« Previous |
1 - 10 of 12
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Starr Forum: The Outlier: The Unfinished Presidency of Jimmy Carter
- Publication Date:
- 11-2021
- Content Type:
- Video
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Jimmy Carter’s one-term presidency is often labeled a failure; indeed, many Americans view Carter as the only ex-president to have used the White House as a stepping-stone to greater achievements. But in retrospect the Carter political odyssey is a rich and human story, marked by both formidable accomplishments and painful political adversity. In this deeply researched, brilliantly written account, Kai Bird expertly unfolds the Carter saga as a tragic tipping point in American history. Drawing on interviews with Carter and members of his administration and recently declassified documents on Israel, the Iranian revolution and the 1980 October Surprise, Bird delivers a profound, clear-eyed evaluation of a leader whose legacy has been deeply misunderstood.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Conflict
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
3. Wilson and the Founders: The Roots of Liberal Foreign Policy
- Author:
- Ted Widmer
- Publication Date:
- 04-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- We can’t do much better than reclaiming the Declaration of Independence as a fundamental foreign policy document in American history. We have a tendency to read it in a simplistic way, and to think of it only as a sort of airy declaration of what were then human rights, and a declaration of separation from England. But, in fact, the founders had a fairly well-articulated sense of what they were doing with foreign policy, and a fairly revolutionary sense of their foreign policy. So I’m quite interested in how Woodrow Wilson rediscovers the founders and makes them relevant for his time. This thinking about Wilson began for me about ten years ago when I came to be a speechwriter in the second term of Bill Clinton’s presidency. I was quite interested in which presidents were considered historically interesting to Clinton and quickly figured out it was John F. Kennedy, obviously, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. a little less obviously, and Teddy Roosevelt, who was a huge influence on Bill Clinton, and always has been. It was a time in the 1990s when a lot of very favorable books were coming out about Teddy Roosevelt, and it was an attractive time to be thinking about him. At the same time, I felt Wilson was completely ignored. I don’t remember Clinton ever talking about Wilson. In the collected speeches of Bill Clinton—it’s something like eighteen very fat volumes, the man enjoys speaking—if we looked up Wilson, I’m sure we could find a few references, but very few.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Military Strategy, and Liberalism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
4. Wilson, Bush, and the Evolution of Liberal Foreign Policy
- Author:
- Tony Smith
- Publication Date:
- 04-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- The first subject to discuss in considering the future of the liberal inter- nationalist agenda is the importance of the democratization project to the definition of Wilsonianism. The second is the meaning of multilat- eralism. In the first case, Thomas Knock and Anne-Marie Slaughter argue in a forthcoming volume that democratization was never an important part of Wilsonianism; that, instead, multilateralism is the key to liberal interna- tionalism. On the basis of this argument, they come to the conclusion that the Bush Doctrine is not in the Wilsonian tradition. In my contribution to this volume,1 I object to this denigration of the place of democracy in liberal internationalism as being fundamentally illogical. Accordingly, I find the Bush Doctrine easily identifiable as Wilsonian. I argue for the centrality of democracy to the Wilsonian project because it seems clear that the microfoundations for a regime in society are critical to the ability of those states that participate in multilateral organizations to do so effectively. That is, in order to function effectively, ultimately to provide for a peaceful world order, a multilateral organization needs to be dominated by democratic states, known for their rule-abiding behavior, their transparency, predictability, and accountability. Wilson wanted the League of Nations to be a League under the control of democracies and concerned with expanding this form of government,2 but then in late February 1919 at Versailles, he abandoned that idea. From a liberal internationalist perspective, the result of the League’s character was that it was undermined not only by the failure of the United States to join, but also by the role played in it by autocratic states. It is worth adding that in his drafts of the Pan American Union some three years earlier, Wilson had also looked forward to a community of American states based on the consent of the governed. In a word, a world of peace was necessarily a world dominated by what today is often called “market democracies,” a type of social, economic, and political order that Wilson argued was fundamentally different from and better than any alternative order. In such an order the place of democratic governments was central.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Leadership, and Liberalism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
5. Wilson’s Radical Vision for Global Governance
- Author:
- Erez Manela
- Publication Date:
- 04-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- In recent years, Woodrow Wilson has returned to feature promi- nently in the public discourse on the role of the United States in the world. For students of U.S. foreign relations, this is hardly a sur- prising development. Wilson was responsible for articulating a vision of the U.S. role in the world—usually described as “liberal interna- tionalism”—that has remained, despite well-known flaws and scores of critics over the years, dominant in shaping American rhetoric and self-image, if not always policies, vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Competing foreign policy postures, such as isolationism or “national interest” realism, have surely been influential in particular eras and contexts. But they have failed to match the ideological and popular appeal of liberal internationalism, which has echoed so compellingly the most basic ideas many Americans hold about who they are, what their country is about, and what it should stand for in the world.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Governance, Leadership, and Liberalism
