Raamin Mostaghimi
4/11/07
AFP Section Writing

Ambrose and Brinkley's "Bush and the Gulf War"

What I found interesting about this reading was the comparison of Bush I's pre-war actions to those of Truman and Johnson. Bush's command of the situation seemed much more impressive than Truman's or Johnson's, if only because he learned from their mistakes. He didn't make the mistakes of incremental escalation or micromanagement of the war effort like Johnson in Vietnam, nor did he make the mistake of not garnering any international support like Truman in Korea. Instead, he managed to get a UN-based coalition force to help fight and pay for the war, he went to Congress for authorization beforehand, and he let the generals do the fighting based on the Powell doctrine, which essentially annihilated the Iraqi army.
Although comparing the success of this war to the modern-day Iraq war may be interesting, I think it's more interesting to discuss the aftermath of the 1st Gulf War. As Ambrose and Brinkley say, the American people overwhelmingly supported President Bush during and immediately after the conflict, but after the honeymoon period was over his approval dropped so precipitously that he actually failed to be reelected. The idea of the USA as the world's policeman is an appealing one, but the implications are not necessarily so nice-sounding. One of the criticisms leveled against Bush after the 1st Gulf War was that the US didn't stay and finish the job, which emphasized a new style of American warmaking- quick entrance with massive and overwhelming force, then exit as soon as stated limited objectives are complete. Critics lambasted the American war machine for this policy and for not staying to rebuild the affected states (both in Iraq and in Panama, 1989), but I don't have too much of a problem with the policy myself. What I do have a problem with is selected enforcement of US police powers on moral grounds. If the true reason that the US didn't intervene in Yugoslavia but did intervene in Iraq was because of US oil interests in the region, then this is a legitimate display of power politics, and I don't have a problem with that. But if the US decides to elevate itself to the moral high ground in the conflict to 'punish aggression,' then it should do so consistently and to the best of its ability, and this is an extremely dangerous route for it to take. Better to stick with power politics, in my opinion.

AFP NOTES 4/10

dammit, no outline written up there today, this will be a problem
Lecture 21: Neoconservatism & the Bush Doctrine

Bush comes to office, warring factions within his administration
-neocons are prominent
-multilateralism starts to die out
-there is NO balancing power against the US, it's just a hegemony
-this is puzzling
A) George W. Bush (2001- )

Bretton Woods, GATT, NATO, UN
these are part of the reason that there's no real challenge to the US
-multilateral economic and security agreements
-originally was to bring other countries on board with American framework and interests
-other countries get in on them for the alliance-based security system in Europe

Multilateralism
america joins these, flying in the face of Washington's farewell address
-does them in order to ensure certain things
-wants to make sure that up and coming industrial powers are american-style
-also works to establish moral norms for the regimes
they still exist now, even when they're irrelevant
-NATO is the prime example of this
-there's no reason for it to exist- ussr is gone- but it's still there
-still attractive for states to join, because of the security benefits
-no real reason for it to break apart
now, the number of multilateral agreements has increased by 2/3 in recent times
-US is becoming more and more a part of these agreements
-roughly 150 multilateral treaties involving US in 1950
-400 in 1980
-by 2000, approx. 600
International Court of Justice
even though the US is part of these agreements, it doesn't really have to abide by them
-Nicaraguans take the US to court over the contra scandal
-nicaraguans win
-US just rescinds court's jurisdiction over the US
-same sort of thing happens, when US is fined in a non-binding resolution by the UN
-US just ignores it unilaterally
New Sovereigntists
Unilateral dissolution of multilateral agreements are AOK

On the left, economic autonomy is seen to be threatened
-NAFTA, CAFTA, etc are said to be destroying US economic autonomy

On the right, political autonomy is seen to be threatened
-arms control, use of force, etc agreements are said to be threatening political autonomy
'because the US is fully sovereign, it can determine for itself what to follow'
-the constitution says that sovereignty is paramount
-the ONLY obligations that the US has are internal, NO EXTERNAL OBLIGATIONS

