POLS 405:
The Politics of the Post-September 11 Wars
Winter 2014
Time Wednesdays 8:30 - 11:30
Location: Macintosh-Corry Hall room B-313
Instructor: Aaron Ettinger
Office: Mackintosh-Corry Hall room B307
Office Hours: Wednesdays 1:30 – 3:30 or by appointment
Contact Information: [email protected]
Background
This seminar covers the politics of the post-September 11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It addresses the
history, themes, controversies and political significance of these conflicts from an International
Relations perspective. Topics include the ideas that informed US foreign policy after September 11, the
dynamics of war and occupation in both countries, and the legacy of the wars for the Middle East and
US power in world politics. Special attention is given to controversies that arise from these conflicts
such as torture and extrajudicial imprisonment, drone warfare, and military privatization. Course work
includes weekly written assignments, presentations and one major research paper.
Overview
For the past thirteen years, the United States and some of its allies have been entangled in war in Iraq
and Afghanistan. But why did the US send hundreds of thousands of soldiers and trillions of dollars to
occupy countries in the Middle East and Central Asia? Prompted by the attacks of September 11, 2001,
the US proceeded to wage a global war against “terrorism” in the name of national security and revenge.
But the attacks of September 11 were perpetrated by nineteen individuals affiliated with a Islamic
militant network called al-Qaeda which had based in Afghanistan, a massively underdeveloped country,
partially governed, by a fundamentalist cabal with limited capabilities and barely any international
recognition. How is it that this single, if dramatic, act of militancy could lead to the longest war in
American history (Afghanistan) and the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with those events
(Iraq)? The answers will not be answered easily.
The post-September 11 wars have been the most divisive and controversial political events to confront
the world in decades. They speak to some of the most fundamental questions in world politics and
challenge our understanding of International Relations in both theory and practice. Looking back, were
these conflicts were justifiable? Were they successful? How will their legacies shape the politics of the
1
US and the Middle East? This course will profile the ideas, controversies and debates that emerged from
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
POLS 405 is divided into two general sections. Part I (everything prior to reading week) addresses the
ideas that shaped US foreign policy, and the conflicts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. This includes
debates about the America’s foreign policy after the Cold War, the decisions to go to war in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the occupations that followed. Part II addresses particular issues that arise from the
post-September 11 wars. They include the politics of global terrorism, US imperialism, ethical problems
with torture and drone warfare, and the unprecedented privatization of the wars. The final two weeks
address the wider implications of the post-September 11 wars for the Middle East and, finally, the US
place in world politics.
Course Objectives
By the end of this twelve-week course, students will be able to do the following:
(1) Reconstruct the major events that shaped the post-September 11 wars;
(2) Identify how the post-September 11 wars fit into the broader patterns of world politics;
(3) Explain historical events in the context of International Relations theory;
(4) Write clearly about the complexities of the post-September 11 wars and IR theory.
Required readings
I have selected the subject matter and the articles in order to give students a broad picture of the postSeptember 11 wars. I have done my best to present reading material drawn from different types of
sources including academic journals, magazine articles and video documentaries. For your convenience,
I have included a link to each article which appears next to their entries on this syllabus. If, for whatever
reason, the link does not work, most required readings for this course are available online through the
library Summon search or Google Scholar. If you are off-campus, use the “connect from off-campus”
sign-in function on the library website for full access to the journal articles. Readings that are not
available online will be distributed in advance via email. The materials should be read in the order that
they are listed on the syllabus. I have arranged them so that flow logically from one another.
Expectations
Students will meet with the instructor in weekly seminars. The indicated readings will serve as the basis
for classroom interactions and students must come to class prepared with their own thoughts on the
material. Students are expected to participate in classroom discussions through presentations and
debates.
Communicating with Me
The best way to communicate with me is by email at [email protected]. I do my best to answer
all queries within 24 hours. When you send an email please observe some common sense rules of email
etiquette. Always include “POLS 405” in the subject line; begin the message with a greeting and sign off
2
with your own name. Regarding office hours, I have a general open door policy and you may drop in
anytime, though forewarning would help. I also hold formal office hours.
