International Relations Quiz #2: Kevin Miller

Grade=17.5/20

 

Kevin Miller

Quiz 2h

 

The New World Order, Daniel W. Drezner (BB)

As described in “The New World Order”:

  1. When do global institutions cease to be appropriate as referred to in the 2006 National Security Strategy?

 

The article states that global institutions cease to be appropriate when the countries which are controlled by them are no longer the emergent powers in the world. The article states that unless countries such as China and India are incorporated into the so called new new world order then they may create global institutions of their own making life that much more difficult for the United States and leaving us looking in on the outside.

 

  1. How does this relate to the UN Security Council and why have reform efforts of the UN Security Council stalled?

This relates to the UN Security Council since most of the western security council members are on the descent while China and India are on the ascendancy. This fact raises fundamental questions about the allocation of power on the security council. Since countries such as Germany and France don’t want to cede power to these newly emergent powers the security council model has become outmoded and antiquated thus creating conflict in on the issue of stalled efforts to reform it.

  • China is on the Security Council and Germany is not.
  • It relates to the Security Council because the permanent members are the most powerful states after the WWII, which does reflect power realities today.
  • Reform efforts have stalled because the proposals emanating from the UN’s bodies themselves have seemed impractical and because the key powers have not been able to agree on which countries merit permanent membership
  • 4/5

 

 

The Transatlantic Turnaround, Charles A. Kupchan (BB)

As detailed in “The Transatlantic Turnaround,” contrast both U.S. and European expectations of the other with the realities that both will likely face.

 

In the transatlantic turnaround as detailed in the article it states that the United States initially under the Bush administration expected for the Europeans to support them in their military commitments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the global war on terror (GWOT). While on the European side they expected for the Bush administration to cooperate with them on issues such as climate change, reductions in fossil fuel consumption, and the Kyoto protocols. After much enmity in the first term of the Bush administration and a changing of the guard on both sides of the Atlantic there seems to be a warming of relations between the two entities, for instance the Bush administration began to see cooperation from the Europeans not only in Afghanistan, but also Iraq and the imposition of sanctions against the Iranian regimes secret nuclear weapons program. The Europeans are excited at the prospect of the election of President Barack Obama however there is a very real reality that has only crystallized over time. The Americans have continually pressed the Europeans for cooperation in Afghanistan, and Iraq, they have also pushed them on the issue of sanctions against Iran. NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia has become an issue between the two sides and though not explicitly discussed the prospect of Turkey’s ascension to the U.N. has no doubt been a topic of discussion between the U.S. and Europe.

  • Not exactly, the United States will expect Europe to become more involved in troubled areas of the globe, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, to help reduce U.S. overseas commitments,
  • But Europe does not have the personnel and the military assets needed to undertake a substantial expansion of their missions abroad.
  • While Europe will expect the United States to drastically change its foreign policy, but the new administration will be constricted by many factors, including the economy, war, and a divided electorate
  • 4/5

 

 

 

#2. America’s Edge: Power in the Networked Century, Anne-Marie Slaughter

As outlined in “America’s Edge,” name and describe the factors that provide an advantage for the United States in a twenty-first-century world.

 

The factors that provide an advantage for the U.S. as laid out in the article are many and multi-faceted.

 

The first one is the size of the United States. Its relative small size allows it to out-pace and out-innovate larger less adaptable societies such as china and India.

 

Another advantage is the multiculturalism of the United States. By having a melting pot of various cultures ethnicities and languages is perhaps the United States most treasured asset. This is because these various cultures can provide a linkage back to their country of origin allowing for greater connectedness in both societies.

  • Culture, as the United States has a relatively horizontal social structure, see page 7

 

The fact that the United States is in the western half of the world also allows for a greater advantage. This is because this is the richest half of the world and so this allows for a natural edge over the eastern half of the world.

Why?

  • Geography, as the United States is the anchor of the Atlantic hemisphere and is protected by two oceans

 

NGO’s, blogs, and social network sites also play an important part to America’s competitiveness. The social networks and blogs allow for a natural inter-connectedness while the NGO’s such as the Clinton global initiative allow for non zero sum solutions to once zero sum problems.

  • 5/5

 

 

#17. Obama’s Vietnam, John Barry and Evan Thomas

As detailed in “Obama’s Vietnam”:

  1. What is the basic mantra of counterinsurgency?

 

The basic mantra of counter insurgency is clear, hold, and build. That is to say clear out the enemy (Taliban) so that they no longer occupy a specific terrain. Hold that terrain so that they don’t come back. And build on that held terrain an order to impress upon the local tribesman and population and win their hearts and minds.

 

  1. How is it failing against the Taliban?

 

This process is failing against the process due to a scatological command structure, the lack of Special Forces used to train and build an afghan army, corruption at the very top of the government, and the lack of good intelligence an order to shut down crucial enemy supply routes. The command structure is scatological because it has Special Forces reporting to one place, the marines reporting to one place, and NATO forces reporting to their superiors. This allows for a dearth of information to not be transmitted and shared between the differing branches involved in the fighting. The Special Forces are not in a traditional role. Special Forces these days are more often than not used along the border areas so that they can root out insurgent strongholds, rather than helping to train the afghan forces so that they can provide their own security. There’s a lack of good intelligence to shut down crucial enemy supply routes. The Pakistanis are hedging their bets against the U.S. and are allowing the Pakistani Taliban to move resources to the Afghan side of their operation and feeding the guns and bullets that they use to fight the war with poppy production, which brings us to the last reason which is the corruption at the very top of the Afghan government. By accepting bribes or baksheesh the likelihood of a stable Afghan government after the U.S. enterprise is becoming less and less likely.

  • Okay, but you might want to add that while foreign troops can clear better than the Taliban can, they are unable to hold as well, and the Taliban is using the same formula in their operations in Afghanistan, see page 92.
  • 5/5

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s