Professor: Kanishkan (Kani) Sathasivam
Office: Willis 404
Office Hours: 2:30 - 4:00 PM on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; 10:00 - 11:30 AM on Tuesdays
Phone: x4116 (office)
Email: ksathasi@carleton.edu

Course Description & Objectives:

With the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Soviet threat, there has been an ongoing debate concerning the future direction and priorities of U.S. national security/defense policy. This course will join and examine this debate within the context of national interests, national power, and the global security environment from the perspective of the United States. The course is organized along four substantive sections: introduction to the study of U.S. national security, America’s grand strategy, the international security agenda, and regional security concerns. At the end of the course, students should have a good understanding of the institutions and processes of U.S. national security policymaking, and be able to specify U.S. national security interests around the world, determine actual and potential threats to those interests, and propose and analyze policy options for dealing with those threats.

Course Requirements, Policies & Grading:

The final grade for this course will be based on four basic requirements: three major policy papers, and active class participation including leading class discussions of the reading assignments. All written submissions must be typed (single-side), double-spaced, in 12-pt. font, and with 1" page margins. Always feel free to come to me seeking help with any aspect of the course.

Each of the three policy papers will be about 12-15 pages in length (excluding endnotes and the list of references). Students must draw their topic for each paper from the readings assigned in each of sections 2, 3 and 4 of the reading assignments. The papers must present empirical rather than normative arguments and rigorous analysis of policy. Furthermore, the papers must, at a minimum, incorporate material from relevant course readings. To receive any grade above a B-, however, a student must produce a thoughtful, comprehensive, and well-written policy paper that borrows ideas and arguments from the assigned readings as well as from "outside" source material to thoroughly and critically analyze the subject. Students are strongly encouraged to discuss and clear their policy paper topics with me prior to beginning their work on them.

Always keep in mind that the reading assignments listed below are very much a part of the course requirements. Active class participation is expected, which means a good class attendance record is also expected through the entire course.

Most class periods will be spent on discussion rather than on lecture. On these days, previously appointed students will lead our critical examination of the specified readings. While all students will be expected to have read all of the articles and book chapters, the appointed students will share the burden of leading and carrying our discussion.

Course grades will be based on the following distribution scheme:

All students are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic honesty and integrity. Any act of academic dishonesty or misconduct will be referred to the Office of the Dean. For further information, see Carleton College’s Academic Honesty in the Writing of Essays and Other Papers and the section on "academic honesty" in Academic Regulations and Procedures, 2001-02. Both are available in Laird 140.

Special needs: Students requiring access to learning tools or special schedules approved by Student Support Services should contact me at the beginning of the course.

Reading Assignments:

You are expected to keep up with the reading assignments as we go through the term, which means that you are supposed to read each assignment before the corresponding class period. The class lectures and discussions are meant to build upon the assigned reading material.

The following four required books are available for sale at the Carleton bookstore:

[1] Brown, Michael E., Owen R. Cote’, Jr., Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller (ed.). 2001. America’s Strategic Choices. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

[2] Snow, Donald M. 2000. When America Fights: The Uses of U.S. Military Force. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

[3] White, Jonathan R. 2002. Terrorism: An Introduction. 3^rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Thomson Learning.

[4] Utgoff, Victor A. (ed.). 2000. The Coming Crisis: Nuclear Proliferation, U.S. Interests, and World Order. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

F 1/4 Introductory remarks.

M 1/7 Basic concepts; national power; national interests; the geopolitical context.

W 1/9 The president and the policy triad.

F 1/11 The U.S. military establishment.

M 1/14 The U.S. intelligence community.

W 1/16 America’s strategic choices.

• Brown et al. 2001. Preface, and parts I & II.

F 1/18 America’s strategic choices (cont.).

• Brown et al. 2001. Parts III & IV.

M 1/21 America’s strategic choices (cont.).

• Brown et al. 2001. Part V, and "Documentation: A National Security Strategy for a New Century."
• Office of the Secretary of Defense. 2001. "U.S. Defense Strategy." In Annual Report to the President and the Congress, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. Pp. 1-18.

W 1/23 When America fights.

• Snow. 2000. Introduction, and chapters 1 & 2.

F 1/25 When America fights (cont.).

• Snow. 2000. Chapters 3, 4 & 5.

M 1/28 The end of the Cold War and the "new" world order.

Old security concerns in the "new" world (Major Regional Conflicts).

