International Security Political Science 221

Fall Semester 2016 Dr. Jeffrey Lantis Office Hours: Kauke 107, #2408 MT 3:30-4:30 pm, E-Mail: jlantis@wooster.edu or by appointment Website: www.jeffreylantis.com

Course Description International security is a critically important topic of study today. In recent years, we have witnessed major acts of international terrorism, civil wars in the Middle East and North Africa, North Korean nuclear tests, genocide in Darfur, ethnic conflicts, and many other challenges. These events represent new threats to the global order. At the same time, there is also a measure of continuity and predictability in international security, especially when it comes to the role of power, instruments of statecraft, and institutional policy coordination. This course is designed to provide students with advanced training in security studies, using both classic and contemporary works to address topics such as the causes of war and the evolution of military strategy. The course also focuses on theories of the origins and nature of three modern security challenges in detail—terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and ethnic conflict—and critically analyzes state responses and potential solutions.

Course Objectives The goal of this course is to provide students with information and intellectual tools for critical thought about the past, present, and future of international security. Throughout the semester we will explore dimensions of the topic and refine our skills in critical thinking, writing, oral expression, and research. By the end of this course, students should be able to:

• Develop connections between disparate texts, theories, and materials for a broad

knowledge of international security; • Explore critical questions regarding the root causes of war and peace; • Read critically and evaluate divergent theories of international security; • Understand three modern security challenges in great depth; • Read and analyze contemporary security blogs, and contribute to critical discourse; • Clearly articulate oral and written arguments; • Design and execute research projects on international security; • Formulate new and exciting questions about international security for future research.

Required Texts 1. Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Coté, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller eds.,

Contending with Terrorism: Roots, Strategies, and Responses, 2010 2. Richard D. Burns and Philip E. Coyle, The Challenges of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, 2015 3. Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger, ISIS: The State of Terror, 2015 4. Neal G. Jesse and Kristen P. Williams, Ethnic Conflict: A Systematic Approach to Cases

of Conflict, 2011 5. Required Readings on Electronic Reserve:

URL: http://libguides.wooster.edu/er.php?course_id=12043 Password: security

Course Requirements This is an advanced seminar on international security. Students are expected to attend class and participate actively in class discussions. You will complete a conflict theory paper, two examinations, a debate response paper, and a research project. Assignments will be weighted in the following manner:

Course Participation and Professionalism 15% Conflict Theory Paper 15% Debate Response Paper 10% Midterm Exam 15% Research Project Annotation Assignment 5%

Research Project 20% Take-Home Final Exam 20%

Participation and Professionalism Students are expected to attend class, prepare course material in advance, and participate actively in class discussions. Participation is essential to success in this course, and students will benefit the most if they complete required readings and come to class ready to discuss them. The participation and professionalism grade, worth 15% of the overall course grade, will be based on attendance and the quality of involvement in the class. In evaluating professionalism, I look for evidence that students have completed the readings and are prepared to summarize what they have learned from them in class discussions. I reserve the right to assign study questions or other projects to ensure student participation throughout the semester. Finally, students who have three or more unexcused absences from class meetings will receive no credit for this portion of the grade.

Conflict Theory Paper This assignment allows students to conduct research on a major conflict, from antiquity to the present. Students have latitude in selecting a war to study, but a good amount of information must be available on its causes and nature. In all cases, students should develop a strong analytical interpretation of causation by examining the outbreak of conflict through a chosen theoretical perspective or level of analysis. Assigned readings, including Cashman and Robinson, will provide helpful foundations for this assignment. Please note that World Wars I and II should not be the focus of this assignment. Papers should be 4-5 typed, double spaced pages, and should apply careful and consistent source citations methods (Chicago style, with endnotes and bibliography). The assignment is worth 15% of the course grade; more information will be presented in class.

Structured Debate Response Paper

This class will feature a number of opportunities for participation and response. This assignment allows you the opportunity to write a paper based on an in-class structured debate topic and submit it within three days after one of the following debates: “Is Terrorism Ever Justified?”, “Civil Liberties and National Security,” “Ground War with ISIS?”, or “When is Humanitarian Intervention Legitimate?” Students will prepare readings in advance of all in-class debates, discuss their views with others, take notes on the major points articulated during the debate, and engage in debriefing. Your essay assignment is as follows: After a brief introduction describing the central theme of the debate, develop a detailed argument that advocates for one side in the debate versus the other. Be sure to incorporate evidence from readings and real world examples to effectively make the case for one side in the debate that you now choose. In the process, you might consider what are some of the most important points that you heard in the in-class debate. Finally, develop a summation argument that includes policy prescriptions for solutions to the issue at hand. Papers should be 3-4 typed, double spaced pages, and should apply careful and consistent source citations methods (Chicago style, with endnotes and bibliography). The assignment is worth 10% of the course grade.