Special Accommodations
Students with Disabilities: Arrangements can readily be made to accommodate students needing special
accommodations and who have registered with Health, Counselling and Disability Services. Please bring
any accommodations to my attention as soon as possible. For more information, please visit the Queen’s
HCDS website at www.queensu.ca/hcds/ds
Queen’s University is committed to achieving full accessibility for persons with disabilities. Part of this commitment includes
arranging academic accommodations for students with disabilities to ensure they have an equitable opportunity to
participate in all of their academic activities. If you are a student with a disability and think you may need accommodations,
you are strongly encouraged to contact the Disability Services Office (DSO) and register as early as possible. For more
information, including important deadlines, please visit the DSO website at: http://www.queensu.ca/hcds/ds/
Religious Observance: Appropriate accommodation will be made for religious observance. Please
consult me as soon as possible with requests.
Academic Integrity
Academic integrity is constituted by the five core fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect
and responsibility (see www.academicintegrity.org).These values are central to the building, nurturing
and sustaining of an academic community in which all members of the community will thrive.
Adherence to the values expressed through academic integrity forms a foundation for the “freedom of
inquiry and exchange of ideas” essential to the intellectual life of the University (see the Senate Report
on Principles and Priorities
http://www.queensu.ca/secretariat/policies/senateandtrustees/principlespriorities.html).
Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the regulations concerning academic integrity
and for ensuring that their assignments conform to the principles of academic integrity. Information on
academic integrity is available in the Arts and Science Calendar (see Academic Regulation 1
http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/academic-calendars/2011-2012-calendar/academic-regulations/regulation1), on the Arts and Science website http://www.queensu.ca/artsci/academics/undergraduate/academicintegrity), and from the instructor of this course. Departures from academic integrity include plagiarism,
use of unauthorized materials, facilitation, forgery and falsification, and are antithetical to the
development of an academic community at Queen’s. Given the seriousness of these matters, actions
which contravene the regulation on academic integrity carry sanctions that can range from a warning or
the loss of grades on an assignment to the failure of a course to a requirement to withdraw from the
university.
3
Assessment
15% Participation
This is a seminar course and students are expected to participate regularly and vigorously. Accordingly,
a healthy percentage of the overall grade is apportioned to in-class performance. I will assess your
participation on three general criteria.
News Briefing: Since Iraq and Afghanistan are still active conflict zones, each class will begin with a
brief review of Iraq and Afghanistan in the news. No written materials are needed for this portion.
Simply pay attention to the news and bring your up-to-date knowledge to the class.
Discussion Paper Presentation: Each class, a three or four students will present their discussion papers
which will serve as the starting point for class conversation. Presenters will volunteer the week before
and come prepared to give a brief summation of their discussion paper. Each student will present at least
twice during the semester. Remember, the presentation is not a summary of an article; it is a reflection
of your own thoughts on the week’s readings.
Seminar Discussion and Office Hours: Your in-class performance as well as any office visits will count
towards your overall participation grade.
40% Single page discussion papers (8 x 1 page each)
Students will compose eight different discussion papers. The basis for each paper will be the reading
material for the week at hand and will be selected by the student. The reflections may address any
component of the readings that piques the student’s interest. This may include specific objections to the
material, broad commentaries, issues you would like to explore, et cetera. Though the subject matter of
the reflection is up to the student, the compositions should avoid trivial concerns.
Treat the one-page response as if it were to be published as part of a colloquium series or if it was a
briefing note for a political official, or a newspaper op-ed. The purpose of this exercise is to practice
your writing – one of the most important skills that a political studies student can develop. Now, the real
difficulty of this assignment is not the composition of a single page. The challenge is to sustain the
quality of your output on week-after-week.
