POLITICS, DEMOCRACY, AND THE MILITARY
A PROPOSAL FOR AN INTEGRATED CURRICULUM FOR UNIVERSITIES AND
COLLEGES
DR. MICHAEL T. GIBBONS, PH. D.
DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA
TAMPA, FL 33620
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….
2
Design and Content of the Curriculum .………………………………………………....... 3
Syllabi
War and Politics …………………………………………………………………..
6
Democracy and the Military ……………………………………………………... 14
Ethics, Just Wars, and the Military ……………………………………………..... 21
Politics, the Military, and Strategy in the 21st Century ………………………….
27
Additional Curriculum Module ………………………………………………...... 33
Recommendations for Further Program Development ………………………………….. 34
2
Introduction
The past thirty years have seen a steady decline in the availability of coursework in
university and college curricula that address questions and issues related to the military, its
relationship to politics, and its role in society. This development is troubling for a number of
reasons. First, because we live in an uncertain world, the existence of armed forces is a
necessary aspect of virtually all societies. Few autonomous states have the luxury of doing
without a military force of some type. Second, because of the political situation of the United
States as the world’s premier power, or the only genuine super power on some accounts, the
armed forces have a particularly important role to play in the formulation of U. S. foreign policy.
This is not to say that U. S. foreign policy is particularly militarized. It is simply to recognize
that given the global realities of the world, U. S. foreign policy and security depend upon a
strong military force. Third, in terms of government expenditures of the federal budget, military
spending occupies the single largest expenditure of any single department in the federal budget.
As such, it has significant impact on the domestic economy as well as on foreign policy. Fourth,
because of the multiplicity of opportunities that if offers, the armed forces are among the most
important educational institutions in the United States. These opportunities span various types of
educational programs, from vocational and skilled labor, to language proficiency, to financial
support for college and post-graduate education. Fifth, at least some range of technological spin
off is experienced from the development of weapons and military technologies. These often
have significant economic and humane impact, as in the case of the development of radar during
World War II, to give one example. Finally, citizens in a democracy need to understand the
limits and the possibilities of the use of military force. Even advocates of a strong military argue
that the reliance on force at inappropriate times can be self defeating and undermine the use of
force in the future. Conversely, the failure to use appropriate force when required can have
serious adverse and even disastrous consequences.
In light of the importance of the military in the social, political, and economic life of
society, it would seem that some focus on the nature of the military profession; the relationship
of the military to politics; the political, strategic, technological, and ethical challenges it faces in
carrying out its mission; how it can define a society or contribute to its political or national
identity; and the distinctive role it plays in a democracy would be important for institutions of
higher learning. This is not to say that students or citizens need to become experts on the details
of military life or specifics of weapons systems. It does suggest that a greater familiarity with
the role of the military in a democratic society would be desirable for citizens as a whole.
It is important to note that this proposal takes no particular position of advocacy for or
against any particular policy. It seeks to examine the topics in question from a scholarly
perspective. While no approach to the study of political life can claim complete value neutrality,
any responsible approach can attempt to present competing points of view and examine a range
of different reasonable perspectives on any particular topic.
3
Design and Content of the Curriculum
In constructing curriculum for any subject matter, three features are most important.
First, the curriculum needs to be as comprehensive as the time and effort dedicated to the subject
matter allows. This means that within the parameters of time and space, the curriculum should
address the range of perspectives and the scholarship that has the most important bearing on the
subject matter. Second, the curriculum should be designed so as to make cumulative learning
possible. This means that each course should be designed with the overall goal of the curriculum
and with other courses in mind. Such a design makes it possible for courses to fulfill the third
feature of successful curriculum, that they be able to complement one another without being
redundant.
Each of these features is built into the design of this curriculum. Although each of the
courses here could stand on its own and provide a coherent, detailed account of the subject
matter, they are also designed to reinforce the educational goals of other courses. In that respect,
whether taken simultaneously or over several semesters, the courses enable students to develop a
cumulative understanding of the most important questions related to the military, politics,
democracy, and society. Hence, some readings are found in more than one course. In other
cases, the texts that are read in full in one course have only sections assigned in others. The hope
is that these common readings will help fashion common themes among the several courses.
The curriculum is designed to allow sections of one course to be inserted into other
courses where that may be appropriate. For example, the section on the rise of volunteer armies
in the course Democracy and the Military could be included in the course Politics, the
Military, and Strategy in the 21st Century, depending on the preferences of the instructor. The
goal is to allow a certain amount of flexibility for the instructor in the selection of topics that
might be pertinent to more than one course. Similarly, it is also the case that many of the
individual sections could be developed into longer, separate courses by drawing on the suggested
readings or other sources consistent with the expertise of the faculty available.
The curriculum is interdisciplinary in that it draws on a range of disciplines, including
history, political science, religious studies, cultural studies, comparative political theory, political
theology, philosophy, economics and military science.
In addition, this approach allows for some degree of flexibility regarding the order in
which the courses are offered. However, it is the author’s opinion that the optimal order would
begin with War and Politics and conclude with Politics, the Military, and Strategy in the 21st
Century.
The curriculum draws on a range of sources and political perspectives. It includes
scholarly work done by civilian academicians, scholars and commentators who are former
military commanders, as well as various military sources. What is perhaps most impressive
about this area of interest is the great deal of serious debate about a range of issues, debate that
can be found in both civilian and military venues. Faculty seeking to provide such a curriculum
would be well advised to avail themselves and their students of this diversity of perspective.
Doing so maximizes the likelihood of identifying the most important research from military as
4
well as civilian outlets. In particular, this curriculum has, as far as possible and to the extent
consistent with the subject matter, has drawn on military scholars, writings of public officials and
policy makers, and the scholarship of those whose work has been influential in setting public
policy. Hence, Rupert Smith, David Petraeus, Michael McConnell, and Samuel Huntington are
just a few of those who have had direct influence on public policy. Similarly, scholars such as
Huntington, Cass Sunstein, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Michael Walzer are scholars whose work
has had direct influence on public policy or the education of those who make public policy.
Finally, as much as possible the curriculum was developed with similar curricula from military
institutions (National Defense University, U. S. War College, etc.) in mind, not because those
institutions should set the agenda but rather so the terms of discussion and debate could be joined
as much as possible and so that different perspectives would not talk past one another.
Three final points deserve mention. First, the readings recommended are obviously
subject to revision and change, consistent with the specific expertise and focus of each instructor.
Second, the assigned readings are based upon the minimum time normally expected for college
level courses. Conventionally, college course work presupposes a minimum of two hours of
reading/studying outside of class for each hour spent in class. Third, each course presumes a
fourteen week, forty-two contact-hour semester. Adjustments could be made for longer or
shorter semesters.
5
War and Politics
Michael T. Gibbons
Department of Government and International Affairs
University of South Florida
Introduction
The purpose of this class is to expose students to the most important thinkers to address
the questions related to the issue of war and politics. Toward that end, we will be examining the
works and commentaries on Thucydides, T’ai Kung, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, Clausewitz, Mahan,
and contemporary theorists of politics and war. The goal is to provide students with the
opportunity to examine the most significant accounts of the relationship between politics and
war.
Why Study War and Politics?
It is probably no coincidence that among the first texts of literature in Western
civilization, accounts, descriptions, and thinking about war have been important. Homer’s Iliad,
for example, is an account of a war that touches upon heroism, glory, destruction, strategy, luck,
courage, tragedy, and in many respects the folly of war, or at least some wars. Greek tragedy
often addressed the issue of war, including civil war, and the consequences for the moral fabric
of society. In the Old Testament, the book of Exodus chronicles Moses’ success as a military as
well as a religious leader. Finally, the earliest examples of written history are from Greek
scholars who focused on wars that helped define the course of Western history, and likely the
history of the Middle East as well. In other words, accounts of war, its causes, its effects, and the
conduct of war have occupied an important part in the narrative of human civilization. Hence, an
understanding of Western civilization, and no doubt other civilizations as well, requires some
degree of familiarity with the role that war and the role that thinking about war has played in
history and politics.