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
6. Does the “Surge” Explain Iraq’s Improved Security?
- Author:
- Jon R. Lindsay
- Publication Date:
- 09-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Sen. John McCain has long advocated “sustained and substantial” troop increases,1 attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s position on drawing down forces. Obama for his part recently stated that the surge has “succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated” and “beyond our wildest dreams.”2 Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of Multi- National Corps Iraq during the surge, told a Heritage Foundation audience in March 2008, “I think it’s safe to say that the surge of Coalition forces—and how we employed those forces—have broken the cycle of sectarian violence in Iraq.”3 While the surge was quite controversial in its inception,4 it now seems that “success has a thou- sand fathers.” Indeed, since the deployment starting in January 2007 of an additional 30,000 troops (five addi- tional Army brigades primarily in and around Baghdad and 4,000 Marines in Anbar Province, rising to a high-water mark of 171,000 U.S. troops in Iraq by October 2007), the drop in vio- lence has been remarkable. From December 2006 to August 2008, monthly insurgent-initiated attacks have dropped from over 5,600 to 800, U.S. troop fatalities from 112 to 23, and Iraqi civilian fatalities from 3,500 to 500. Even though we’re hardly out of the woods, the troop surge is clearly correlated with a major decrease in violence.5 Correlation, of course, is not causation. Lt. Gen. Odierno is right to highlight the employment of surge forces in addition to the increase in their numbers. The renewed focus on providing security to the Iraqi population—by pushing troops out of sprawling Forward Operating Bases and proactively controlling movement within major cities—has truly been a change for the bet- ter. Nevertheless, there are factors above and beyond additional troops and better counter-insur- gency tactics that may account for the drop in violence. These include the Sunni Awakening movements that emerged in Anbar province prior to the surge, the tragic efficacy of sectarian killing in 2006, the Shia Mahdi Army cease-fire announced and renewed by Moqtada al-Sadr, and operations by other U.S. organizations not associated with the surge.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Military Strategy
- Political Geography:
- Iraq, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
7. The U.S. and Iran in Afghanistan: Policy Gone Awry
- Author:
- Barnett R. Rubin and Sara Batmanglich
- Publication Date:
- 10-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Afghanistan is one of several contexts in which the long-term common interests of the U.S. and Iran have been over- shadowed by the animus originating in the 1953 CIA-led coup in Iran and the Iranian revolution of 1979, to the detriment of the interests of the U.S., Iran, and Afghanistan. This confronta- tion has served the interests of the Pakistan military, Taliban, and al-Qaida. Re-establishing the basis for U.S.-Iranian cooperation in Afghanistan would provide significant additional leverage over Pakistan, on whose territory the leadership of both the Taliban and al-Qaida are now found. During the first half of the Cold War (until the 1978 coup in Afghanistan and the 1979 revolution in Iran), Afghanistan was a non-aligned country with a Soviet-trained army wedged between the USSR and U.S. allies. In the 1970s, under the Nixon Doctrine, the U.S. supported efforts by the Shah of Iran to use his post-1973 oil wealth to sup- port efforts by Afghan President Muhammad Daoud to lessen Kabul’s dependence on the USSR. This ended with the successive overthrow of both Daoud and the Shah in 1978 and 1979. A U.S. close partnership with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan emerged as the primary means of maintaining U.S. influence in the Persian Gulf and its eastern flank. Support for Sunni Islamists in Afghanistan and an Islamist-oriented military regime in Pakistan formed parts of this strategy to repulse the USSR from its occupation of Afghanistan, begun in late 1979, and to isolate Iran.
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, and Leadership
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America
8. Recovering the Liberal Foreign Policy Tradition
- Author:
- Nick Bromell and John Tirman
- Publication Date:
- 11-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Over the course of the seemingly endless 2008 electoral campaign, Barack Obama chose not to formulate a coherent and distinctive foreign policy. Aside from calling for a redeployment of military resources from Iraq to Afghanistan and expressing a greater willingness to open talks with countries like Iran, he never explained to voters exactly how he would manage foreign affairs differently from John McCain or, for that matter, from George W. Bush.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Leadership, Liberalism, and Transition
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
9. State-Building and U.S. Foreign Policy
- Author:
- Jeremy Allouche
- Publication Date:
- 11-2008
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Since the early 1990s, state-building has become an important objective of American foreign policy. This can be explained by the fact that failed states have been perceived since the end of the Cold War as a major security concern. Under the Clinton administration, failed states were qualified as major threats to global security.
- Topic:
- International Relations, Foreign Policy, Hegemony, and State Building
- Political Geography:
- North America and United States of America
10. Troop Levels in Stability Operations: What We Don’t Know
- Author:
- Peter Krause
- Publication Date:
- 02-2007
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- MIT Center for International Studies
- Abstract:
- Troop levels in Iraq have been one of the most hotly contested issues om American foreign policy over the past three years, from debates over the initial deployment in 2003 to those surrounding the troop surge in 2007. The Bush administration has faced significant criticism for ignoring the conventional wisdom regarding the number of soldiers required to secure Iraq, and recent attempts to change course in this area are seen by some as too little, too late. Specifically, the Pentagon’s deployment of only 120,000 American troops for the invasion and the decision by Paul Bremer, U.S. Administrator in Iraq, to disband the Iraqi army and police has kept the ratio of security forces to Iraqi civilians well below the 20 per 1,000 seen as the basic ante required to play the high stakes stabilization game. Many supporters of higher troop levels blame these missteps for the emergence of the robust insurgency and the coalition’s failure to defeat it. But where exactly does the 20 per 1,000 figure come from, how strong is the evidence sup- porting it, and what steps are being taken to assess and improve the conventional wisdom in this area? While the answer to the first part of the question is relatively accessible, the latter are more difficult. They address a daunting problem, but unveil a disconnect between the objectives and methods of policy and social science.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Military Strategy, Iraq War, and Troop Deployment
- Political Geography:
- United States, Iraq, Middle East, and North America