Research Paper on International Security This assignment allows you to develop an in-depth research study on one of the following themes:

a) Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction represents a significant challenge to international

security. In this assignment, you should select one country (a non-NPT nuclear weapons state) on which to conduct research into the history and evolution of their nuclear weapons program. The first step is to theoretically analyze the ‘causes’ or motives driving proliferation, and then you should detail the historical development of the program. The paper should also critically analyze the effectiveness of various international efforts launched to stop or limit the country’s nuclear weapons program.

b) Ethnic national conflicts represent significant challenges to international security today. This

assignment provides an opportunity to critically examine an ethnic conflict through the lens of theoretical approaches presented in class. The paper should identify an ethnic conflict and describe the players, historical dynamics, and the primary issues of contention today. Students should develop a strong analytical interpretation of the causes of the conflict, drawing on class theories and readings. The second part of the paper is to discuss possible solutions and draw conclusions on the solution you believe is most viable (and why).

c) International terrorism represents a significant challenge to global security. This assignment

provides an opportunity to critically examine the origins of a terror group and its activities through the lens of theoretical approaches presented in class. The paper should identify the group, describe its leaders and beliefs, historical dynamics, and the primary issues of contention today. Students should develop a strong analytical interpretation of the causes of this terrorist organization, drawing on class theories and readings. The second part of the paper is to discuss possible solutions and draw conclusions on the solution you believe is most viable (and why).

Annotation Assignment

There are actually TWO deadlines for the research paper project. The first deadline—for an annotation outline of your paper—will be in late October. This annotation outline should include a thesis statement, a paragraph introduction to the essay, and 2-3 page annotated outline of major points you plan to make in the paper with source citations. You will receive comments back on this work that will help guide you in the development of a strong final paper assignment. This assignment is worth 5% of the overall course grade. The second deadline is for the final paper. The paper should be 9-10 typed, double spaced pages, and should apply careful and consistent source citations methods (Chicago style, with endnotes and bibliography). This assignment is worth 20% of the course grade, so I will be evaluating papers with very high standards and expectations for research and analytical clarity. More information about all stages of this assignment will be presented in class.

Academic Integrity Class expectations for academic integrity follow the College’s Code of Academic Integrity and Code of Social Responsibility, outlined in The Scot’s Key and the Handbook of Selected College Policies. The Codes and guidelines form an essential part of the intellectual contract between the student and the College. Cheating in any of your academic work is a serious breach of the Code of Academic Integrity and is grounds for an ‘F’ for the entire course. Such violations include turning in another person’s work as your own, copying or paraphrasing from any source without proper citation, or fabricating excuses and lying in connection with your academic work. You will be held responsible for your own actions. If you are unsure as to what is permissible, always consult with your course instructor.

Grading Scale As stated in The College of Wooster Catalogue, letter grades are defined as: “A range” indicates an outstanding performance in which there has been distinguished achievement in all phases of the course;

“B range” indicates a good performance in which there has been a high level of achievement in some phases of the course;

“C range” indicates an adequate performance in which a basic understanding of the subject has been demonstrated; “D range” indicates a minimal performance in which, despite recognizable deficiencies, there is enough to merit credit; “F or NC” indicates unsatisfactory performance.

General Guidelines 1. Please read the assigned materials before class meeting; they provide the basis for class discussions. 2. Turn off all cellphones and personal electronic devices before class as a courtesy to others. Please do not text message during class. If you bring a laptop computer to class, it should be used for note-taking only. 3. Papers should be submitted in hard copy. I will not accept e-mail versions of student papers. 4. Late papers lose half a grade level for each day they are late.

Course Outline I. War, Peace, and Politics: Introduction to Security Studies (Week of August 24) Donald M. Snow, National Security for a New Era, 2011, Chapter 2: “The Realist Paradigm,” pp.21-43 (handout and e-reserve) Ben Hubbard, Robert F. Worth, and Michael R. Gordon, “Power Vacuum in Middle East Lifts Militants,” New York Times, January 4, 2014, pp.1-5 (e-reserve) Josh Rogin, “Obama Administration Debates Whether Assad Really Must Go,” www.dailybeast.com, July 3, 2014, pp.1-5 (e-reserve)

Ben Winsor, “The U.S. and Iran are Getting Close…” Business Insider, September 19, 2014, pp.1-9 (e-reserve)