There are several other reasons why the study of war is important, particularly for
citizens of the modern world and particularly for citizens of modern democracies. First, few
activities that human beings engage in are as costly in terms of human life, material resources,
and wealth as is war. As such, decisions to go to war have implications for an entire society,
even for those citizens not directly engaged in combat. Second, wars have the potential to
change the very nature of a society and to change the course of history. The battles of Marathon
and Salamis influenced the development Greek culture, including the continuation of Athenian
democracy that has influenced the development of Western culture, including political thinking
about democracy in the modern world. Finally, there is a moral-ethical reason for the study of
war. In the modern world, political regimes, particularly democracies, claim to speak in the
name of their citizenry. This is particularly true in times of war. Hence, in the modern period
wars have increasing been identified as being fought in the name of this or that nationality,
religious, or ethnic group. That being the case, it behooves citizens of modern societies to
understand the nature of that war being made in their name. This involves not just the limits and
justifications for war, but the nature of war, the prospects for peace, the demands on both
6
military and civilian citizens, and the possible moral, social, economic and political
consequences and costs of war.
Requirements: In addition to weekly participation, each student is expected to complete two
written assignments. The first is a short analytic paper dealing with one of the topics covered in
the readings dealing with Thucydides. The second paper will be a longer semester paper, not
less than 15 typed pages, addressing a topic to be selected in consultation with the instructor.
Required Books
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, eds. Walter Blanco and Jennifer Tolbert Roberts, trans.
Walter Blanco (New York: W. W. Norton, 1998). (Hereafter, Blanco and Roberts eds.).
Ralph D. Sawyer, The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, trans. Ralph D. Sawyer (New
York: Basic Books, 1993).
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Art of War, with Introduction by Neal Wood (New York: DeCapo
Press, 1965).
Peter Paret ed., The Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1986).
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. Michael E. Howard and Peter Paret (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2007).
Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Seapower on History 1660-1783 (New York: Kessinger
Publishing, 2006).
Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force in the Modern Age (New York: Vintage, 2008).
John H. Nagl, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U. S. Army/Marine Corps
Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Introduction by Sarah Sewall (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2007).
In addition, Gerard Chaliand, The Art of War in World History: From Antiquity to the Nuclear
Age (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), is a comprehensive anthology on the art of
war and politics that covers six thousand years and multiple cultures.
7
Schedule of Readings
Part 1. Thucydides, Realism, and War
From its inception, Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War has influenced thinking on
international relations, including the use of force, its political purposes and its political and social
implications. This influence can be found in the works of Western thinkers such as Niccolo
Machiavelli, Thomas Hobbes, Carl von Clausewitz, and Alfred Thayer Mahan, not to mention
many of those scholars whose work has been influential today in the formation of American
foreign policy. Thucydides entertained no illusions about war and human nature. At the same
time, having participated himself in the Peloponnesian War, he knew firsthand the horrors that
accompanied it. While many translations are available (including that of Hobbes himself) the
edition selected here has the advantage of including a number of commentaries by noted scholars
of classics and international relations.
Week 1. Background and Context
Readings:
Xenophon, Hellenica, Book 1, Book 2, Chapters 1-3, pp. 353-377, in Thucydides,
The Peloponnesian War, Blanco and Roberts eds.
Herodotus, The Histories, Book 2, Chapters 111-20; Book 3, Chapters 80-88, pp.
377-383, Blanco and Roberts eds.
Plato, Gorgias, 479d-484c, 488b-492c, pp. 383-390, Blanco and Roberts eds.
Xenophon, Herodotus, and Plato all wrote around the time of Thucydides. These selections
reflect the varying views on the nature of power and questions of vice and virtue, or whether
power can be constrained by moral limits. These were questions that the Greeks also addressed
in Greek tragedies, which were performed as a kind of public forum.
Questions: What are the respective views presented about the nature of power and the purposes
for its use? What are the obligations of those who have the use of power or force at their
disposal? Why do you think this debate might have been so important to the Athenians?
Week 2. The Causes of the Peloponnesian War, Preparation for War, and Patriotism
Readings:
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Books 1, 2.
Questions: One of Thucydides’ goals is to be able to draw from history lessons about the
conduct of human affairs, including lessons about war, diplomacy and the use of force. What
are the causes of the war, on Thucydides’ account? Why did diplomacy fail? What is it about
Athens’ political culture that leads Pericles to conclude that their cause is a righteous one
(Book 2, sections 35-46)? Compare Pericles’ funeral oration to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
What similarities are there in the justification of the conflict and the sacrifices made by the
deceased?
Suggested accompanying reading: Cynthia Farrar, [Historical Understanding and the Polis],
8
Blanco and Roberts eds., pp. 450-464.
Week 3. Civil War and the Horrors of Civil Strife
Readings:
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Books 3, 4
Questions. What are the causes of the different instances of civil strife that Thucydides describes
in these books? What kinds of behavior do they elicit from the combatants? Is this behavior
typical of war?
Suggested accompanying reading: Aristophanes, Acharnians (any edition) examines the
domestic consequences and suffering that took place on the home front as a result of the war.
Week 4. The Realist Logic of Power in International Relations
Readings:
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Books 5, 6
Questions: Book 5 contains the famous Melian dialogue, which is often identified as one of the
earliest examples of realpolitik. What argument do the Athenians present to the Melians to
compel their compliance with Athenian demands? What are the Melian counter arguments?
Book 6 discusses the failures of human judgment and the nature of Athenian democracy. How
was it that the Athenians failed to understand the seriousness of the war against Sicily? Why
does Thucydides think the decision to invade Sicily was a blunder that contributed to the decline
of Athens?
Suggested accompanying reading: Robert Gilpen, “The Theory of Hegemonic War,” Blanco and
Roberts eds., pp. 479-489; Michael Doyle, “Thucydides: A Realist?” Blanco and Roberts eds.
pp. 489-501.
Week 5. The Defeat at Syracuse and the Failure of Athenian Politics
Readings: Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, Books 7, 8.
Questions: Why does Thucydides think it is important to chronicle the failure of the Athenian
invasion in such detail? What is it that sparks the Thracian massacre of the citizens of
Mycalessus? What factional conflict takes place in Athens that might have helped undermine the
Athenian’s military efforts? Finally, how do you think Thucydides would respond to the
following statement? When a country, particularly a democracy, goes to war, it had better be
prepared for the trials and horrors of war that it will endure and the violence conducted in its
name.
Suggested accompanying reading: Victor Davis Hanson, A War Like No Other: How the
Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War (New York: Random House, 2005);
Donald Kagan, The Peloponnesian War (New York: Viking Press, 2003); Kurt A. Raaflaub,
“Democracy, Power, and Imperialism in Fifth-Century Athens,” in Peter Euben, John Wallach,
9
and Josiah Ober eds., Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstruction of American
Democracy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
Part II. Classical Chinese Military Thought
Of recent, military historians and strategists have begun to recognize the significance of
the military thought of various Chinese thinkers and philosophers. Most notably is the
popularization of the work of Sun Tzu, The Art of War. But that is only one of several works
that have had and continue to have an influence in China and beyond.
Week 6. The Foundations of the Army and the Several Dimensions of War
Readings:
T’ai Kung, “Six Secret Teachings,” in Ralph D. Sawyer ed., The Seven Military
Classics of Ancient China, pp. 23-105.
Questions: What are the foundations of an effective military force? In what ways must the
various branches of the army be integrated? What is the relation between weapons and tactics?
Week 7. The Several Dimensions of War
Readings:
Sun Tzu, “The Art of War,” in Sawyer ed., pp. 145-186.
Questions: What are the several dimensions to war, according to Sun Tzu? What does the
complex nature of war demand of a good military leader? What is Sun Tzu’s views on the
appropriate use of force?
Suggested accompanying readings: Ralph D. Sawyer, The Essence of War: Leadership and
Strategy from the Chinese Military Classics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2004).
Part III. Politics and War in the Modern Age
A. Niccolo Machiavelli, Nation-States, and the Political Use of Force
Machiavelli is undoubtedly best known for The Prince. Unfortunately, much of the
complexity and subtlety of Machiavelli’s ideas has been lost in myopic interpretations of his
work. Machiavelli was among the first to see the importance of the connection between national
policy and the use of war in addition to the necessity as well as the limits to the use of force. The
Art of War is the first book that systematically argues that politics and the use of force are closely
connected and that organization, clear chain of command, proper training and troop formation
are essential for military victory. His work was influential on such thinkers as Frederick the
Great, Napoleon, and Clausewitz.
10
Week 8. Machiavelli’s Basics: The Political Use of Force
Readings:
Week 9.
Readings:
Machiavelli, The Art of War, Books 1-4
Organization, Institutions and Strategy.
Machiavelli, The Art of War, Books 5-7
Questions: What are the political foundations of military force, according to Machiavelli? Why
does he think citizen armies are important, rather than mercenary forces? How does the
emergence of the nation-state effect the kind of military needed? What changes need to take
place in terms of the kind of military code or ethos needed, according to Machiavelli?