3 criticisms by the New Sovereigntists
-International regimes and legal structures are broad and without legitimacy
-they're so broad and such because they're trying to incorporate as many states as possible, lose legitimacy that wya
-international regimes are unaccountable
-US political system is accountable to the voters
-international regimes have no such accountability
-constitutional duty
-US autonomy is primary
-ONLY US OBLIGATION IS TO THE CONSTITUTION
-there is no reason at all for the US to follow international law, etc, besides good will
-US can opt out of any of them at any time

examples of US failures to commit (or stay committed to) multilateral agreements during Clinton administration
-Comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty
-land mines convention
-international criminal court
-kyoto protocol
-convention on the rights of the child
during Bush admin
-biological weapons convention
-small and light arms convention
-withdrawal from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, June 2002

'when it comes to our security, we really don't need anybody's permission'
-bush doctine

charles krauthammer called it the 'new unilateralism'
-new unilateralism seeks to strengthen american power and deploy it to international ends
-clears away 'web of constraining international agreements'

formation of three factions within the republican party
-paleo-conservatives
-heirs of the old republican isolationists/exemplarists
-now that the cold war's over, American duty to the world is done, we should go back to isolationism
-neo-conservatives
-internationalists/vindicationists
-america's duty is NOT finished
-world is still full of threats, still monsters to destroy
-neocons split into two groups
-vulcans
-took the name from the roman gold vulcan, god of the forge
-aaaaand he made a star trek reference. critiquing the name of the vulcan race. holy god.
-firmly entrenched in the Dept of Defense, VP's office, and in the private sector at the time of Bush's administration
-NSA Condi Rice, DefenseSec Rumsfeld, Dept DefSec Wolfowitz, VP Cheney
-questioned validity of deterrence and containment
-promoted aggressive actions on international scale
-attacked multilateral agreements
-most active proponents of expanding the war on terror to encompass states, terrorism is an issue of foreign policy/int'l relations
-evangelical interpretation of internationalism- power = a moralizing force
-only if it's consistent with american interests
-'project for a new american century' (PNAC)
-vehicle for advancing the NeoReaganite policies
-cochaired by Bill Kristol and Donald Keagan
-guardians
-contrast to vulcans
-'reluctant warriors'
-occupied StateDept, and served with bill clinton as well
-SecState Powell, DepSecState Armitage, Director of StateDept Planning Staff Haas
-huge divergence of opinion between StateDept and DoD, also dichotomy between NSA and CIA
-guardians are highly resistant to engagements where use of force is the first option
-diplomatic, economic maneuvering to contain states
-even police actions are better options
-pays attention to balancing US power with other states
-NOT LOOKING FOR HEGEMONY
-even just preeminence among like-minded states
-two groups of neocons have been fighting for control since Bush I
-wolfowitz with cheney and libby wrote a memo detailing how to deal with the fall of the soviet union
-US should INCREASE defense spending
-assert itself as the sole superpower to quash the rise of regional powers that take advantage of the fall of the soviet union
-first use of the term 'coalitions of the willing'
-US cannot bring on board all multilateral structures, but bring whoever we can convince
-even if we can't, we'll bring on board whoever we can
-and we'll take action ourselves in 'defense of our interests
-first time preventive and preemptive war were brought into discussion
-bush I told them to sanitize the paper, remove all preemptive or unilateral action
-guardians win this round
-vulcans then start arguing that containment has failed
-new strategy is necessary to remove saddam hussein from power
-when bush II takes office, CHINA is the vulcan's plan of action
-advocates action NOW rather than later, while the balance of power was still on their side
-Sept. 11, 2001 happened
-turns out that all along, international terrorist organizations are now the biggest problem
-on SEPT 12, rumsfeld asked about attacking iraq as well as al-qaeda
-vulcans still looking to move up
-powell avoided striking iraq
-said that US should attack Al-Qaeda first
-right then, american people were looking to get back at Osama and Al-Qaeda
-over powell's objection, Bush called the attacks more than acts of terror, but ACTS OF WAR
-vulcans win here, it's the start of a WAR between states and non-states
-terrorism is the new threat to meet American power
-bush quote- we will pursue terrorists wherever they hide and hut anyone that helps them
-'you are with us or against us'
-THATS THE BUSH DOCTRINE RIGHT THERE ^^
-now vulcans support 'regime change' in iraq
-state of the union in 2002, bush puts iraq in the 'axis of evil'
-presented as a prime threat to the US
-June 2002- bush says that the marine corps must be ready to strike at a moment's notice anywhere in the world
-states that the US must be ready to take preemptive military action to ensure security
-same thing said in the state of the union- identifying threats and eliminating them BEFORE THEY HAPPEN
-National security statement, 2002
-US CANNOT USE DEFENSIVE POSTURE
-terrorists now use weapons of mass destruction, so any act they take will be devastating
-US must take anticipatory action to defend itself, EVEN IF UNCERTAINTY REMAINS in the time and place
-preemptive action's benefits beat out any possible costs that may be incurred
-containment and deterrence have gone out the window
-deterrence based solely on retaliation doesnt even work against rogue states, because they dont really care what happens to them
-no way in HELL it's gonna work against non-state actors
-now america is going out and looking for 'monsters to destroy'
-the view is that america asked for what happened on sept 11, because it wasn't proactive enough
-'liberal, humanitarianist imperialism' has worked in the balkans, it'll work in the middle east as well
-US needs to respond with asymmetric response to terrorist action
-massive retaliation is the way to go
-appeasement is what's been happening essentially with terrorists so far
-we had the chance to eliminate saddam in gulf war 1
-abandoning iraq in gulf war I was 'as shameful as abandoning south vietnam in 1975'
-taking out saddam hussein is justified as an expression of american national defense and self interest
-we need to impose 'effective imperial oversight' in the middle east
-'if we have to go it alone, we'll go it alone, but i'd rather not'
-in the end, war in iraq happened essentially alone, without UNSC resolution
-tenacious multilateralism still applies to the US and US actions, but not as much as it used to
-both US and Israel have signaled that they'd be willing to take unilateral, preemptive action against agressors