* Discussion Exercise: Realpolitik and National Security

II. Classic Explanations of the Origins of International Conflict (Week of August 29)

Greg Cashman and Leonard C. Robinson, An Introduction to the Causes of War, 2007, Chapter 1, pp.1-25 (e-reserve)

Chris Hedges, “Introduction,” War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning, 2002, pp.1-17 (e-reserve)

Joseph S. Nye and David A. Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation, 2011, Chapters 3-4, pp.71-131 (e-reserve)

* Progressive Debate: The Origins of War in the 20th Century

III. Asymmetric War: Causes and Consequences (Week of September 5) Michael Sheehan, “The Evolution of Modern Warfare,” in John Baylis, James Wirtz, Colin S. Gray, and Eliot Cohen, eds., Strategy in the Contemporary World, Second Edition, 2007, pp.43-65 (e-reserve) Sean Kay, “Regional Flash Points,” Chapter 5 in Global Security, 2015, pp.143-192 (e-reserve)

Michael Mazarr, “The Folly of ‘Asymmetric War,’” Washington Quarterly, vol.31, no.3, Fall 2008, pp.33-53 (e-reserve)

Sean M. Lynn-Jones, “Preface: Contending with Terrorism,” in Michael E. Brown, Owen R. Coté, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller eds., Contending with Terrorism: Roots, Strategies, and Responses, 2010, pp.xi-xli

IV. The Origins of Terrorism (Week of September 12)

Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger, ISIS: The State of Terror, 2015, Appendix, pp.257-280 Max Abrahms, “What Terrorists Really Want: Terrorist Motives and Counterterrorism Strategy,” in Brown, et al, pp.171-198 Cynthia C. Combs, “Criminals or Crusaders? Profile of a Terrorist,” Chapter 4 in Combs, Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, 2013, pp.54-83 (e-reserve) Andrew H. Kydd and Barbara F. Walter, “The Strategies of Terrorism,” in Brown, et al, Contending with Terrorism, pp.93-124 Structured Debate, “Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?” in Stuart Gottlieb, ed., Debating Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Conflicting Perspectives on Causes, Contexts, and Responses, 2014, pp.69-100 (e-reserve) * Structured Debate: Terrorism Ever Justified? [Response Paper Option]

* Conflict Theory Paper Due

V. ‘New Terrorism’ and Extremist Threats (Week of September 19)

Jessica Stern and J.M. Berger, ISIS: The State of Terror, 2015, pp.all

Assaf Moghadam, “Motives for Martyrdom: Al-Qaeda, Salafi Jihad, and the Spread of Suicide Attacks,” in Brown, et al, Contending with Terrorism, pp.57-89

Max Abrahms, “Why Terrorism Does Not Work” and “Correspondence” in Brown, et al, Contending with Terrorism, pp.125-170 Robert F. Trager and Dessislava P. Zagorcheva, “Deterring Terrorism: It Can Be Done,” in Brown, et al, Contending with Terrorism, pp.229-265

* ISIS Book Club Discussion

VI. Counterterrorism and Homeland Security (Week of September 26)

Audrey Kurth Cronin, “How al-Qaida Ends: The Decline and Demise of Terrorist Groups,” in Brown, et al, Contending with Terrorism, pp.377-418

Structured Debate, “Counterterrorism and the Constitution: Does Providing Security Require a Trade-Off with Civil Liberties?” Structured Debate, in Gottlieb, ed., Debating Terrorism and Counterterrorism, pp.345-379 (e-reserve)

John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, “The Terrorism Delusion: America’s Overwrought Response to September 11,” Security Studies, vol.37, no.1, Summer 2012, pp.81-110 (e-reserve) Structured Debate: “Should the U.S. Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS?” Yes: Max Boot: “Uproot the Enemy”; No: Karl Vick: “Don’t Take the Bait,” Time Magazine, March 9, 2015, pp.32-33 Patrick Healy and Ashley Parker, “Republican Rivals Skirt Specifics on Plans to Fight ISIS,” New York Times, May 23, 2015, pp.1-5 (e-reserve) David von Drehle, “The War on ISIS,” Time Magazine, March 9, 2015, pp.21-31 (e-reserve)

* Structured Debate: Civil Liberties and National Security [Response Paper Option] * Structured Debate: ISIS Ground War? [Response Paper Option]

VII. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Week of October 3)

Richard D. Burns and Philip E. Coyle III, The Challenges of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, 2015, Chapters 1-2, pp.1-44 Eric Schlosser, “Almost Everything in Dr. Strangelove Was True,” New Yorker, January 2014, pp.1-7 (e-reserve)

