Announcements

1.  Just a reminder that the papers are due in class on Thursday.

2.  Please fill out your on-line course evaluations.  You should have received an email with instructions on how to do this.  It is a easy, quick process and I value your input.

3.  We have our room assignment for the final exam:  Education 147, 7:25-9:25 p.m. on Friday, Dec 21.  I will provide details on the format of the exam next week.

In the news

lFact and fiction on the campaign trail.

lContempt of Congress: Joshua Bolten and Harriet Miers on their way to the slammer?

l Huckabee and Obama surge to the lead in Iowa.

lKarl Rove memo to Obama.

Foreign Policy Making

Context – brief history of American foreign policy.

-- Long standing tension between unilateralism and isolationism. In 1793, Washington issued a proclamation proclaiming that the U.S. would be neutral in the war between France and Britain, and that the U.S. would not come to the aid of any citizen who got involved. This was controversial -- if the president cannot “declare war,” can he declare the absence of war?

-- Monroe Doctrine: inward-looking foreign policy. Mexican American War.

-- Started to change with WWI, but then return to isolationist policy, rejection of League of Nations, punitive treaty that contributed to WWII.

History of foreign policy, cont.

-- WWII, clearly put the U.S. in the position of a world power. Other world powers were nearly destroyed by the war.

-- Cold War, 1947-1989. Containment-Korea and Vietnam. Détente, opening with China negotiations with USSR.

-- Post-Cold War, 1989-current. Economic issues and war on terror take center stage. U.S. as a declining power? Paul Kennedy – great powers decline when they overextend. Economic pressures – external debt and the collapsing dollar.

WWII deaths

Total Pop. Deaths % Pop.

United States 131,028,000 418,500 0.32%

UK 47,760,000 450,400 0.94%

Italy 44,394,000 459,500 1.04%

France 41,700,000 562,000 1.35%

Japan 71,380,000 2,680,000 3.75%

China 517,568,000 20,000,000 3.86%

Indo- China 24,600,000 1,000,000 4.07%

Romania 19,934,000 833,000 4.22%

Greece 7,222,000 311,300 4.31%

Indonesia 69,435,000 4,000,000 5.76%

Hungary 9,129,000 580,000 6.35%

Yugoslavia 15,400,000 1,027,000 6.67%

Germany 69,623,000 7,503,000 10.77%

Latvia 1,995,000 227,000 11.38%

Soviet Union 175,500,000 23,600,000 13.44%

Lithuania 2,575,000 353,000 13.71%

Poland 27,007,000 5,000,000 18.51%

Constitution and War Powers

Constitution gives Congress the power to

ldeclare war

lraise and support armies and navies

lto “define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the law of nations.”

lTo make rules concerning capture on land and water.

lTo make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

lTo provide for calling for the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.

lTo provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia.

President is commander in chief.

War powers, cont.

lIntent of Framers is very clear

–giving power to declare war to Congress designed to take the power away from any individual

–original language said “make war,” but changed to “declare” because Congress wasn’t as able to oversee the day-to-day conduct of the war. Also recognized that the president needed the power to repel sudden attacks.

–Rejection of royal prerogative of war making – quotes from the Constitutional convention.

lPresidents have initiated military action hundreds of times over history.

Presidential uses of force

lOnly five congressionally authorized “wars”: War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Persian Gulf War

lCases of “unauthorized” use of force

–Korea

–Vietnam (sort of)

–Grenada (1983)

–Panama (1989)

–Persian Gulf (1993, 1998, 1999)

–Iraq (sort of, current)

–list goes on

Congressional response

lCongressional reaction to Vietnam, Nixon’s “imperial presidency,” and erosion of congressional war power

–Nixon expanded U.S. attacks into Cambodia in 1970, despite congressional restriction that specified that the U.S. was not committed to its defense

–1971: appropriations language stating that the U.S. should end military operations “at the earliest practicable date”

lCongress passed the War Powers Act in 1973: requires president to consult “in every possible instance” before sending troops into combat

limits use of troops to 60 days (with a 30 day extension), unless Congress approves the deployment.

War Powers Act, cont.

l“In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which U.S. armed forces are introduced. . . The President shall submit within 48 hours a report” detailing the circumstances, authority, and scope of deployment.

lConsensus that the law is probably unconstitutional, although it has never been tested in court. Presidents go along with the reporting requirements.

lNo court likely to intervene in this dispute – political question.

lConclusive evidence that it has had no effect on presidential commitments.

lCurrent deadlock between Congress and Bush on Iraq funding.

Court cases

lFlying fish case (Little v. Barreme, 1804).

lLincoln and the Civil war, Prize Cases (1862). Upheld Lincoln’s blockade of southern ports.

lU.S. v. Curtiss Wright (1936)

–President, acting pursuant to legislative authority, imposed an embargo on arms shipments to Paraguay and Uruguay during the Chaco War. Did Congress overstep its constitutional powers by granting legislative powers to the president?

–President has powers in foreign affairs, and certain “extra constitutional” powers, that would not be recognized in domestic politics. “The President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation.”

–criticized as historically inaccurate and poorly reasoned, but often cited as support for presidential initiative.

Court cases, cont.

Korematsu v. U.S. (1944) –

Internment of 110,000 Japanese Americans (mostly citizens) upheld as valid exercise of military discretion (by an Executive Order and authorized by Congress). Dissent held that it was an obvious violation of the 5th and 14th amendments, since the exclusion was based on group membership, not any specific investigations. Paid reparations totaling $1.2 billion dollars, as well as an additional $400 million in benefits in 1992.

Court cases, cont.

lYoungstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer (1952). Truman overstepped his bounds in ordering Secretary of Commerce to take control of steel mills. Claimed inherent, emergency powers, Court rejected this saying that he President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

lHamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) the Court held that military commissions set up by the Bush administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay lack "the power to proceed because its structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949.” Current appeal of this case and Congress’s response: The Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and Military Commissions Act of 2006 (latter also covered pending cases). Removed federal court jurisdiction over these cases.

The Two Presidencies

Influence of the president over foreign policy

Aaron Wildavsky – President has many advantages in foreign policy that he does not have in Domestic policy. Institutional power is greater, opponents are weaker, context of FP is different (stakes are higher), public trusts the president more in foreign policy.

How to measure? Success rate of getting president’s agenda through Congress.

The Two Presidencies, cont.

Critiques and extensions of the two presidencies idea.

Peppers – “Intermestic” issues: combination of domestic and foreign policy.

Shull and LeLoup – finer distinctions: different areas of domestic policy and high diplomacy, crisis decision making, and defense policy for foreign policy.

Segilman – major and minor issues

The Two Presidencies – Process. Not just Congress.

The public – is it trust, or lack of interest?

The bureaucracy – does it behave differently in foreign policy making?

Foreign Policy Making, cont.

Pathologies of foreign policy decision making

Policy advice

Information flow – related to the type of advising process

Groupthink – loss of mental efficiency, sense of reality, and moral judgment. Comes from too much cohesiveness, isolation of the decision makers, and failure to consider alternative points of view. The “paradox of cohesiveness” – need some, but not too much.

Implementation: things can go wrong at this stage as well.

Alternative decision making models

Rational actor – familiar from our earlier discussion of the rational approach.

Organizational process: factored problems, SOPs, sequential search (satisficing), organizational goals.

Bureaucratic politics: decision making as an exercise in bargaining. Choices made not because they are the best, but because they can be agreed upon.

Applying the framework

Cuban Missile Crisis

Iraq

Evaluating decisions: good process can lead to bad outcomes.