AFP NOTES 4/9

FINAL EXAM
SATURDAY, MAY 5
10:00-11:30 am
HODSON 110

Lecture 20: Unipolar Foreign Policy

A) The End of History?
collapse of USSR was so unexpected, people were calling it the 'end of history'
-francis fukuyama wrote the book
-'events would continue to happen, but debates, arguments, etc, had ceased to evolve'
-there is no alternative, evolutionary go-to point after US-style capitalism

america has emerged through bipolarity and multipolarity as the SOLE pole- unipolarity
-unipolarity isn't really as unprecedented as you'd think
-america had been the unipolar figure within the western hemisphere for some time
-there was NO BALANCING against the united states in the western hemisphere for some time

Pax Americana
America gets to police the 'pax americana'
-america has essentially a massive opportunity for 'muscle flexing' on the international stage

Hegemony
america was the hegemon OF THE WORLD
-NOBODY could fight against him
Vietnam Syndrome
no more little shitty wars in the third world
-american people just wouldn't have it
-people thought that america had escaped from vietnam syndrome after 1st gulf war, but it hadnt

instead, the people of the US just became SQUEAMISH
-massive dissatisfaction with government actions, expectations of success shoot through the roof
-Americans wish that wars could be won without the loss of a single US life
-now, instead of external balancing forces from other countries, there is internal dissatisfaction acting as an INTERNAL balancer

B) Cold War Legacies

Now, america can actually act on its moral grounds
-no longer does the US have to tolerate local warlords because they occupy key strategic choke points
-most importantly manuel noriega, saddam hussein
another priority is cutting off support to US proxy states
-no longer has to keep its proxy states in the game to fight the soviet union
-soviet union collapsed, their proxies collapse as well
-most obviously- Yugoslavia
-yugoslavia tore itself apart
-US client states included
-afghanistan, liberia, somalia
-now they're basically cut off
-these states degenerate into basically anarchy
-eventually the US moves to fix some of the problems in somalia and yugoslavia
-however, ignores afghanistan and liberia
-we see now, ignoring afghanistan was a problem- we're feeling BLOWBACK

final priority- dealing with humanitarian crises around the world
-now that the USSR was gone, their veto with it, the US thought that they could actually deal with humanitarian crises around the world
-however, this seems to fail
-two major crises- haiti, rwanda
-in NEITHER of them did the UN do anything of consequence
-whyyy???