Suggested accompanying reading: Machiavelli, The Prince (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1988); Felix Gilbert, “Machiavelli: The Renaissance of the Art of War,” in Paret ed.,
Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, pp. 11-31; R. R. Palmer,
“Frederick the Great, Guibert, Bulow: From Dynastic to National War,” in Paret ed., pp. 91-119.
B. Carl von Clausewitz and the Industrial Age
Clausewitz’s writings began to have an effect almost immediately and continue to
influence strategic thinkers today. It is, for example, one of the influences on the famous Powell
Doctrine. Clausewitz’s ideas about the importance of political objectives in war and the
unavoidability of friction (i.e., the fog of war) remain important parts of contemporary strategic
thought.
Week 9. The Nature of War
Readings:
Clausewitz, On War, Book I
Week 10. The Theory and Strategy of War
Readings:
Clausewitz, On War, Books II, III
Questions: How exactly is war connected to politics and policy, according to Clausewitz? What
Does Clausewitz mean by the “friction” of war? Why does it make war’s outcome
unpredictable? What are the connections among the people, the government, and the army in the
modern world? How pertinent is Clausewitz for contemporary understandings of war?
Suggested accompanying readings: Hew Strachan, Clausewitz’s On War (New York: Grove
Press, 2007); Peter Paret, “Clausewitz,” in Paret ed., pp. 186-213; Edward Mead Earle, “Adam
Smith, Alexander Hamilton, Friederich List: The Economic Foundations of Military Power,” in
Paret ed., pp. 217-261; Barry D. Watts, Clausewitzian Friction and Future War (McNair Paper
52, National Defense University, 1996).
11
C. Alfred Thayer Mahan: Politics and Power in the Global Era
Mahan was perhaps the first military historian to see the close connection between
seapower and commerce and the importance of seapower in contributing to military success. His
writings influenced Teddy Roosevelt and led to the building of a two ocean navy by the United
States. They also influenced the Japanese Admiral Yamamoto. Most recently, they continue to
inform the strategic thinking of both American naval officers and the Chinese navy.
Week 11. The Nature of Sea Power and its Relation to Commerce
Readings:
Mahan, The Influence of Seapower on History 1660-1783, Introduction, Chapters
1, 2, 5, 7
Week 12. The Influence of Seapower on the Conduct of War
Readings:
Mahan, The Influence of Seapower on History 1660-1783, Chapters 8, 9, 10, 13,
14
Questions: What is distinctive about the nature of seapower? Why is it important for
nations dependent on commerce to have substantial naval capability? How does the failure to
maintain a nation’s naval power contribute to its decline in commerce?
Suggested accompanying readings: Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Interest of American in
Seapower Present and Future (New York: Bibliofile, 2007); Jon Tetsuro Sumida, Inventing
Grand Strategy and Teaching Command: The Classic Works of Alfred Thayer Mahan
Reconsidered (Woodrow Wilson Center Book) (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,
1999); Philip A. Crowl, “Alfred Thayer Mahan: The Naval Historian,” in Paret ed., pp. 444477.
Part IV. Looking Toward the Future
In the past decade or so, among the questions to emerge has been “What will the nature
of warfare be like in the post-Cold War world?” The decline of the USSR, the rise of the
importance of economic interdependence, the changes with globalization, the emergence of
terrorism, insurgency to accompany guerilla warfare suggest there are significant changes in the
kinds of military challenges the world faces. Both Smith and Nagl et al present accounts of the
nature of war that suggest significant political challenges to nations in the coming century.
Week 13. The New Complexity of Warfare
Readings:
Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force in the Modern Age, Parts II, III
Week 14. Counterinsurgency and the New Challenges of War
12
Readings:
John H. Nagle, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U. S. Army/Marine
Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Introduction by Sarah Sewall, Chs. 1-3,
6-8, Appendix.
Suggested accompanying readings: James R. Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara, Chinese Naval
Strategy in the 21st Century: The Turn to Mahan (New York: Routledge, 2001); Toshi Yoshiara
and James R. Holmes eds., Asia Looks Seaward: Power and Maritime Strategy (Westport, CT:
Praeger, 2008); Mao Tse-Tung, On Guerilla War (Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press,
1961); Thomas X. Hammes, The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century (St. Paul, MN:
Zenith Press, 2006); Jeffrey Issac, Douglass X. Ollivant, Stephen Biddle, Wendy Brown, Stathis
N. Kalyvas, “Review Symposium, John H. Nagle, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U.
S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual,” Perspectives on Politics, June
2008, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 347-353.
13
Democracy and the Military
Michael T. Gibbons
Department of Government and International Affairs
University of South Florida
Introduction
The purpose of this course is to explore the role of the military in modern democratic
society and its relation to civilian authority. Both representative democracy (as practiced in the
West) and the military as a profession are relatively recent inventions. Moreover, both have a
distinctive ethos to them, i.e. a set of standards by which citizens and soldiers respectively are
motivated and by which their behavior is regulated. We will be examining the nature of both and
in the process explore the possible and appropriate relationship between the two.
Most importantly, more than any other kind of political regime, democracy insists on the
supremacy of civilian authority to the military profession. Indeed, as the readings from The
Federalist make clear, the Founders, informed as they were with the history and demise of
republics, were concerned that the Presidency not turn into a monarchy or military dictatorship.
Consequently, they constructed it with extensive safeguards to prevent just such a development.
Hence, it behooves citizens and soldiers alike to understand the challenges that face civilianmilitary relations in a democracy.
Assigned Texts:
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett
Publishing, 2005).
Robert A. Dahl, Ian Shapiro, and Jose Antonio Cheibub eds., The Democracy Sourcebook
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003).
Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985).
Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn eds., Soldiers and Citizens: The Civil Military Gap and
American National Security (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
Curtis Gilroy and Cindy Williams eds., Service to Country: Personnel Policy and the
Transformation of Western Militaries (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2006).
Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force (New York: Vintage, 2008).
John H. Nagl, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U. S. Army/Marine Corps
Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Introduction by Sarah Sewall (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2007).
Andrew J. Bacevich, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism
(New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008).
Requirements:
Students are expected to attend class and participate in the discussion in an informed manner.
Participation is 20% of your grade. In addition, students will select a topic to be researched
individually or in collaboration with one other student. That research should result in a seminar
paper, not less than 20 pages nor more than 30 for individual papers, not less than 35 nor more
14
than 50 for collaborative work by two students. Students are strongly advised to consult with the
instructor about a choice of topic and the availability of resources for the research.
Schedule of Readings
Part I. The Foundations of Democracy
It has become a temptation on the part of some citizens, political pundits, and scholars to
define the theory and practice of democracy in minimalist terms, sometimes exclusively in terms
of elections. While such an approach facilitates some forms political analysis, it ignores the
social, ethical, moral, and political preconditions of democracy including the successful
democracies of the West. As thinkers as diverse as Rousseau, Locke, Madison, Tocqueville,
Lincoln, and Dewey have pointed out, there is substantially more to the practice of democracy
than the results of the electoral process. In this section we examine the range of explanations of
democracy, from minimalist versions to those that see democracy as reaching beyond the
electoral process. Among the topics addressed are American constitutionalism, the various
traditions of American democracy, and the problems faced by democracy in the period of
globalization. Though this section is concerned primarily with American constitutional
democracy, it also addresses issues inherent in the practice of democracy per se.
Week 1. Constitutional Democracy and Beyond
Readings:
The Declaration of Independence
The Constitution of the United States
The Gettysburg Address
(All are online at various websites)
Week 2. The Justification for the American Constitution; the Powers of Congress and the
President.
Readings:
Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist, Nos. 1-8, 10,
37, 41-44, 51, 67-78.
Questions: What are the challenges that any political system must face, according to
Hamilton et al? Why are the separation of powers and the system of checks and balances
particularly well suited to address these issues, according to Madison? What are the powers
of the Congress? The Presidency? Why, according to Hamilton, are the concerns that the
Presidency is a form of monarchy misplaced? What bearing might these arguments have on the
exercise of contemporary civilian authority?
Week 3. Competing Interpretations of Democratic Theory and Practice
Readings:
Dahl, Shapiro, and Cheibub eds.: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract;
Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy; Alexis de
Tocqueville, Democracy in America; Samuel Huntington, Democracy’s Third
15
Wave; Jennifer Hochschild, Facing up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and
Soul of the Nation; Rogers Smith, Beyond Tocqueville, Myrdal, and Hartz:
Multiple Traditions in America: David Held, The Transformation of Political
Community: Rethinking Democracy in the Context of Globalization. (All in Dahl
et al;
Jurgen Habermas, The Inclusion of the Other, Chapter 9, “Three Normative
Models of Democracy,” pp. 239-252; Chapter 10, “On the Internal Relation
between the Rule of Law and Democracy,” pp. 253-265.