Critical reflections should be no more than 1 page single-spaced. Students do not need to provide
citations or a bibliography. If you cannot resist the urge to cite, refer to the author of the article in
parenthesis and I will assume that it corresponds to the syllabus.
I will grade your one-pagers on its substantive and technical merits. That means I am looking at both the
substance of your ideas and the quality of your writing (grammar, language, flow). Each reflection paper
will be graded out of 10.The cumulative value of these grades will produce a number out of 80. This
number, divided in half, is your grade for this portion of the course work. I will do my best to return
them to you (via email) by the end of the week so that you may identify areas of improvement for the
next submission.
4
I will collect the discussion papers during class and will not make exceptions for electronic submissions.
Since you only have to write 8 and there are 12 weeks of material, select your topics strategically. There
is no opportunity to submit reflections with a late penalty.
45% Major research paper 15-20 pages
The bulk of the student’s final mark will come out of the major research paper. The essay may cover any
issue relating to the post-September 11 wars. Students are expected to develop a topic and research
question and have it approved before you begin to write. Topics may flow from classroom conversations
or from weekly reflection papers. Students may also select a topic that is not covered in this course
provided you can relate it to the politics of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I recommend consulting
with me before pursuing any deep research.
The research papers are due on Friday April 18 5:30pm in my mailbox in Mackintosh-Corry Hall room
C321 or at my office door Mackintosh-Corry Hall room B307. Late penalties will be assessed at 5% for
the fist day late then 2% for every day late after that.
Style guidelines for submitted assignments
Please submit all of your written work with the following specifications.
Font – Times New Roman (anything else will drive me nuts)
Font size – 12 point font (thank you)
Margins – 2.54 cm / 1 inch margins
Page numbers – beginning on the first page of text, not the title page
Citation style – Please use the American Journal of Political Science style. This means embedded
citations and a bibliography at the end. Footnotes are allowable for explanatory digressions or notes of
clarification. If you have any concerns about how use this style, please refer to the reading list for
examples of how to do it right.
Headings – Yes, you can use headings and subheadings in your submitted work.
5
Letter Grade Conversion Chart
The research essay will be evaluated using letter grades that will then be converted to numerical values
using the Faculty of Arts and Science input scheme, reproduced below.
Numerical Value
Letter Value
90-100
85-89
80-84
77-79
73-76
70-72
67-69
63-66
60-62
57-59
53-56
50-52
48
24
0
A+
A
AB+
B
BC+
C
CD+
D
DF48 (F+)
F24 (F)
F0 (0)
Arts and Science Letter
Grade Input Scheme
93
87
82
78
75
72
68
65
62
58
55
52
48
24
0
READINGS
Week 1: January 8
Introductions: What were the post-September 11 wars?
Holland, Jack. 2009. From September 11th, 2001 to 9-11: From Void to Crisis. International Political
Sociology 3 (3): 275-292. Here
Week 2: January 15
Ideas, Ideology and US Foreign Policy
(101 pages)
Desch, Michael C. 2008. America’s Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in
U.S. Foreign Policy. International Security 32 (3): 7-43. Here
Bacevich, Andrew J., and Elizabeth H. Prodromou. 2004. God is Not Neutral: Religion and US Foreign
Policy After 9/11. Orbis 48 (1): 43-54. Here
Schmidt, Brian C., and Michael C. Williams. 2008. The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War:
Neoconservatives Versus Realists. Security Studies 17: 191-220. Here
Haar, Roberta. 2010. Explaining George W. Bush’s Adoption of the Neoconservative Agenda After
9/11. Politics and Policy 38 (5): 965-990. Here
6
Week 3: January 22
War in Afghanistan
(81 pages)
Al Jazeera. 2013. Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge episode 1 (45 min) Here
Barfield, Thomas. 2011. Afghanistan’s Ethnic Puzzle. Foreign Affairs 90 (5): 54-65. Here
McInnes, Colin. 2003. A Different Kind of War? September 11 and the United States’ Afghan War.