• Paret, Peter. 2000. "Clausewitz." In Global Politics in a Changing World: A Reader, ed. Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. 36-9.
• Freedman, Lawrence, and Efraim Karsh. 2000. "How Kuwait Was Won: Strategy in the Gulf War." In Global Politics in a Changing World: A Reader, ed. Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. 48-58.
• Biddle, Stephen. 1996. "Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us About the Future of Conflict." International Security 21(2): 139-79.
• Mahnken, Tomas G. 1998. "Deny U.S. Access?" U. S. Naval Institute Proceedings 9/1998: 36-9.
• Special Report. 1998. "The Access Issue." AIR FORCE Magazine 10/1998: 42-6.

W 1/30 Insurgency and counterinsurgency (Low Intensity Conflicts).

New internal wars and external intervention (Military Operations Other Than War).

• Van Creveld, Martin. 2000. "The Transformation of War." In Global Politics in a Changing World: A Reader, ed. Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. 64-74.
• Brown, Michael E. 1998. "The Causes of Internal Conflict." In World Security: Challenges for a New Century, 3/e, ed. Michael T. Klare and Yogesh Chandrani. New York: St. Martin’s. Pp. 180-99.
• Kagan, Robert. 2000. "The Case for Global Activism." In 21 Debated Issues in World Politics, ed. Gregory M. Scott, Louis Furmanski, and Randall J. Jones, Jr. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 287-95.
• The Editors of Human Events. 2000. "Somalia Debacle Shows Idiocy of Unbridled Interventionism." In 21 Debated Issues in World Politics, ed. Gregory M. Scott, Louis Furmanski, and Randall J. Jones, Jr. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 295-8.

F 2/1 International terrorism—causes and responses.

Policy paper #1 is due in my office by 5 PM.

• Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. 2001. Patterns of Global Terrorism, 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of State. [Read only the "Introduction" and "Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism" sections.]
• White. 2002. Chapters 1, 2, 3 & 4.

M 2/4 Midterm break.

W 2/6 International terrorism—causes and responses (cont.).

• White. 2002. Chapters 9, 10, 11 & 12.

F 2/8 Technology, the media and terrorism.

• Sopko, John F. 2000. "The Changing Proliferation Threat." In Global Politics in a Changing World: A Reader, ed. Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. 233-41.
• White. 2002. Chapters 15, 16 & 17.

M 2/11 Weapons of mass destruction—proliferation and counterproliferation.

• Mandelbaum, Michael. 2000. "Lessons of the Next Nuclear War." In Global Politics in a Changing World: A Reader, ed. Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. 223-32.
• The Economist. 2000. "Bombs, Gas and Microbes: The Desperate Efforts to Block the Road to Doomsday." In Global Politics in a Changing World: A Reader, ed. Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. 246-52.
• Venter, Al J. 1998. "The Invisible Threat: What does Russia Have Up Its Biological Warfare Sleeve?" Jane’s International Defense Review 9/1998: 25-8.
• Sheppard, Ben. 1998. "Ballistic Missile Proliferation and the Geopolitics of Terror." Jane’s Intelligence Review 12/1998: 40-4.
• Utgoff. 2000. Chapters 1, 2 & 3.

W 2/13 Weapons of mass destruction—proliferation and counterproliferation (cont.).

• Utgoff. 2000. Chapters 4, 5, 6 & 7.

F 2/15 Weapons of mass destruction—proliferation and counterproliferation (cont.).

• Utgoff. 2000. Chapters 8, 9 & 10.

M 2/18 The United States and nuclear weapons—deterrence, disarmament and national missile defense.

• The Goodpaster Committee. 2000. "The Declining Utility of Nuclear Weapons." In 21 Debated Issues in World Politics, ed. Gregory M. Scott, Louis Furmanski, and Randall J. Jones, Jr. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 64-7.
• Joseph, Robert G., and John F. Reichart. 2000. "The Case for Nuclear Deterrence Today." In 21 Debated Issues in World Politics, ed. Gregory M. Scott, Louis Furmanski, and Randall J. Jones, Jr. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 68-80.
• Hoffman, David. 2000. "Aging Safeguards and Brush with Nuclear Disaster." In Global Politics in a Changing World: A Reader, ed. Richard W. Mansbach and Edward Rhodes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Pp. 243-5.
• Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 2001. "Missile Defence and the ABM Treaty: A Status Report." Fact Sheet 6/2001. Stockholm, Sweden: SIPRI. Pp. 1-10.
• Gottemoeller, Rose. 2001. "Offense, Defense, and Unilateralism in Strategic Arms Control." Arms Control Today 9/2001.