William E. Connolly, Identity\Difference: Democratic Negotiations of Political
Paradox, Chapter 7, “The Politics of Territorial Democracy,” pp. 198-222.
William E. Connolly, Pluralism, Chapter 5, “Pluralism and Sovereignty,” pp.
131-160.
Questions: What is the primary difference between Rousseau’s conception of democracy and
that of Schumpeter? How is the practice of democracy made more complex by the arguments of
the other authors from Dahl et al? Where does Habermas’s account of the three models of
democracy fit into these debates? What, according to Habermas, is the connection between the
rule of law and democracy? How would the issue of democracy and territoriality complicate
matters in a globalized world, according to Connolly?
Suggested accompanying readings: Jurgen Habermas, Inclusion of the Other (Cambridge: MIT
Press, 1998); James Bohman, Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000); Cass Sunstein, Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); Ian Shapiro, Democracy’s Place (Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1996); Robert A. Dahl, On Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1998); James Tully, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in the Age of Diversity (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1995); William E. Connolly, Identity\Difference: Democratic
Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991); William E. Connolly,
Pluralism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005); Seyla Benhabib, Democracy and
Difference: Contesting Boundaries of the Political (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).
Part II. The Role of the Military in Politics: Theoretical and Historical Perspectives
Week 4. Military Institutions and the State in Historical Context
Readings:
Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State, Part I, Chs. 1-5.
Questions:
What, according to Huntington, is distinctive about the military as a profession?
What historical developments contributed to the military’s rise as a profession? What ethic does
this involve? In theory, what are the distinctive features of civilian-military relations?
What do the examples of Germany and Japan illustrate, according to Huntington?
16
Week 5. The Development of Civil-Military Relations in America
Readings;
Huntington, The Soldier and the State, Part II, Chs. 6-11
Questions: In discussing civil-military relations, Huntington presents their development in
the context of liberal political society and ideology. What is the relation between liberalism and
the military profession? How has that relationship changed or developed over the years? What
events are particularly important in accounting for that change? What challenges emerged to
both military professionalism and a democratic civilian authority in the 20th Century?
Week 6. American Civil Military Relations in Post-WWII America
Readings:
Huntington, The Soldier and the State, Part III, Chs. 12-17
Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Farewell Address: The Military-Industrial Complex,”
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=90&page=transcript
Questions: How did World War II change the nature of civilian-military relations in the
United States? How was that further complicated by the Cold War? How did the Cold War alter
the practice of American constitutionalism, and particularly the separation of powers? What was
the significance of the rise of the Joint Chiefs in terms of American policy making? What was
Eisenhower’s worries in his farewell address? Are they still legitimate concerns?
Week 7. Civil-Military Relations in the 21st Century
Readings:
Richard Hooker, “Soldiers of the State: Reconsidering Civil-Military Relations,”
Parameters, Winter 2003-04, pp. 1-15.
Martin Cook, “The Proper Role of Military Advice in the Contemporary Use of
Force,” Parameters, Winter 2002-03, 21-33
Robert M. Cassidy, “Prophets or Praetorians: The Uptonian Paradox and the
Powell Corollary,” Parameters, Autumn 2002, pp. 130-143.
Louis W. Goodman, “Military Roles Past and Present,” in Larry Diamond and
Mark F. Plattner eds., Civil-Military Relations and Democracy (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996), pp. 30-47.
David H. Petraeus, “Military Influence and the Post-Vietnam Use of Force,”
Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 489-505.
Peter D. Feaver, Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil Military
Relations, “Conclusion,” pp. 283-306.
Questions: How have civil-military relations changed since Huntington’s book first written in
the sixties? What is the proper role of military officers if the military strategy mapped out by
civilian leaders appears faulty? What should be the role of retired military senior officers?
Suggested accompanying readings: S. E. Finer, The Man on Horseback (New York: Transaction
Publishers, 2002); Larry Diamond and Mark F. Plattner eds., Civil-Military Relations and
Democracy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996); Thomas Bruneau and Scott
D. Tollefson eds., Who Guards the Guardians and How: Civil-Military Relations (Austin:
17
University of Texas Press, 2008); Todd Sechser, “Are Soldiers Less War-Prone than
Statesman?” Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48 No. 5, October 2004, pp. 746-774; Peter
Feaver, Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil Military Relations (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2005).
Part III. Part III. The Civil-Military Gap, Military Effectiveness, and the Volunteer Army
Over the past decade, an increasing number of scholars and policy makers have voiced a
growing concern about the possibility of a growing gap between the U. S. military and civilian
citizens. The apparent lack of information on the part of civilians about the challenges and
specifics of military life, a decline in the percentage of adult citizens with any direct contact with
the military, and the decline in the number of veterans serving in elected office are just some of
the developments that some commentators take to be indicators of that growing gap. Moreover,
if such a gap exists, the fear is that it could have adverse consequences for national security as
well as the practice of democracy. Related to this issue is the question of whether or not some
form of universal military service or an all-volunteer armed forces is the best approach to
providing the necessary personnel for the armed forces in the 21st Century.
Week 8. Is There a Political-Cultural Gap Between Civilians and the Military?
Readings:
Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn eds., Soldiers and Civilians: The CivilMilitary Gap and American National Security, Chs. 1-3.
Questions: What evidence is there that there is a gap between civilians and senior military
officers? To what extent does such a gap challenge the effectiveness of public
policy in the U. S.? Does it have any implications for the practice of democracy?
Week 9. Historical Background and Origins of the Gap
Readings:
Feaver and Kohn eds., Soldiers and Civilians, Chs. 5, 6, and 8.
Questions: Looking over the history of U. S. civilian relations, including the work of
Huntington, is the issue of a gap a new phenomena? Historically, what similar issues have arisen
in the past? What is distinctive about the current situation that might make it more urgent?
What are some of the sources of the gap? Do you think the recent outpouring of the appearance
of civilian support for U. S. veterans and the armed forces belies, confirms, or does neither for
the existence of such a gap?
Week 10. Are There Implications for Military Effectiveness, Democracy, and Civil-Military
Relations?
Readings:
Feaver and Kohn eds., Soldiers and Civilians, Chs. 9-13
Questions: What evidence is there that the existence of a gap has effected military expenditures
or recruitment into the professional (i.e., volunteer) army? Has the growing gap affected the
18
willingness of the U. S. to commit to the use of force? How might the gap contribute to a decline
in the influence of the military? How might it be detrimental to democracy?
Week 11. Volunteer Army or Military Conscription?
Readings:
Curtis Gilroy and Cindy Williams eds., Service to Country: Personnel Policy and
the Transformation of Western Militaries, Chs. 1-3, 5, 9, 11, 19.
Nader Elhefnawy, “National Mobilization: An Option in Future Conflicts?”
Parameters, August 2004, pp. 122-133.
Questions: What are the arguments for the preference for an all-volunteer force (AVF)? How do
they differ from those arguments made in favor of conscription? What might be the different
effects of the move from conscription be for American culture? What have been the respective
experiences of the U. S. and the U. K. in the transition to all-volunteer armed forces? What are
the implications for reserve forces when nations move to AVF? What might be the ramifications
of an AVF for democracy?
Part IV. Democracies, the Military, and the Use of Force in the 21st Century
Many military scholars and policy makers have argued that the use of force in the future
will be substantially more complicated than what the West prepared for during the Cold War. In
part this was previewed in the Vietnam War, when the U. S. became involved in fighting a war
with an armed forces designed primarily for conventional war to meet a Soviet invasion of
Europe. The rise of terrorism, insurgency, religious and cultural conflict, demands for
humanitarian intervention, along with the rise of non-state actors with potential access to
significant means of violence all suggest that the successful use of force in the future will be
more complicated and that the achievement of the political goals for which it is deployed more
challenging. This section looks at two accounts of the more complex nature of war in the future
and seeks to draw out what the political demands on democracies will be from those
developments.
Week 12. The Effective Use of Force for Democratic Societies, Part I.
Readings:
Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force, Part II, Ch. 6, Part III, Chs. 7-9.
Questions: How has warfare changed from the industrial age to the present? What does Smith
mean by “warfare among the people?” How has that complicated war for military commanders?
How do you think that changes the demands on civilian citizens in terms of their expectations of
the use of force? Are there conventional aspects of warfare the significance of which Smith
ignores or underestimates?
Week 13. The Effective Use of Force for Democratic Societies, Part II.
