it and change the regime rather than attempt to
contain it as was done to the Soviet Union during the Cold War.”
1. Develop the strongest argument in favor of this policy.
2. State two controversial assumptions for this policy, things which must be
believed to be true if the policy is to be plausible to others and which may
seem doubtful.
3. Develop the strongest arguments in favor of a policy of containment.
4. State two controversial assumptions for this alternative policy, things that
must be believed to be true if this policy is to be plausible to others and which
may seem doubtful.
5. Compare the plausibility of the two sets of assumptions; explain why one is
more plausible than the other.
PAKISTAN AND INDIA
10/7: Pakistan: A Hard Country by Anatol Lieven 1 & 2 (pp. 3-48, 405-414, and 477481)
10/12: India, Pakistan, and the Bomb, chapters 1-4
10/14: India, Pakistan, and the Bomb, chapters 5-6
“Talking Tough to Pakistan” by Stephen Krasner, Foreign Affairs, 91, 1
(January-February 2012), 87-98
“Tough Talk is Cheap” by Alexander Evans, Foreign Affairs, 91, 3 (May-June 2012),
166-170
“The Unlikely Democatization of Pakistan,” Stratfor, March 21, 2013
OPTIONAL READING:
Feroz Khan, Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb
John Schmidt, The Unraveling: Pakistan in the Age of Jihad
7
Pamela Constable, Playing With Fire: Pakistan at War with Itself
Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan on the Brink: The Future of America, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan
III. IRAQ, SYRIA, AND ISIS
10/19: “The Lessons of Iraq” (Choices)
ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, chapters 1-3
10/21: ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, chapters 4-7
10/26: ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, chapters 8-11
(G)
“The U.S. Role in a Changing World” (2012 Choices), pp. 37-45 (review)
10/28: ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror, chapters 12-14
OPTIONAL READING:
Tim Bird and Alex Marshall, Afghanistan: How the U.S. Lost Its Way
“The 30 Year War in Afghanistan” by George Friedman, June 29, 2010,
www.stratfor.com
Jake Sherman, “Afghanistan: Nationally Led Statebuilding,” pp. 303-334 in
Charles Call and Vanessa Wyeth, Building States to Build Peace
Thomas Ricks, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq
Paul Rogers, A War Too Far: Iraq, Iran, and the New American Century
11/2: PAPER #2: Assume that President Obama is informed by American
(P)
intelligence that ISIS has become so strong that it will be able to establish a
radical Sunni state (caliphate) in territory taken from Syria and Iraq soon
unless the United States is willing to commit 200,000 troops for an indefinite
war.
1. Devise the best strategy for the United States to follow in this situation.
2. Specify two essential and controversial assumptions of this strategy. One
should be normative, and one should be empirical.
3. Explain briefly why each of these assumptions is plausible
4. Devise a second plausible strategy for the United States to follow in this
situation.
5. Specify two essential and controversial assumptions of this strategy. One
should be normative, and one should be empirical.
6. Explain briefly why each of these assumptions is plausible.
7. Compare the plausibility of these assumptions and explain why one set is
less plausible than the other.
8
8. State your policy recommendation for this situation.
IV. GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISES
11/4: “The Making of a Mess: Who Broke Global Finance and Who Should Pay for it?”
by Harold James, Foreign Affairs, 88, 1 (January/February 2009), 162- 168.
“After the Crash” by James Grant, Foreign Affairs, 87, 6 (November/December
2008), 141-146
“The World Finance Crisis & the American Mission” by Robert Sidelsky,
New York Review of Books, 56, 12 (July 16, 2009)
“When Currencies Collapse” by Barry Eichengreen, Foreign Affairs, 91, 1
(January-February 2012), 117-134
11/9: American Power after the Financial Crisis, Preface and chapters 1-3
11/11: American Power after the Financial Crisis, chapters 4-6
11/16: American Power after the Financial Crisis, chapters 7-8
OPTIONAL READING
“Bad Debts: Assessing China’s Financial Influence in Great Power
Politics” by Daniel Drezner, International Security, 34, 2 (Fall 2009), 745.
“The Future of the Yuan” by Sebastian Mallaby and Olin Wethington, Foreign
Affairs, 91, 1 (January-February 2012), 135-146
V. MANAGING DECLINE—CHINA AND OTHER PROBLEMS
11/18: “China on the World Stage: Weighing the U.S. Response” (2012 Choices), pp.
1-41
“How China Sees America” by Andrew Nathan and Andrew Scobell, Foreign Affairs,
91 (September/October 2012), 32-47
11/23: Power Transitions: Strategies for the 21st Century 1 (Preface, Tribute, and
chapters 1-2)
11/30: Jack Levy, “Power Transition Theory and the Rise of China” in Robert S.
Ross and Zhu Feng, China’s Ascent: Power, Security, and the Future
of International Politics, pp. 11-33
The China Challenge: Shaping the Choices of a Rising Power by Thomas
Christensen, pp. 288--312
9
“Bucking Beijing” by Aaron Friedberg, Foreign Affairs, September/October
2012, 48-58
OPTIONAL READING
Donald Gross, The China Fallacy: How the U.S. Can Benefit from China’s Rise
and Avoid another Cold War
Henry Kissinger, “The Future of Chinese-American Relations: Conflict is a
Choice, not a Necessity,” Foreign Affairs, 91, 2 (March/April 2012), 44-55
Ian Johnson, “The Party: Impenetrable, All Powerful,” New York Review of
Books, LVII, 14 (September 30, 2010), pp. 69-72
David Lai, The United States and China in Power Transition
Andrew Nathan and Andrew Scobell, China's Search for Security
Claude Meyer, China or Japan: Which Will Lead Asia?
12/2: Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, Introduction
and chapters 1-2
12/7: Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, chapters 3-4
12/9: Every Nation for Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World, chapters 5-6
“Conflict or Cooperation? Three Visions Revisited” by Richard Betts, Foreign
Affairs, 89, 6 (November/December 2010), 186-194
OPTIONAL READING:
Fateful Transitions: How Democracies Manage Rising Powers, from the Eve
of World War I to China’s Ascendance by Daniel Kliman
The End of American World Order by Amitav Acharya
FINAL EXAMINATION AT SCHEDULED TIME AND PLACE
10
APPENDIX: EXAMPLE OF HOW GRADES ARE CALCULATED
GRADING POLICY:
Paper #1
Paper #2
Reading quizzes (top 6 grades)
Groupwork (top 4 grades)
Sakai discussion questions (top 2)
Final exam (3 questions)
20%
20%
15%
15%
10%
20%
Letter grades are converted to numbers—F = 0, D- = 1, D =2, D+ = 3; C- =4, C = 5, C+ = 6, B- =
7, B = 8, B+ = 9, A- = 10, A = 11, A+ = 12
Paper #1
C-, rewritten for B
4 + 8 = 12; 12/2 = 6
Paper #2
BPassed 3 reading quizzes
Groupworks (A, B, B+, B+)
11+8+9+9 = 37
37/4 = 9.25
Sakai discussion questions (B, B)
Final exam (B, B, C)
8 + 8 + 5 = 21; 21/3 =7
TOTAL
6 x .20 =
7 x .20 =
2 x .15 =
1.2
1.4
0.3
9.25 x .15 =
8 x .10 =
1.39
0.8
7 x .20 =
1.4
6.49
6.49 rounds up to 6.5, which rounds up to 7, which is a B-. Since Rutgers does not accept
minus grades, it will be reported to Rutgers as a B (and only the student and I will know that
it was by the skin of his or her teeth).