Section IV: Regional Security Concerns

W 2/20 Europe.

• Office of the Secretary of Defense. 2000. Strengthening Transatlantic Security: A U.S. Strategy for the 21^st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. [Read only the preface and chapters I-IV (pp. 1-42).]
• Larrabee, F. Stephen. 2000. "The European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI) and American Interests." Prepared statement for a Hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on European Affairs, 3/9/2000. RAND Testimony Series. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Pp. 1-4.
• Ochmanek, David. 2000. "The Emerging Security Environment." In NATO’s Future: Implications for U.S. Military Capabilities and Posture. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Pp. 1-5.
• Lesser, Ian, Jerrold Green, F. Stephen Larrabee, and Michele Zanini. 2000. "The Evolving Security Environment." In The Future of NATO’s Mediterranean Initiative: Evolution and Next Steps. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Pp. 3-15.
• Gordon, Philip H., and James B. Steinberg. 2001. "NATO Enlargement: Moving Forward." Brookings Policy Brief 90(12/2001). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Pp. 1-8.

F 2/22 Europe (cont.).

Policy paper #2 is due in my office by 5 PM.

• Dawisha, Karen. 1998. "The Imperial Impulse: Russia and the ‘Near Abroad.’" In World Security: Challenges for a New Century, 3/e, ed. Michael T. Klare and Yogesh Chandrani. New York: St. Martin’s. Pp. 78-95.
• Cohen, Ariel. 2002. "Putin’s Foreign Policy and U.S.-Russian Relations." In Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in World Politics, 10/e, ed. John T. Rourke. Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin. Pp. 80-91.
• Lieven, Anatol. 2002. "Against Russophobia." In Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in World Politics, 10/e, ed. John T. Rourke. Guilford, CT: McGraw-Hill/Dushkin. Pp. 92-100.
• Bird, Maryann. 2001. "Putin’s Bold Move." TIME Europe 11/2/2001.
• Berger, Samuel R. 2001. "Putin’s Reality Trip." Washington Post 11/15/2001. P. A47.

M 2/25 The Middle East.

• Hudson, Michael C. 1998. "The United States and the Middle East." In World Security: Challenges for a New Century, 3/e, ed. Michael T. Klare and Yogesh Chandrani. New York: St. Martin’s. Pp. 113-34.
• Anderson, Roy R., Robert F. Seibert, and Jon G. Wagner. 2001. "The Middle East and the Changing International Order." In Politics and Change in the Middle East: Sources of Conflict and Accommodation, 6/e. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 334-70.
• Landau, Emily. 1998. "Change in Israeli Nuclear Policy?" Strategic Assessment 1(1).
• Evron, Yair. 1998. "An Israeli-United States Defense Pact?" Strategic Assessment 1(3).
• Brom, Shlomo. 2000. "Security Implications of Establishing a Palestinian State." Strategic Assessment 3(2).
• Byman, Daniel, and Matthew Waxman. 2000. "U.S. Objectives, Options, Assumptions." In Confronting Iraq: U.S. Policy and the Use of Force Since the Gulf War. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Pp. 23-36.

W 2/27 The Caucasus and Central Asia.

• Blank, Stephen. 2001. "The United States and Central Asia." In Central Asian Security: The New International Context, ed. Roy Allison and Lena Jonson. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. Pp. 127-51.
• Allison, Roy. 2001. "Conclusion: Central Asian Security in the Regional and International Context." In Central Asian Security: The New International Context, ed. Roy Allison and Lena Jonson. London: Royal Institute of International Affairs. Pp. 247-68.
• Cohen, Ariel. 1999. "U.S. Interests in Central Asia." Testimony before the U.S. House Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, 3/17/1999. Testimony. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Pp. 1-11.
• Aliriza, Bulent. 2000. "U.S. Caspian Pipeline Policy: Substance or Spin?" Caspian Energy Update 8/24/2000. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies. Pp. 1-5.
• Hill, Fiona. 2001. "A Not-So-Grand Strategy: United States Policy in the Caucasus and Central Asia Since 1991." Brookings Article 2/2001. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Pp. 1-7.
• Hill, Fiona. 2001. "The Caucasus and Central Asia." Brookings Policy Brief 80(5/2001). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Pp. 1-8.

F 3/1 South Asia.