Readings:
John H. Nagl, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U. S. Army/Marine
Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Chs. 1-2, 6, 8; Sarah Sewall,
“Introduction.”
19
Questions: What are the distinctive military requirements of counterinsurgency? What
resources, technological and personnel, does it require or draw upon? What are the political
goals that it seeks to achieve? What does it demand of civilian citizens who seek to commit their
armed forces to counterinsurgency wars? In what ways does Sarah Sewall think that Nadl et al
might have a desirable influence on civilian thinking about military force?
Week 14 Foreign Policy, Military Force, and Soft Power
One of the ongoing concerns of military thinkers and commanders has been the proper
relationship between foreign policy as a whole and the appropriate use of military force. To put
it in the terms of Machiavelli, successful political leaders need to know when to be the fox,
relying on diplomacy, and when to be the lion, relying on force. The use of force is more
complicated for democracies, particularly if citizens are unprepared for the violence that
constitutes war. In some respects, the issues related to this question are raised in Week 13. But
here they focus more on the proper relations between military force and diplomatic power.
Readings: “Mullen Urges Emphasis on ‘Soft Power in Foreign Policy,”
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=52664
Gary Schaub, “Really Soft Power,” New York Times, January 26, 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/opinion/27schaub.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Andrew J. Bacevich, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism
(New York: Metropolitan Books, 2008), Chs. 2, 3, Conclusion, pp. 67-182.
Todd Sechser, “Are Soldiers Less War-Prone than Statesman?” Journal of Conflict
Resolution, (Vol. 48 No. 5, October 2004, pp. 746-774.
Questions: What is the emphasis that Mullen and Schaub put on ‘soft power’ over military
force? Why do you think military commanders would insist on a greater emphasis on soft
power? Why does Bacevich think that the American public has succumbed to the temptation to
rely on military force when it comes to foreign policy? In what ways are his concerns different
than those of Mullen, Schaub, or Smith and Petraeus?
Suggested accompanying readings: Pierre Lessard, “Campaign Design for Winning the
Peace…,” Parameters, Summer 2005, pp. 36-49; Frederick W. Kagan, “War and Aftermath,”
Policy Review, 120 (July-August 2003), http://www.policyreview.org/aug03/kagan_print.html;
Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
20
Ethics, Just War, and the Military
Michael T. Gibbons
Department of Government and International Affairs
University of South Florida
Introduction
Although it often seems odd to those unfamiliar with its history, warfare has very often
been conducted according to codes of conduct that impose various ethical and moral demands on
participants. In the premodern world, such codes were unwritten, the tacit understanding that
some forms of behavior were acceptable and some not. We find such stipulations as far back as
Homer’s Iliad. One of the defining features of modern warfare is that the moral and ethical
requirements of war, and of the military profession per se, have not only become the object of
conscious deliberation but are embodied in legal requirements about the conduct of war. This
course addresses issues related to the moral, ethical, and legal requirements of the military
profession, citizens in the military, and of just war theory.
The Importance of Ethics for the Military Profession
In the aftermath of World War II, the Allies conducted a series of trials of military
officers of the Axis powers. Among the crimes for which military personnel were tried were the
contribution to war that was clearly at some point unwinnable. Other officers were tried for the
conduct of subordinates that involved the killing of Allied prisoners. In some instances the
officers were found guilty. In others, the behaviors in questions were found to be consistent with
the requirements of military jus in bellum, i.e. the just conduct of war. What is particularly
important for the purposes of this course is that the Allied powers provided those accused with
the most extensive legal representation possible. This decision on the part of the Allies reflected
a commitment to the idea that there are in fact ethical, moral and legal standards of behavior for
which military personnel could be held accountable and which were the basis for guilt or
exoneration.
The ethical requirements of military service are not, of course, limited to questions of just
war. The responsibilities of senior level officers in advising civilian policy makers is of
paramount importance, particularly as it relates to questions of humanitarian intervention. The
diversity of new challenges and the complexity of the various aspects of globalization will likely
increase the ethical and moral demands on military personnel and policy makers.
Requirements: In addition to participation in class discussion, each student will be required to
write a short paper, not less than 1000 words, on each of the topics addressed in class. Grades
will be calculated according to the following formula:
Participation
Four short papers
20%
20% for each paper
The short papers will deal with a topic selected from each of the separate four sections.
21
Required Books
Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1998).
William E. Connolly, Pluralism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005).
Alex J. Bellamy, Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq (Cambridge: Polity Press,
2006).
Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical
Illustrations, fourth edition (New York: Basic Books, 2006)
Deen K. Chatterjee and Don E. Scheid eds., Ethics and Foreign Intervention (New York:
Cambridge University, 2006).
R. Joseph Hoffman ed., Just War and Jihad: Violence in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (New
York: Prometheus Books, 2006).
John Kelsay and James Turner Johnson, Just War and Jihad: Historical and Theoretical
Perspectives on War and Peace in the Western and Islamic Traditions (New York:
Greenwood Press, 1991).
Charles Reed and David Ryall eds., The Price of Peace: Just War in the 21st Century (New
York: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Schedule of Readings
I. Ethics and Morality in the Modern World
The emergence of the modern world has been accompanied by challenges to the idea that
there is a single, uncontestable source of morality and ethics. For thinkers such as John Locke,
Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill, this development reflects greater discretion with respect to
personal choice and freedom. For others, the decline in the idea of a single, unambiguous moral
and ethical code that regulates both the private and public lives of individuals is seen as one of
the problems facing the modern world. In this first section, we explore two perspectives on the
problems of morality and ethics in the modern world. The work of Alasdair MacIntyre has
influenced a great number of thinkers who believe that a Christian-Aristotlean view of virtue is
the best response to what MacIntyre sees as relativism in the modern world. William E.
Connolly’s work embodies the idea of ethically engaged pluralism, i.e. the idea that one needs to
recognize that one’s own ethical commitments might be flawed and that recognition obligates
one to engage those perspectives that present the greatest challenge to one’s own thinking.
Week 1
MacIntyre, After Virtue, Chs. 1-10.
Week 2
MacIntyre, After Virtue, Chs. 11-19.
Questions: What does MacIntyre mean by emotivism? What does he mean by the
Enlightenment Project? Why did it fail? What does he mean by bureaucratic individualism?
What moral challenge do you think it could pose for military personnel? Why does he think it is
symptomatic of modern organizations? How does he see the reconstitution of virtue? Why are
22
Nietzsche and Aristotle the two exemplars for what he sees as the primary possibilities for
morality and ethics in the modern world? Why is the Aristotlean perspective his preferred
alternative?
Week 3
William E. Connolly, “Nothing is Fundamental,” from Connolly, The Ethos of
Pluralization (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 1995);
Connolly, “Democracy and Distance,” in Connolly, Identify\Difference:
Democratic Negotiations of Political Paradox (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,
1991), pp. 158-197.
Week 4
Connolly, Pluralism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005) “Prelude,”
Chapter 1 “Pluralism and Evil,” Chapter 2 “Pluralism and Evil,” Chapter 3,
“Pluralism and Relativism” in Connolly,
Questions: Connolly argues that fundamentalism can be found in both a religious and nonreligious thinkers. What does he mean by fundamentalism? What does he mean by pluralism?
How is it related to the modern condition? Where does Connolly’s approach differ from
MacIntyre’s?
Suggested accompanying readings: Alasdair MacIntyre, A Short History of Ethics: Moral
Philosophy from the Homeric Age to the Twentieth Century (Notre Dame, IN: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1998); Charles Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1992) ; Simone Chambers and Will Kymlicka eds., Alternative Conceptions of
Civil Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002); Sidney Axinn, Chapter II, “Morality:
Why Sacrifice Myself?” in Axinn, The Moral Military (Philadelphia: Temple University Press,
1989); William E. Connolly, Pluralism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2005); David
Cambell and Morton Schoolman eds., The New Pluralism: William Connolly and the
Contemporary Global Condition (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008).
II. Just War: The Moral Requirements of Warfare
As far back as the early Greeks, distinctions were made between when it was morally
acceptable to go to war and when it was not (jus ad bellum). Eventually, such theories began to
include moral arguments about the proper conduct of combatants (jus in bello). More recently,
increasing attention has been paid to questions about the moral requirements of combatants,
particularly victors, in the aftermath of war (jus post bellum). Needless to say, the ideas
surrounding all three of these moral perspectives on war have evolved over time with changes in
moral theory, political theory, technology and military strategy. They are likely to continue to
evolve as the twenty-first century brings with it new kinds of war and uses of force.