Review of International Studies 29 (2): 165-184. Here
Jones, Seth G. 2008. The Rise of Afghanistan’s Insurgency: State Failure and Jihad. International
Security 32 (4): 7-40. Here
Saideman, Stephen M., and David P. Auerswald. 2012. Comparing Caveats: Understanding the Sources
of National Restrictions upon NATO’s Mission in Afghanistan. International Studies Quarterly
56 (1): 67-84. Here
Week 4: January 29
War in Iraq
(110 pages)
PBS Frontline. 2003 Truth, War and Consequences (90 minutes) Here
Kaufmann, Chaim. 2004. Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the
Iraq War. International Security 29 (1): 5-48. Here
Duffield, John S. 2012. Oil and the Decision to Invade Iraq. In Why Did the United States Invade Iraq?
edited by Jane. K. Cramer and Trevor Thrall. London: Routledge. pp 145-166.
Harvey, Frank P. 2012. President Al Gore and the 2003 Iraq War: A Counterfactual Test of
Conventional “W”isdom. Canadian Journal of Political Science 45 (1): 1-32. Here
Said, Edward W. 2004. “A Monument to Hypocrisy,” “Who is in Charge?” A Stupid War,” and “What
is Happening to the United States?” in From Oslo to Iraq and the Road Map. New York:
Vintage. Pp. 250-272.
Week 5: February 5
Occupation and Exit: Iraq
(90 pages)
Dodge, Toby. 2006. Iraq: The Contradictions of Exogenous State-Building in Historical Perspective.
Third World Quarterly 27 (1): 187-200. Here
Al-Ali, Nadje. 2005. Reconstructing Gender: Iraqi Women between Dictatorship, War, Sanctions and
Occupation. Third World Quarterly 26 (4/5): 739-758. Here
Dodge, Toby. 2010. The Ideological Roots of Failure: The Application of Kinetic Neo-Liberalism to
Iraq. International Affairs 86 (6): 1269-1286. Here
7
Dodge, Toby. 2013. Intervention and Dreams of Exogenous Statebuilding: The Application of Liberal
Peacebuilding in Afghanistan and Iraq. Review of International Studies 39 (5): 1189-1212. Here
Fawcett, Louise. 2013. The Iraq War Ten Years On: Assessing the Fallout. International Affairs 89 (2):
325-343. Here
Week 6: February 12
Occupation and Exit: Afghanistan
(108 pages)
Al Jazeera. 2013. Afghanistan: The Price of Revenge: episode 2 (45 min) Here
Friis, Karsten. 2012. Which Afghanistan? Military, Humanitarian, and State-Building Identities in the
Afghan Theater. Security Studies 21 (2): 266-300. Here
International Crisis Group. 2013. Women and Conflict in Afghanistan. Brussels. Asia Report no. 252
(pp. 1-38) Here
Ali, Tariq. 2008. Afghanistan: Mirage of the Good War. New Left Review 50: 5-22. Here
Biddle, Stephen. 2013. Ending the War in Afghanistan. Foreign Affairs 92 (September/October): 49-58.
Here
Afghanistan: December 2013. Atlantic Monthly. Photo Gallery 6 January 2014. Here
Reading Week: February 17-21
Week 7: February 26
No class scheduled
America, Empire and the World after 9/11
(99 pages)
Cox, Robert W. 2004. Beyond Empire and Terror: Critical Reflections on the Political Economy of
World Order. New Political Economy 9 (3): 307-323. Here
Steinmetz, George. 2005. Return to Empire: The New U.S. Imperialism in Comparative Historical
Perspective. Sociological Theory 23 (4): 339-367. Here
Krahmann, Elke. 2005. American Hegemony or Global Governance? Competing Visions of
International Security. International Studies Review 7 (4): 531-545. Here
Skidmore, David. 2005. Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in US Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy
Analysis 1 (2): 207-228. Here
Dalby, Simon. 2007. Regions, Strategies and Empire in the Global War on Terror. Geopolitics 12 (4):
586-606. Here
8
Week 8: March 5
Terrorism and Islam in a Westphalian World
(90 pages)
Amin-Khan, Tariq. 2009. The Rise of Militant Islam and the Security State in the Era of the ‘Long War’.