US is essentially devoid of any sort of coherent foreign policy around the world
-this is a REAL PROBLEM
-international system becomes more anarchic now, rather than more stable

George H.W. Bush (1989-93)
first post-cold war president
-first issue- PANAMA, manuel noriega
Manuel Noriega
dictator of panama
-graduate of 'school of the americas'
-essentially a CIA training camp
-was on teh CIA payroll
-was a participant in the war with the contras
-was protected from US wrath by the reagan administration
Bush HAS to deal with this
-when he doesn't deal with him, it gives rise to the 'wimp factor'
the reason that the US had to dispose of noriega was not because he was a dictator
-this isn't really that much of a problem, as long as he's a US puppet
-the problem was that he was becoming irrational
-irrationality CANNOT be tolerated around the panama canal
Operation Just Cause
originally operation 'blue spoon', they didnt think that this'd be macho enough
-essentially the US rolled over noriega
-beat the living FUCK out of his regime, installed a legit government in its place
-UN 'deplored' the action, passed toothless resolutions against it
Saddam Hussein
Douchebag dictator
Jimmy carter made several things clear about the middle east
-energy dependence on the middle east was established, called the gulf a 'US security interest'
-any aggression into the persian gulf would be seen as an assault on US interests
-this was clearly to be applied to the soviet union
-extended to apply to even indigenous militias and armies
first war in the region was the iran/iraq war
-1980-88
-one of the bloodiest wars post-wwii
-iraqi forces under saddam decided to invade iran in an imperialistic war
-launched against the revolutionary islamic iranian government
-iran fucks up the iraqis (FUCK YOU, IRAQI BITCHES, DONT MESS WITH IRAN), launches a counter-invasion
-reagan decided that iran's revolutionary doctrine could not be spread across the middle east
-decided to support the Iraqis in the war
-supplied them with everything short of guns
-even turned a blind eye to iraqi poison gas use
-when the Iranians decided to attack oil tankers leaving the gulf, the US provided escort ships
-Operation Praying Mantis essentially immobilized the entire persian navy
-US goals were achieved- stalemate in the middle east
problem here
-saddam interpreted this action by the US as a tacit approval of Iraqi actions
-decides to invade kuwait as a measure to recoup his losses
-doesn't realize that the US won't tolerate iraqi domination of the region any more than iranian
Operation Desert Storm
bush goes to the security council, gets a resolution
-biggest victory for collective security
-DOESNT make the mistakes truman, johnson, nixon, etc did
-not symmetric response, not micromanagement
-MASSIVE RESPONSE, let the generals do the fighting
-huge victory for the US
-end of the vietnam syndrome?
Mohammed Farah Aidid
NOPE
aidid was the local warlord
huge humanitarian crisis, US needs to intervene?
-now US foreign policy isn't driven by security interests anymore
-US security is assured, now humanitarian needs are driving policy
-baaaad idea
-terrible because US interests here didn't actually run very deep
-the public forgets why it cares very quickly
Powell Doctrine
Colin Powell- chairman of the joint chiefs of staff
-powell didn't want to send troops to yugoslavia, bosnia, or somalia
-however, wanted to send troops into europe LESS
-thought it was more dangerous
powell doctrine, you have to satisfy 3 criteria
-sufficient force, defined mission
-clear rules of engagement (you HAVE to express any limitations)
-clearly defined exit strategy
these applied in desert storm, powell thought they applied in somalia as well
other people didn't think so
-national security council had problems with the plan
-once the US forces are committed, nothing indigenous would develop to ensure their own security
-US mission would have to expand
-this is called MISSION CREEP
Mission Creep
this actually happened
-Handover from US to UN forces took much longer than expected, because of exactly those concerns
-one of the problems was that the UN SecGen had other agendas as well
-nation-building was one of his objectives
-this was NOT one of america's initial goals
-this is a PROBLEM
-nothing was working in the nation-building process

once US helicopter gunships attacked the headquarters of Aidid, somalian forces mobilized against the US
-this was ANOTHER PROBLEM
-mission creep is leading to open-ended commitment

october 3, 1993
-Black Hawk Down happened
-even though this was essentially just a tiny skirmish, it was blown way out of proportion
-PICTURES were being shown
-where before, the pictures were of starving somalis, they changed to pictures of jeering crowds dragging american bodies through the streets
-US policymakers reacted real quick, got the fuck out
-'multilateralism DIED on the streets of Mogadishu'

now, america's overriding goal is to avoid these sorts of multilateral operations that involve mission creep
C) Bill Clinton