Week 5
Alex J. Bellamy, Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq (Cambridge: Polity Press,
2006), Chs. 1-5.
Week 6
Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical
Illustrations, fourth edition (New York: Basic Books, 2006), Parts One and Two.
23
Week 7
Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars, Parts Three and Four.
Week 8
Eric Patterson, “Jus Post Bellum and International Conflict: Order, Justice and
Reconciliation,” in Michael W. Brough et al, Rethinking the Just War Tradition
(Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2007), pp. 50-74;
Brian Orend, “Jus Post Bellum,” in Peter A. French and Jason A. Short eds., War
and Border Crossings: Ethics When Cultures Clash (Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2005);
Kimberly C. Field and Robert M. Perito, “Creating a Force for
Peace Operations,” Parameters, Winter 2003-04, pp. 77-87;
Davida E. Kellog, “Jus Post Bellum: The Importance of War Crimes Trials,”
Parameters, Autumn 2002, pp. 87-99.
Suggested accompanying reading: Brian Orend, “War,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/; J. T. Johnson, Morality and Contemporary Warfare (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1999); Sidney Axinn, A Moral Military (Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1989); M Frost, Ethics in International Relations (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1996); Jean Bethke Elshtain ed., Just War Theory (New York: NYU Press,
1991); Immanuel Kant, Political Writings, trans. H. Nisbit and ed. H. Reiss (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1970); Michael Ignatieff, “Virtual War: Ethical Challenges,”
USNA Ethics Center, http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/Publications.html.
III. Contemporary Religious Conceptions of Just War
For the better part of the post World War II period, scholars of international relations and
policy makers (who were often very influenced by the scholarship) ignored the significance of
religions and religious traditions. The assumption on the part of both was that as the nonWestern world modernized, it would become more secular, a quality that was believed to be one
of the defining characteristics of modernization. That expectation has failed. Religion continues
to be such an important part of the political landscape that numerous eminent scholars, both
theistic and non-theistic, have argued that we are entering a post-secular age. This sections
examines the three religions that constitute the Abrahamic tradition and their respective views of
just war.
Week 9
Judith Lichtenberg, “Some Critical Problems in Just War Theory,” in Hoffman
ed., pp. 15-32.
R. Joseph Hoffman, “Positioning the Question of Religious Violence,” in
Hoffman ed., pp. 47-62.
Regina M. Schwartz, “Holy Terror,” in Hoffman ed., pp. 191-202.
Gabriel Palmer Fernandez, “Religion and Violence: War, Tyrannicide, Terrorism”
in Hoffman ed., pp. 231-254.
24
Week 10
James Turner Johnson, “Historical Roots and Sources of the Just War Tradition in
Western Culture,” in Kelsay and Johnson eds.
Fred M. Donner, “The Sources of Islamic Conceptions of War,” Kelsay and
Johnson eds., pp. 31-70
Ann Elizabeth Myer, “War and Peace in the Islamic Tradition and International
Law,” Kelsay and Johnson eds., pp. 195-226.
Reuven Firestone, “Who Broke Their Vow First: The Three Vows and
Contemporary Thinking about Jewish Holy War,” in Hoffman ed., 77-98.
John Kelsay, “Muslim Argument and the War on Terror,” in Kelsay, Arguing the
Just War in Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007), 198-226.
Michael G. Knapp, “The Concept and Practice of Jihad,” Parameters, Spring
2003, pp. 83-94.
In what ways do the three Abrahamic religions agree on the nature of just war? What exceptions
do they make? In what respects are they consistent or inconsistent with international law? Is
there room for disagreement among believers of each religious tradition? Why?
Suggested accompanying reading: The Bible: The Old Testament, Exodus, Leviticus,
Deuteronomy; The New Testament, The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; John
Kelsay, Arguing the Just War in Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007); Jean
Bethke Elsthain, (New York: NYU Press, 1991); Patrick Porter, “Good Anthropology, Bad
History: The Cultural Turn in Studying War,” Parameters, Summer 2007, pp. 45-58.
IV. Future Challenges to Just War: Terrorism, Preemption, and Humanitarian
Intervention
Week 11
Bellamy, Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq, Chapters 6-10, Conclusions
A. Terrorism and Insurgency
Week 12
Michael H. Hoffman, “Rescuing the Law of War,” Parameters, Summer 2005,
pp. 18-35.
Jean Bethke Elsthain, “Terrorism,” in Charles Reed and David Ryall eds., pp.
118-135.
Paul Schulte, “Rogue Regimes, WMD, and Hyper-Terrorism: Augustine and
Aquinas meet Chemical Ali,” in Reed and Ryall eds., pp. 136-156.
Terrence K. Kelly, “The Just Conduct of War against Radical Islamic Terror and
Insurgencies,” in Red and Ryall eds., pp. 201-216.
Owen Fiss, “The War against Terror and the Rule of Law,” Oxford Journal of
Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 2 (Summer, 2006), pp. 235-256.
B. Preemptive War
Week 13
Franklin Eric Wester, “Preemption and the Just War: Consider the Case of Iraq,”
Parameters, Winter 2004-05, pp. 20-39.
25
Jean Bethke Elshtain, Just War Against Terror (New York: Basic Books, 2003),
Chapter 11, “States and Self-Defense in a Dangerous Time,” pp. 160-171.;
Chapter 12, “American Power and Responsibility,” pp. 161-173.
Michael Walzer, Arguing About War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004)
Chapter 12, “Governing the Globe,” pp. 171-192.
Jordy Rocheleau, “Preventive War and Lawful Constraints on the Use of Force:
An Argument against Internationalism Vigilantism,” in Michael W. Brough et al
eds., pp. 237-264.
C. Humanitarian Intervention
Week 14
Stanley Hoffman, “Intervention: Should It Go On, Can It Go On?” in Deen K.
Chatterjee and Don E. Scheid eds., Ethics and Foreign Intervention, pp. 21-30.
George R. Lucas, “From Jus ad Bellum to Jus as Pacem: Re-thinking Just War
Criteria for the Use of Military Force for Humanitarian Ends,” in Chatterjee and
Scheid eds., pp. 72-96
P. Laberge, “Humanitarian Intervention: Three Ethical Positions,” Ethics and
International Affairs 9 (1995) pp. 15-35;
Paul Christopher, The Ethics of War and Peace, Chapter 12, “Humanitarian
Intervention,” pp. 190-207;
Iris Marion Young, “Violence Against Power: Critical Thoughts on Military
Intervention,” in Chatterjee and Scheid eds., pp. 251-273.
Questions; What are the distinctions between guerilla war, terrorism, and insurgencies? What
are the different ethical challenges that each poses? What are the arguments for and against
preemptive war? Humanitarian intervention? How do Elsthain and Walzer see the new
responsibilities thrust upon the United States and the world community in the face of terrorism?
Are they correct? What are the different strategic and tactical challenges of guerilla war,
terrorism, insurgency, and humanitarian intervention? What ethical and moral dilemmas does
each pose?
Suggested accompanying readings: Paul Christopher, The Ethics of War and Peace (Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003); Michael Walzer, Arguing About War (New Have: Yale
University Press, 2004); Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil (Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2004); Jean Bethke Elsthain, Just War Against Terror (New York: Basic Books, 2003);
Robert Cassidy, “Review Essay: Terrorism and Insurgency,” Parameters, Autumn 2008, pp.
129-133; James J. F. Forest ed., Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century:
International Perspectives (3 Volumes) (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing, 2007).
26
Politics, the Military, and Strategy in the 21st Century
Michael T. Gibbons
University of South Florida
Rethinking Politics and Strategy
Over the last century, several changes to the nature of warfare have taken place, some of
which have only gradually been recognized as changing the nature of military preparedness and
more importantly, changing the political demands on governments and civilian populations
engaged in the conduct of war. In the past, war has routinely been conducted by nation-states
against clearly identifiable enemy, routinely other nation states. The environment in which war
was conducted, i.e. the battlefield, was easily discernable. Distinctions between combatants and
non-combatants were generally made without much difficulty. The congruence of political goals
and military strategy was thought to be easily discernable. Although there was a recognition that
rules of engagement had an element of ambiguity to them, that was perceived to be an
exceptional factor and not an omnipresent issue for field commanders. Finally, the presumption
was that successful doctrines of strategy and tactics were applicable to all wars and conflicts.