• Bedi, Rahul. 1998. "Kashmir at Heart of India-Pakistan Conflict." Irish Times 6/8/1998.
• Sathasivam, Kanishkan, and Sahar Shafqat. 2002. "In India’s Shadow: The Evolution of Pakistan’s Security Policy." Forthcoming in Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan, ed. Uk Heo and Shale Horowitz. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
• Wiseman, Geoffrey, and Gregory F. Treverton. 1998. "Dealing with the Nuclear Dilemma in South Asia." Pacific Council on International Policy Issue Brief 11/1998. Los Angeles: PCIP. Pp. 1-16.
• Cohen, Stephen P. 2001. "Moving Forward in South Asia." Brookings Policy Brief 81(5/2001). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Pp. 1-8.
• Mehta, Mandavi, and Teresita C. Schaffer. 2001. "India and the United States: Security Interests." South Asia Monitor 34(6/1/2001). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies. Pp. 1-4.

M 3/4 East Asia.

• Calder, Kent E. 1997. "Asia’s New Balance-of-Power Game." In Asia’s Deadly Triangle: How Arms, Energy and Growth Threaten to Destabilize Asia-Pacific. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Pp. 126-49.
• Buzan, Barry, and Gerald Segal. 1998. "Rethinking East Asian Security." In World Security: Challenges for a New Century, 3/e, ed. Michael T. Klare and Yogesh Chandrani. New York: St. Martin’s. Pp. 96-112.
• Lee, Jung-Hoon. 2000. "Potential Threats and Policy Responses of the Major Powers." In Emerging Threats, Force Structures, and the Role of Air Power in Korea, ed. Natalie Crawford and Chung-in Moon. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Pp. 11-23.
• Feigenbaum, Evan A. 2001. "Violence and Major Power Coordination in Asia." In Major Power Relations in Northeast Asia: Win-Win or Zero-Sum Game, ed. David M. Lampton. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. Pp. 113-30.
• Cossa, Ralph A. 2001. "U.S. Asia Policy: Does an Alliance-Based Policy Still Make Sense?" Issues & Insights 3-01(9/2001). Honolulu, HI: Pacific Forum CSIS. [Read only the executive summary (pp. v-x).]

W 3/6 East Asia (cont.).

• Pollack, Jonathan D. 1998. "Introduction: Asian-Pacific Responses to a Rising China." In In China’s Shadow: Regional Perspectives on Chinese Foreign Policy and Military Development, ed. Jonathan D. Pollack and Richard H. Yang. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Pp. 1-9.
• Ahrari, Ehsan. 2000. "Unrestricted War: The Leveller." Jane’s Intelligence Review 2/2000: 44-6.
• International Institute for Strategic Studies. 2000. "China’s Ambitions in Myanmar: India Steps Up Countermoves." IISS Strategic Comments 6(6): 1-2.
• May, Gregory C. 2001. "Taiwan’s Role in the China-Japan-U.S. Trilateral Relationship." In Major Power Relations in Northeast Asia: Win-Win or Zero-Sum Game, ed. David M. Lampton. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. Pp. 45-72.
• O’Hanlon, Michael. 2000. "Why China Cannot Conquer Taiwan." International Security 25(2): 51-86.

F 3/8 East Asia (cont.).

• Calder, Kent E. 1997. "Japan’s Struggle for Strategy." In Asia’s Deadly Triangle: How Arms, Energy and Growth Threaten to Destabilize Asia-Pacific. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Pp. 83-103.
• Park, Minkyu, and Taeho Kim. 1998. "Anchoring a New Pattern of Interdependence and Strategic Rivalry: China-Japan Relations Toward the 21st Century." Korean Journal of Defense Analysis 10(1).
• Mochizuki, Mike M. 2000. "The U.S.-Japan Alliance: Beyond the Guidelines." PacNet Newsletter 35(9/1/2000). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies. Pp. 1-4.
• Green, Michael J. 2001. "Defense or Security? The U.S.-Japan Defense Guidelines and China." In Major Power Relations in Northeast Asia: Win-Win or Zero-Sum Game, ed. David M. Lampton. Tokyo: Japan Center for International Exchange. Pp. 73-86.
• Office of the Secretary of Defense. 2000. 2000 Report to Congress: Military Situation on the Korean Peninsula. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense. Pp. 1-18.

M 3/11 Course wrap-up and evaluation.

F 3/15 Policy paper #3 is due in my office by 5 PM.