Rwanda
April-July 1994
-in about 100 days, 800,000 people (mostly Tutsis) were slaughtered by ethnic Hutus
-many by machete
-in the wake of the Somalian debacle, there is NO PUSHING FOR US INTERVENTION
-this was deliberately suppressed by the administration, because clinton didn't want to reject plans because there was NO DOMESTIC SUPPORT
-UN tried to get troops there, but it was far too late
-US held up deliveries of APCs to the UN, etc
-Clinton administration blacklisted the word 'genocide', because if it was 'genocide' then the US had treaty obligations to fulfill

the conflict spread to nearby Congo, sparked the 1st and 2nd congolese wars
-more than 3.8 million people were killed
-essentially NO MEDIA COVERAGE of this, no intervention

Jean-Bertrand Aristid
1st elected president of Haiti
-took office Feb 1991
-overthrown by a coup in september 1991
-another warlord, military junta establishes itself in Haiti
people are trying to escape haiti, fleeing to the United States
-Clinton administration was forced to act, it's within the monroe doctrine
-aborted an invasion at the last second because of diplomatic initiatives by jimmy carter
-even so, it still hasn't quieted down in Haiti, still in a destructive cycle
Slobodan Milosevic
Yugoslavia was a bigass problem
-split into serbia and croatia, both of which wanted bosnia
milosevic was the president of Serbia
-pushed for a bigger serbia
-serb nationalists within bosnia and croatia commit themselves to 'ethnic cleansing'
-decided to kill off all the croats

Sarajevo -> Srebrenica
key components of serb ethnic cleansing were the siege of sarajevo and taking of srebrenica
-srebrenica had its security GUARANTEED by international forces
-serbs just beat the shit out of the forces, slaughtered all the men
Kosovo
Croats finally regrouped, fucked up the serbs
-US uses a private firm to rebuild the croat military
-MPRI, a company made up of former US generals and officers
-croats launch OPERATION STORM, fuck up the serb army
once the serbs made the mistake of shelling a marketplace, the US could get into the war too
-US-led NATO forces begin a strategic bombing campaign that runs from August 30-September 20
-bombed the serbs to the negotiating table
-negotiated in Dayton, Ohio (Dayton Accords)
-signed in december
still problematic- KOSOVO
-over 90% ethnic albanians, even though its part of serbia
-the serbs keep repressing the albanians
-KLA forms- Kosovo Liberation Army
-this puts pressure on the western powers to resolve the issue

Rambouillet Accords
proposed in 1989 by american, UK delegations
-NATO peacekeeping in the region
-NATO peacekeeping of Kosovo especially
-unhindered access by NATO forces to serbia
-immunity from the local law for NATO forces

Milosevic rejects them, hopes that Russia will intervene on his behalf, like russia traditionally has
-rejected on 24 march
-bombing campaign begins 11 June
-OPERATION ALLIED FORCE
-this was NOT approved by the UNSC
-even though NATO is supposed to be a DEFENSIVE alliance, the US was using NATO to advance offensive policy interests

there were even more PROBLEMS
-not enough aircraft to launch bombing runs
-MASSIVE opposition from every NATO capital against sending ground troops in
-General Wesley Clark felt that he was being denied support, etc
-was reduced to 'tank plinking'- attacking ONLY explicitly military targets instead of power plants, industrial plants, etc
-NATO was finally authorized to take the fight to belgrade (capital of serbia)
-smart weapons fucked the shit out of belgrade, even though they missed a couple times (destroyed chinese embassy)
-over $480 million spent on bringing in apache helicopters, then when 2 crashed in training they recalled them all

even though this was a massive success, not a single soldier lost, the US people were still dissatisfied with US performance for some reason.