In the past century, the world has seen the development of guerilla war, not fought as an
appendage to conventional war but as the primary means of military operation. Subsequently,
insurgencies and terrorism have further complicated the nature of warfare. Decolonization has
increased the number of political actors and one of the features of globalization has been the rise
in the importance of non-state actors, including ethnic, religious, and political minorities, thus
complicating the international political system. The new forms of warfare have blurred the
distinctions between combatants and non-combatants, between the battlefield and areas
populated by non-combatants. Increasingly, the relationship between political goals and military
strategy has become more complicated. Increasingly, the ambiguity of rules of engagement has
increased. The globalization of knowledge has lead to the proliferation of countries and
organizations with the knowledge to produce nuclear, chemical and biological warfare. Finally,
many military strategists argue that the new forms of warfare have complicated the relationship
between political goals and military strategy.
These changes are reflected in the new demands and kinds of conflict with which the
United States, and presumably other powers as well, will be faced in the 21st Century. The
continued presence of the U. S. in the Middle East, and the challenges posed by the continued
reconstruction of Iraq, the influence of Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will mean that the
U. S. will be faced with political instability in that region. The political situation in Pakistan,
including its continued conflict with India, may represent the most likely source of the use of
nuclear weapons in the near future. The economic interests of China, including its potential as
an international consumer, and its interest in extending its naval power, represent a more
conventional challenge. Finally, questions surrounding the future of Russia and Eastern Europe
as well as Africa further complicate the political-military agenda.
This course examines the political challenges posed by the Middle East, Pakistan, and
China in the context of new understandings of strategy and tactics. Its goal is to demonstrate the
27
complexity of those challenges in order to lay the foundations for political debate about the
prospects for resolving the political conflicts that will issue in sustainable solutions.
Requirements: Each student will be expected to complete four short papers as follows;
A paper not more than 8 pages, identifying the most significant changes in warfare and
challenges to strategy in contemporary international affairs that have taken place in the past
twenty years.
Three short position papers, not more than 6 typed pages, outline a viable approach to each of the
problem areas identified. A general outline for each paper is:
1. Why is the country or region in question of particular importance to the U. S. or to the
world community? Be as specific as possible. Supply evidence for your claims.
2. What are the significant problems or threats that exist in the region or with the
challenges this country faces? Again, document your assessment.
3. What resources are available to the U. S. for addressing these issues or this problem
area? Include diplomatic resources, military strengths, potential allies, etc.
4. How does this issue area effect U. S. military strategy? Does it involve challenges
that go beyond present capabilities? Does it require new thinking about the resources
available to the armed forces? If so, what are those? If hostilities broke out, what
kind of war would the U. S. be facing? A guerilla war? Conventional war?
Required Books:
Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force (New York: Vintage, 2008).
John H. Nagl, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U. S. Army/Marine Corps
Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Introduction by Sarah Sewall (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2007).
Malise Ruthven, Islam: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).
Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2006).
Khaled Abou El Fadl et al, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 2004).
Bruce Reidel, The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future
(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008).
Tariq Ali, The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of America (New York: Scribner, 2008).
Ralph D. Sawyer, The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China, trans. Ralph D. Sawyer (New
York: Basic Books, 1993).
James R. Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara, Chinese Naval Strategy in the 21st Century: The Turn to
Mahan (New York: Routledge, 2001)
28
Schedule of Readings
Part I. The Changing Environment
It is sometimes difficult to keep in mind exactly how rapidly economic, technological,
military, and social changes have been in the last two hundred years. In aviation technology
alone, human beings have gone from being earthbound to space shuttles and space stations in
less than 100 years. The last fifty years have seen industry and manual labor replaced with new
forms of production and productivity. The processes of globalization have further increased the
speed with which the world has changed. These changes have implications for the conduct of
war and the use of force in the pursuit of political goals. They also seem to have implications for
the kinds of political goals for which force is an effective instrument.
Week 1. The Industrial Age and the Cold War
Readings:
Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force, Part I, Part II, Chs. 4-5
Week 2. The Post Cold War Context
Readings:
Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force, Part II, Ch. 6, Part III, Chs. 7-9.
Week 3. The Political-Military Challenge of Non-Conventional War
Readings:
John H. Nagle, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U. S. Army/Marine
Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Introduction by Sarah Sewall, Chs. 1-5.
Week 4. The Political Military Challenge of Non-Conventional War (cont.)
Readings:
John H. Nagle, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U. S. Army/Marine
Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, Introduction by Sarah Sewall, Chs. 6-10,
Appendix.
Questions:
How has warfare changed from the industrial age to the present? What does
Smith mean by “warfare among the people?” How has that complicated war for military
commanders? How do you think that changes the demands on civilian citizens in terms of their
expectations of the use of force? Are there conventional aspects of warfare the significance of
which Smith ignores or underestimates? What are the distinctive military requirements of
counterinsurgency? What resources, technological and personnel, does it require or draw upon?
What are the political goals that it seeks to achieve? What does it demand of civilian citizens
who seek to commit their armed forces to counterinsurgency wars? In what ways does Sarah
Sewall think that Nadl et al might have a desirable influence on civilian thinking about military
force?
Suggested accompanying readings; Niall Ferguson, The War of the World: Twentieth Century
Conflict and the Descent of the West (New York: Penguin, 2006); Martin Van Creveld,
“Technology and War II,” in Charles Townsend ed., The Oxford History of Modern War (New
29
York: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 341-363; Thomas X. Hammes, The Sling and the
Stone: On War in the 21st Century (St. Paul, MN: Zenith Press, 2006); Jeffrey Issac, Douglass X.
Ollivant, Stephen Biddle, Wendy Brown, Stathis N. Kalyvas, “Review Symposium, John H.
Nagle, David H. Petraeus and John F. Amos, The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency
Field Manual,” Perspectives on Politics, June2008, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 347-353; Steven J. Hook
and John W. Spanier, American Foreign Policy Since WW II (Washington, D. C: CQ Press,
2007), Chs. 9-14; Paul J. Bolt, Damon V. Coletta, and Collins G. Shakelford, Jr., American
Defense Policy, eighth edition (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005).
Part II. The Several Challenges of the Middle East
One of the most important things to keep in mind about the Middle East is that the
boundaries of the nations there were largely imposed by Western powers in the 19th and 20th
Centuries. The result is that territorial boundaries often do not reflect single cultures,
Ethnic groups, or religious faiths. There are varying degrees of diversity through the region. In
addition, Islam itself is composed of various denominations, the conflicts among which go
back more than a millennia. Hence, the Middle East is a more complicated region than is
sometimes recognized by Western citizens and policy makers.
Week 5. Islam and Islamic Fundamentalism
Readings:
Malise Ruthven, Islam: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1997).
Week 6. Islam and Democracy
Readings:
Khaled Abou El Fadl et al, Islam and the Challenge of Democracy (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2004), especially essays by Abou El Fadl, Noah
Feldman, Saba Mahmood, Mohammad H. Fadel, David Novak, and John
Esposito.
Abu-l-Ala Mawdudi, “Political Theory of Islam,” in John J. Donohue and John L.
Esposito eds., Islam in Transition, second edition (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2007), pp. 262-70.
Abdolkarim Sorouch, “Tolerance and Governance: A Discourse on Religion and
Democracy,” in Donohue and Esposito eds., pp. 311-318.
Abid Ullah Jan, “Compatibility: Neither Required nor an Issue,” in Donohue and
Esposito eds., pp. 319-330.
Week 7. Varieties of Jihad
Readings:
Michael Bonner, Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2006).
30
Week 8. The Strategic Challenge
Readings;
Nora Benashal and Daniel L. Byman eds., Security Environment in the Middle
East: Conflict, Stability and Political Change (Arlington, VA: Rand Corporation,
2004), Chs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6.
Questions: What, according to Ruthven, is the difference between Islam and political Islam?
What are the differences among the various denominations of Islam? What aspects of Islam
might lend themselves to a kind of democracy or democratic types of practices? What
reservations are there about such claims? What are the varying meanings of jihad? Has the
ambiguity in the term lent itself to more violent uses of it? Aside from the issues of radical
fundamentalism, what other security issues emerge in the Middle East. Why would it be
important even if all the countries were Western style or secular forms of government?
Suggested accompanying readings: Tamara Sonn, A Brief History of Islam (Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2004); Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na’im, Islam and the Secular State:
Negotiating the Future of Shari’a (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Faisal Devji,
Landscapes of Jihad: Militancy, Morality, Modernity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005);
Laurent Murawiec, The Mind of Jihad (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008); Talal
Asad, Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity (Stanford: Stanford University
Press, 2003).
Part III. Pakistan and Central Asia
Though it may be unfamiliar to many Americans, it seems inevitable that Pakistan will
play a critical role in the future of South Asia for the foreseeable future. The presence of radical
Islamic movements within its borders, its hostilities with India that could conceivably result in a
nuclear exchange, and problems between its military and civilian authorities suggest that it
could be the scene of an emergent crisis.