Scott D. Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” International Security, vol.21, no.3, Winter 1996, pp.3-35 (e-reserve)

Matthew Fuhrmann, “Spreading Temptation: Proliferation and Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreements,” Security Studies, vol.34, no.1, Summer 2009, pp.109-143 (e-reserve) * Two-Part Midterm Examination

VIII. Breakouts, Theft, Smuggling, and Disorder (Week of October 17)

Burns and Coyle, The Challenges of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Chapters 5-6, pp.95-132

David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, “Unraveling the A.Q. Khan and Future Proliferation Networks,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2005, pp.111-128 (e-reserve)

IX. Proliferation Solutions? (Week of October 24) Burns and Coyle, The Challenges of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Chapters 3-4 and Chapter 8, pp.45-94 and 161-189 President George W. Bush, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” September 2002 [excerpt], pp.127-130 (e-reserve) Structured Debate: “Should the United States or the International Community Aggressively Pursue Nuclear Nonproliferation Policies?” in Haas, et al, eds., Controversies in Globalization, pp.148-174 (e-reserve) Ward Wilson, “Banning the Bomb,” in Annual Editions: Global Issues 2008/2009, pp.148-151 (e-reserve)

X. Ethnic Nationalism and Conflict (Week of October 31) Neal G. Jesse and Kristen P. Williams, Ethnic Conflict: A Systematic Approach to Cases of Conflict, 2011, Chapters 1 and 2, pp.1-92 Nils Petter Gleditsch, Erik Melander, and Henrik Urdal, “Introduction: Patterns of Armed Conflict since 1945,” T. David Mason and Sarah McLaughlin Mitchell, eds., What Do We Know About Civil Wars?, 2016, pp.15-32 (e-reserve) Brian Beary, “Separatist Movements,” in CQ Researcher: Global Issues, 2009, pp.25-55 (e-reserve) * Research Paper Annotation Outline Due

XI. Ethnic Conflict: Problems and Solutions (Week of November 7) Jesse and Williams, Ethnic Conflict, Chapters 4, 5, and 7; pp.141-188, pp.189-232, and pp.281-338 Irwin Arieff and Peter Katel, “Middle East Peace Prospects,” in CQ Researcher: Global Issues, 2010, pp.181-215 (e-reserve) * Simulation: Responding to the Belagua Crisis XII. Humanitarian Intervention: The Responsibility to Protect? (Weeks of November 14 and 28) Samantha Power, “Bystanders to Genocide: Why the United States Let the Rwanda Tragedy Happen,” The Atlantic Monthly, September 2001, pp.375-399 (e-reserve) David Rieff, “The Persistence of Genocide,” Foreign Policy, March 2011 [excerpt], pp.141-147 (e-reserve) Alex J. Bellamy, “Humanitarian Intervention,” in Alan Collins, Contemporary Security Studies, Second Edition, 2010, pp.359-377 (e-reserve) Benjamin Valentino, “The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention,” Current History, November/December 2011, pp.1-11 (e-reserve)

* Structured Debate: Humanitarian Intervention Justified? [Response Paper Option] * Film: Hotel Rwanda

XIII. The Future of International Security (Week of December 5) Sean Kay, Global Security, Chapter 6: “Technology and the Business of Security,” pp.193-243 (e-reserve) Avery Plaw, Matthew S. Fricker, and Carlos R. Colon, “A Brief Overview of Aerial Drones and Their Military Use by the United States,” in The Drone Debate: A Primer on the U.S. Use of Unmanned Aircraft Outside Conventional Battlefields, 2015, pp.13-63 (e-reserve) Michael V. Hayden, “To Keep America Safe, Embrace Drone Warfare,” New York Times, February 19, 2016, pp.1-8 (e-reserve) * Final Examination

Electronic Reserve Readings PSCI 221: International Security

Fall 2016

Donald M. Snow, National Security for a New Era, 2011, Chapter 2: “The Realist Paradigm,” pp.21-43 (handout and e-reserve) Ben Hubbard, Robert F. Worth, and Michael R. Gordon, “Power Vacuum in Middle East Lifts Militants,” New York Times, January 4, 2014, pp.1-5 (e-reserve) Josh Rogin, “Obama Administration Debates Whether Assad Really Must Go,” www.dailybeast.com, July 3, 2014, pp.1-5 (e-reserve)

Ben Winsor, “The U.S. and Iran are Getting Close…” Business Insider, September 19, 2014, pp.1-9 (e-reserve)

Greg Cashman and Leonard C. Robinson, An Introduction to the Causes of War, 2007, Chapter 1, pp.1-25 (e-reserve)

