Lecture 4: Foreign Military Interventions

Question 1

Which eras saw most US interventions?

Answer 1

1946-1989, followed by 1865-1917

Question 2

Definition: foreign military intervention (FMI)

Answer 2

The use of military force to intervene in the domestic affairs of another state

Question 3

3 dimensions of FMI

Answer 3

1. Type of military force (air strikes, special operations, proxy forces, own ground troops)
2. Extent of involvement in domestic affairs (support minority, peacekeeping, counterinsurgency, regime change)
3. Presence of allies (unilateral vs. multilateral)

Question 4

Why do states intervene militarily?

Answer 4

To improve national security (but what is security, what’s a security issue, whose security, how can it be achieved?)

Question 5

3 types of potential goals of military intervention

Answer 5

1. (Geo)political (resolve territorial disputes, foreign policy reversal, regime change, democratization, support ally)
2. Strategic (show resolve, demonstrate capability)
3. Humanitarian (protect civilians and human rights)

Question 6

4 secondary background factors that decrease/increase the likelihood of foreign intervention

Answer 6

1. System-level (power transition theory, power cycles)
2. State’s international environment (proximity, territorial disputes, capabilities, alliances, IO membership, colonial history)
3. Domestic politics (regime type, checks on leaders’ power, characteristics of target state)
4. Leadership (how leaders perceive threats, the location of the source of insecurity)

Question 7

3 kinds of national interest

Answer 7

1. Vital interests: of broad, overriding importance to survival, security, and territorial integrity
2. Important interests: survival not a state, but affect national well-being and character of the world we live in
3. Humanitarian interests: promoting national values around the world

Question 8

Countries are more willing to spend money on which kind of national interest

Answer 8

Vital

Question 9

According to realist approaches, national interest is determined by these 4

Answer 9

1. Anarchic structure of the international system
2. Uncertainty and security dilemma
3. Security competition between states
4. States seeking to maximize power/ensure survival
   = interests shaped by distribution of material capabilities

Question 10

According to constructivist approaches, national interests is determined by these 2

Answer 10

1. Social constructions and the way states act toward each other (interests are not fixed)
2. The possibility of transforming relationships from security dilemma to security community

Question 11

According to liberal approaches, national interests are

Answer 11

Not something that really exists; states are political institutions which represent some political actors; thus states define their interests on the preferences of individuals and interest groups

Question 12

Preventine vs. preemptive war

Answer 12

Preventive: waging way/intervention to make sure there is no future threat; make sure threats do not emerge later

Preemptive: not justifiable to engage in military intervention until you know for sure you will be attacked

Question 13

6 rationales of the Iraq War

Answer 13

1. Weapons of mass destruction
2. Terrorism prevention
3. Human rights
4. Democratization
5. Deterrence
6. Oil

Question 14

4 motives of the Iraq War

Answer 14

1. 9/11
2. Regional balance of power
3. Because we can
4. Because we should (neoconservative)

Question 15

Operation Iraqi Freedom - 2 points

Answer 15

1. Motivated by US desire to show US military could be effective with smaller numbers of troops and reliance on technology
2. Strategy of leadership decapitation

Question 16

Fall of Baghdad

Answer 16

April 9, 2003: regime falls, Bush declares victory

Question 17

4 points about the following occupation of Iraq

Answer 17

1. Coalition Provisional Authority as government
2. Transforming political landscape through De-Ba’thification (removing former party officials from government), new constitution and elections
3. Reconstruction
4. Insurgency and sectarian war

Question 18

How does bargaining theory explain the Iraq War?

Answer 18

Saying it was a failure and inefficient way to settle dispute and occurs because:

1. Commitments were not credible
2. States possess private information about their costs of fighting and have incentives to misrepresent this
3. States are uncertain over their probability of victory

Question 19

4 lessions GS learned from Iraq

Answer 19

1. Costs of war should always include post-war costs
2. Real-world interventions involve more than 2 actors contrary to theory (Hussein did not clearly indicate they did not have WMD because of concerns for other regional rival states and threats within Iraq)
3. Domestic politics are important in determining national interests
4. Decision-making biases affect governments’ behavior (leading to incorrectly assessing own cost of fighting and resolve of others)

Question 20

Reading: Democracy by Force: US Military Intervention in the post-cold war world - Karen von Hippel

Answer 20

US has embraced policy of cautious engagement since botched Somalia intervention in 1992 - but US has not abandoned its approach to nation-building. I has been involved in nation-building and promoting democracy since 19th century

Significant change in non-interventionary norm since humanitarian concern emerged

Question 21

Reading: Two cheers for bargaining theory - David Lake

Answer 21

Rationalist explanations are useful to understand Iraq War: US went to war because they believed Iraq were producing WMD and posed a threat to their security (e.g pursuit of self-interest led to war to protect national interest). US used strong military power to get other countries to join them in the war

But rationalist theories fail to take domestic politics and ideology into decision-making, as well as non-state actors

Question 22

Reading: America Now Solves Problems with Troops, not Diplomats - Monica Duffy Toft

Answer 22

There has been a decline in traditional diplomacy as seen in Venezuela as US responded with sending troops. Escalation over time of how many troops US sends. This is caused by 1) lack of political will to do diplomacy, 2) belief that military is more effective, and 3) desire to project American power

Shift from traditional diplomacy to kinetic diplomacy (“diplomacy” by armed force unsupported by local knowledge - she calls it bullying). This strategy is not paying off as US is increasingly seen as bigger threat to global peace

US abandoned principles of legitimacy (hypocrisy of treating foreign soldiers how they want, detaining people without trial, separating young children)