Week 9. Islam and Pakistan
Readings:
Zahid Hussain, Frontline Pakistan: The Struggle with Militant Islam (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2007), Prologue, Chs. 1, 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, pp. 1-32, 5175, 89-101, 119-154, 172-192.
Week 10. Pakistan and the War on Terror
Readings:
Bruce Reidel, The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future
(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2008).
Week 11. Prospects for Pakistani-U.S. Relations
Readings:
Tariq Ali, The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of America, Chs. 1, 2, 8, 9, 10,
pp. 1-49, 191-278.
31
Tariq Gilani, “U. S. Pakistan Relations: A Way Forward,” Parameters, Winter
2006-07, pp. 84-102.
Questions: What are the elements of Pakistan’s society and population that lend themselves to
political instability? What are the foundations of more radical forms of Islam in Pakistan? Are
they indigenous or foreign? What specific dangers does Al Qaeda pose to a democratic
Pakistan? What solutions does Tariq Gilani recommend?
Suggested accompanying readings: Hussain Haqqani, Pakistan–Between Mosque and Military
(Washington: The Brookings Institution Press, 2005); Shuja Nawaz, Crossed Swords: Pakistan,
Its Army, and the Wars Within (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Tariq Ali, The Duel:
Pakistan on the Flight Path of America (New York: Scribner, 2008); Mohan Malik, “The China
Factor in the India-Pakistan Conflict,” Parameters, Spring 2003, 35-50.
IV. The Rise of China
The growth of China’s economy and the growth and composition of its military have
been a concern for Western policy makers for almost two decades. The recent growth of China’s
navy is of particular concern. This section explores the potential sources of conflict and
competition between the West and China and its allies over the next several decades.
Week 11. The Chinese Military Tradition
Readings:
“T’ai Kung’s Six Secret Teachings,” in Sawyer ed., pp. 19-106.
“Sun Tzu’s The Art of War,” in Sawyer ed., pp. 145-186.
“Three Strategies of Huang Shih-Kung,” in Sawyer ed., pp. 277-306.
Andrew Scobel, “Is there a Chinese Way of War,” Parameters, Spring 2005, pp.
118-122.
Week 12. Assessment of Chinese Military Capability
Readings:
Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2008: Annual Report to the
Congress (Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2008);
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/china.html
Week 13. The Growth of Chinese Naval Power
Readings:
James R. Holmes and Toshi Yoshihara, Chinese Naval Strategy in the 21st
Century: The Turn to Mahan (New York: Routledge, 2001);
Week 14. China and East Asia
Andrew S. Erickson, “Can China Become a Maritime Power,” in Yoshiara and
Holmes eds., pp. 70-110.
32
Rommel Banloi, “Southeast Asian Perspectives on the Rise of China: Regional
Security after 9/11,” Parameters, Summer 2003, 98-107.
Tanaka Akihiko, “The Rise of China and Changes in the Balance of Power in East
Asia,”
http://www.jfir.or.jp/e/research_e/seminar2/conver_3.htm.
Questions: There is often speculation about exactly to what extent traditional Chinese military
writings influence contemporary Chinese strategy. What parallels or similarities are there, if
any? What are the most important aspects of China’s military, according to the DoD report?
How does China’s growing naval power represent a strategic challenge to the West and the U. S.
in particular? What are the implications for South and Southeast Asia?
Suggested accompanying readings: Mark Burles and Abram N. Shulsky. Patterns in China’s Use
of Force: Evidence from History and Doctrinal Writings (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2000);
Bruce A. Elleman, Modern Chinese Warfare, 1795-1989 (New York and London: Routledge,
2001); Evan A. Feigenbaum, China’s Techno-Warriors: National Security and Strategic
Competition from the Nuclear to the Information Age (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press,
2003); Mark A. Ryan, David M. Finkelstein, and Michael A. McDevitt, eds., Chinese
Warfighting: The PLA Experience Since 1949 (Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 2003); Allen S.
Whiting, The Chinese Calculus of Deterrence: India and Indochina. Michigan Classics in
Chinese Studies No. 4. Ann Arbor: Univ. of Michigan, Center for Chinese Studies, 2001.
(Reprint of 1975 edition); Toshi Yoshiara and James R. Holmes eds., Asia Looks Seaward:
Power and Maritime Strategy (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2008); Carolyn W. Pumphrey, ed., The
Rise of China in Asia: Security Implications (Carlisle, Pa.: US ArmyWar College, Strategic
Studies Institute, 2002)
33
Additional Curriculum Module
Democracy, Dissent, and Patriotism
In part as a consequence of what became known as “the revolt of the generals,” the issue
of the obligations of senior military personnel has become a topic of discussion. This itself
reflects the broader debate about the nature of dissent and patriotism in a democracy including in
a time of war. For many thinkers, such as Walter Berns, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer,
Michael McConnell and Richard Rorty, patriotism is a particularly important quality in
democratic society. Others, such as George Kateb and Steven Johnston, are concerned that the
impulse to patriotism can stifle debate, including debate about the use of military force, when
debate is needed most. Johnston recommends an ethic of civic generosity in its place. The
following readings reflect the range of diverse opinion about dissent, patriotism and democracy.
This module could be substituted for one of the weekly sections above or could be added to a
longer course for Democracy and the Military or Ethics, Just War, and the Military.
Readings:
Martin Cook, “Revolt of the Generals: A Case Study in Professional Ethics,”
Parameters, Spring 2008, pp. 1-15.
General Anthony Zinni, “The Obligation to Speak the Truth,” U. S. Naval
Academy Ethics Center,
http://www.usna.edu/Ethics/Publications.html
Martha Nussbaum, “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism,” in Nussbaum et al, For
Love of Country (Boston: Beacon Press, 2002), pp. 3-20.
Michael W. McConnell, “Don’t Neglect the Little Platoons,” in Nussbaum et al,
pp. 78-84.
Charles Taylor, “Why Democracy Needs Patriotism,” in Nussbaum et al, pp. 119121.
Michael Walzer, “Spheres of Affection,” Nussbaum et al, pp. 125-127.
George Kateb, Patriotism and Other Mistakes (New Have: Yale University Press,
2006) Ch. 1 “Is Patriotism a Mistake?” and Ch. 8, “Courage and Virtue,”
pp. 3-20, 169-195.
Steven Johnston, The Truth about Patriotism (Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 2007), Ch. 1, “Why I Am Not a Patriot,” pp. 1-20.
Suggested accompanying reading: Walter Berns, Making Patriots (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2001); Steven Johnston, The Truth about Patriotism (Durham, NC: Duke
University Press, 2007), Chs. 2-8; George Kateb, Patriotism and Other Mistakes (New Have:
Yale University Press, 2006), Chs. 2-5; Jan-Werner Muller, Constitutional Patriotism (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2007); Richard Rorty, Achieving Our Country (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1998); Cass Sunstein, Why Societies Need Dissent (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 2003); Maurizio Virioli, For Love of Country (New York: Clarendon Press,
1995).
34
Recommendations for Further Program Development
As mentioned earlier, the courses presented here are designed to be offered individually
or in combination with each other. The curriculum as a whole was designed to be self contained
in the sense that it presents a coherent approach to the several dimensions of the study of the
military in relation to political life. Nonetheless, it is the opinion of the author that such a
curriculum would benefit greatly from a background in history and politics that would facilitate
an understanding of the topics covered. Specifically, course work in the areas listed would be
particularly useful. Most of these topics identify courses that are routinely offered in college
curricula, although the specific titles may vary from institution to institution. The first two could
be provided in standard introductory courses in most political science departments, the third is a
common introductory level course in philosophy departments. The remainder is commonly
found as upper division undergraduate courses. The augmentation of the curriculum presented
above with some combination of the courses identified below could provide a strong minor or be
the basis of a certificate program in political-military studies. Obviously, each institution may
have courses specific to it that would also be appropriate for such a certificate or to augment the
suggested curriculum (e.g. Chinese Foreign Policy; Military Ethics; and so forth). Obviously,
not all such courses could be made available. But a judicious selection of optional courses
would be possible in most universities and colleges.
1. International relations
2. American national politics
3. A philosophy course in ethics or moral theory
4. Courses in political theory, particularly modern or contemporary political theory
5. A course in democratic theory
6. American foreign policy or American diplomatic history
7. Courses in military history
8. A course in international law
9. International political economy
10. Comparative religions
35