Third World Quarterly 30 (4): 813-828. Here
Mendelsohn, Barak. 2005. Sovereignty Under Attack: The International Society Meets the Al Qaeda
Network. Review of International Studies 31 (1): 45-68. Here
Duyvesteyn, Isabelle. 2004. How New Is the New Terrorism? Studies in Conflict & Terrorism 27 (5):
439-454. Here
Aydinli, Ersel. 2013. Assessing Violent Nonstate Actorness in Global Politics: A Framework for
Analysis. Cambridge Review of International Affairs. 1-21 onlinefirst Here
Week 9: March 12
Just War Tradition and Some Tricky Questions
(80 pages)
Bellamy, Alex J. 2005. Is the War on Terror Just? International Relations 19 (3): 275-296. Here
McKeown, Ryder. 2009. Norm Regress: US Revisionism and the Slow Death of the Torture Norm.
International Relations 23 (1): 5-25. Here
Brunstetter, Daniel, and Megan Braun. 2011. The Implications of Drones on the Just War Tradition.
Ethics and International Affairs 25 (3): 337-358. Here
Sjoberg, Laura. 2008. Why Just War Needs Feminism Now More Than Ever. International Politics 45:
1-18. Here
Week 10: March 19
Outsourcing War
(60 pages)
PBS Frontline. Gaviria, Marcela, and Martin Smith. 2005. Private Warriors. Here (60 minutes)
Avant, Deborah D., and Renee De Nevers. 2011. Military Contractors and the American Way of War.
Daedalus 140 (3): 88-99. Here
Singer, P.W. 2007. Can’t Win With ‘Em, Can’t Go to War Without ‘Em: Private Military Contractors
and Counterinsurgency. Policy Paper no. 4. Washington: Brookings Institute. 1-21 Here
Stillman, Sarah. 2011. The Invisible Army: For Foreign Workers on US Bases in Iraq and Afghanistan,
War Can Be Hell. The New Yorker, June 6. 1-12 Here
Owens, Patricia. 2008. Distinctions, Distinctions: ‘Public’ and ‘Private’ Force? International Affairs 84
(5): 977-990. Here
9
Walzer, Michael. 2008. Mercenary Impulse: Is There an Ethic that Justifies Blackwater? The New
Republic. Here
Week 11: March 26
The Post-9/11 Wars and the Broader Middle East
(93 pages)
Byman, Daniel. 2013. Explaining the Western Response to the Arab Spring. Journal of Strategic Studies
36 (2): 289-320. Here
Gerges, Fawaz A. 2013. The Obama Approach to the Middle East: The End of America’s Moment?
International Affairs 89 (2): 299-323. Here
Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. 2007. Chapter 2: “Israel: Strategic Liability or Asset?” in
The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy. Toronto: Penguin. Pp. 49-77.
Haass, Richard N. 2013. The Irony of American Strategy: Putting the Middle East in Proper Perspective.
Foreign Affairs 92 (3): 57-67. Here
Week 12: April 2
Looking Back, Looking Forward
(84 pages)
Leffler, Melvyn P. 2011. 9/11 in Retrospect. Foreign Affairs 90 (5): 33-44. Here
Brooks, Stephen G., G. John Ikenberry, and William C. Wohlforth. 2012-2013. Don’t Come Home,
America: The Case Against Retrenchment. International Security 37 (3): 7-51. Here
Layne, Christopher. 2011. The Unipolar Exit: Beyond the Pax Americana. Cambridge Review of
International Affairs 24 (2): 149-164. Here
Debray, Regis. 2013. Decline of the West? New Left Review 80 (March/April): 29-44. Here
10