Chris Hedges, “Introduction,” War is the Force that Gives Us Meaning, 2002, pp.1-17 (e-reserve)

Joseph S. Nye and David A. Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation, 2011, Chapters 3-4, pp.71-131 (e-reserve) Michael Sheehan, “The Evolution of Modern Warfare,” in John Baylis, James Wirtz, Colin S. Gray, and Eliot Cohen, eds., Strategy in the Contemporary World, Second Edition, 2007, pp.43-65 (e-reserve) Sean Kay, “Regional Flash Points,” Chapter 5 in Global Security, 2015, pp.143-192 (e-reserve)

Michael Mazarr, “The Folly of ‘Asymmetric War,’” Washington Quarterly, vol.31, no.3, Fall 2008, pp.33-53 (e-reserve) Cynthia C. Combs, “Criminals or Crusaders? Profile of a Terrorist,” Chapter 4 in Combs, Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century, 2013, pp.54-83 (e-reserve) Structured Debate, “Can Terrorism Ever Be Justified?” in Stuart Gottlieb, ed., Debating Terrorism and Counterterrorism: Conflicting Perspectives on Causes, Contexts, and Responses, 2014, pp.69-100 (e-reserve)

Structured Debate, “Counterterrorism and the Constitution: Does Providing Security Require a Trade-Off with Civil Liberties?” Structured Debate, in Gottlieb, ed., Debating Terrorism and Counterterrorism, pp.345-379 (e-reserve)

John Mueller and Mark G. Stewart, “The Terrorism Delusion: America’s Overwrought Response to September 11,” Security Studies, vol.37, no.1, Summer 2012, pp.81-110 (e-reserve) Structured Debate: “Should the U.S. Send Ground Troops to Fight ISIS?” Yes: Max Boot: “Uproot the Enemy”; No: Karl Vick: “Don’t Take the Bait,” Time Magazine, March 9, 2015, pp.32-33 (e-reserve) Patrick Healy and Ashley Parker, “Republican Rivals Skirt Specifics on Plans to Fight ISIS,” New York Times, May 23, 2015, pp.1-5 (e-reserve) David von Drehle, “The War on ISIS,” Time Magazine, March 9, 2015, pp.21-31 (e-reserve) Eric Schlosser, “Almost Everything in Dr. Strangelove Was True,” New Yorker, January 2014, pp.1-7 (e-reserve)

Scott D. Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” International Security, vol.21, no.3, Winter 1996, pp.3-35 (e-reserve)

Matthew Fuhrmann, “Spreading Temptation: Proliferation and Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation Agreements,” Security Studies, vol.34, no.1, Summer 2009, pp.109-143 (e-reserve)

David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, “Unraveling the A.Q. Khan and Future Proliferation Networks,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2005, pp.111-128 (e-reserve) President George W. Bush, “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” September 2002 [excerpt], pp.127-130 (e-reserve) Structured Debate: “Should the United States or the International Community Aggressively Pursue Nuclear Nonproliferation Policies?” in Haas, et al, eds., Controversies in Globalization, pp.148-174 (e-reserve) Ward Wilson, “Banning the Bomb,” in Annual Editions: Global Issues 2008/2009, pp.148-151 (e-reserve)

Brian Beary, “Separatist Movements,” in CQ Researcher: Global Issues, 2009, pp.25-55 (e-reserve) Irwin Arieff and Peter Katel, “Middle East Peace Prospects,” in CQ Researcher: Global Issues, 2010, pp.181-215 (e-reserve) Samantha Power, “Bystanders to Genocide: Why the United States Let the Rwanda Tragedy Happen,” The Atlantic Monthly, September 2001, pp.375-399 (e-reserve) David Rieff, “The Persistence of Genocide,” Foreign Policy, March 2011 [excerpt], pp.141-147 (e-reserve)

Alex J. Bellamy, “Humanitarian Intervention,” in Alan Collins, Contemporary Security Studies, Second Edition, 2010, pp.359-377 (e-reserve) Benjamin Valentino, “The True Costs of Humanitarian Intervention,” Current History, November/December 2011, pp.1-11 (e-reserve) Sean Kay, Global Security, Chapter 6: “Technology and the Business of Security,” pp.193-243 (e-reserve) Avery Plaw, Matthew S. Fricker, and Carlos R. Colon, “A Brief Overview of Aerial Drones and Their Military Use by the United States,” pp.13-63 (e-reserve) Michael V. Hayden, “To Keep America Safe, Embrace Drone Warfare,” New York Times, February 19, 2016, pp.1-8 (e-reserve)