Exam 2
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Purdue University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
231
Subject
Political Science
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
4
Uploaded by JudgeChinchillaPerson916
1.
The Cuban Missile Crisis drew the U.S. close to nuclear war. Explain the crisis.
Who was involved? How was it resolved? What lessons can be drawn for today?
The Cuban missile crisis was a crisis during the cold war and John F Kennedy's
presidency. The Soviets and Cuba decided to work out a deal for Cuba to
secretly inherit nuclear weapons from the soviets. Fidel Castro was afraid of the
US possibly trying to overthrow him after the bay of pigs and thought that he
could use the weapons as a deterrent, as well as strengthen the alliance
between Cuba and the Soviets. The Soviets and Khrushchev wanted the upper
hand on the US during the cold war, and could do this by placing weapons in an
allied country near the US mainland. It was eventually resolved as Kennedy and
Khrushchev decided that both the US and the Soviets would remove the Nuclear
power from both Cuba and Turkey. We can learn that mutually assured
destruction is a powerful foreign policy tool, and that doing threatening actions
can be detrimental in the possibility of a conflict, especially if those actions are
secretive.
2.
What changes to U.S. foreign policy occurred due to the Vietnam War? Please
explain these changes.
During the VIetnam war congress gave President Johnson a “blank check” to use
military force to promote democracy in Asia. This was a result of the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution. From that point the executive branch had almost sole power as
to what the US does abroad. Because of the Gulf of Tonkin congress had very
little power as to what the president does with the military, and if war was even
needed to be specified for the president to use the military in action.
3.
What are the legal justifications for going to war according to the U.N.? Was the
Gulf War legal? Why or why not?
Going to war is legal if it is in response to an attack and self defense. It is also
legal if the Security Council votes to approve the military action. The gulf war was
legal because the US was stopping the Iraqi force from illegally occupying and
launching an assault on Kuwait, and it was also voted on by the UN that
declaration of war was warranted. Sadam Hussain launched an attack on a
peaceful country therefore the war was a proper response.
4.
What events led to the U.S. not intervening in the 1994 Rwandan genocide? How
did these events impact U.S. decision making in the Rwandan case? Are you
willing to risk the lives of U.S. soldiers to prevent this in the future? Why or why
not?
Before the Rwandan genocide, the US intervended in Somalia, and it was a
disaster. Clinton was acting on Bush's decision to send troops before his
presidency was over. Clinton was facing pressure from congress and people in
the US because lives were lost and it was a failure. The Somolian events
de-incentivized Clinton from intervening abroad and he turned a blind eye to the
Rwandan events. I am willing to risk US soldiers to prevent a genocide because
of the stance of “never again” as well as how many lives that could have possibly
been saved if a force would have stopped the slaughter.
5.
How do the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the 2001 Authorization for Use of
Military Force (AUMF) against terrorism relate? Please describe both and the
theme linking them together.
The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was a blank check for military use in Asia that the
congress authorized. It was congress that gave the power to the executive
branch. The 2001 AUMF authorized the president to send in the military after the
attacks of 9/11. Both of these were authorizations to use the military, despite their
differences. However, the 2001 AUMF was an authorization by congress, and
congress had the power. The president can use the AUMF as a confirmation to
use the military. Both the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the 2001 AUMF are both
about authorization to use the military and the parameters on when and where it
can be used.
6.
What are the main tenets of the Bush Doctrine? How did this doctrine differ from
U.S. foreign policy since WWII? How did the George W. Bush administration use
the Bush Doctrine to argue for war in Iraq?
The main idea of the Bush doctrine is to act in self defense through preemptive
strikes. This differed from the us policies from WW11 because during that time
policy was focused on the fight against communism and the Soviet empire. Now
the focus is on the fight against terror abroad. The Bush administration used the
doctrine to argue that Iraq might support terrorism and if terror groups could
possibly get hands on weapons of mass destruction that could be catastrophic.
They also argued for regional stability, and that would help with oil trade and
natural resources.
7.
How do instrumental soft power, soft power through attraction, and hard power
differ? Describe each type of power while highlighting their differences.
Hard power is in three forms, military tools, covert action, and economic sanctions. We
can look at hard power as coercion, and payment (sticks and carrots) meaning that the
US can poke and prod the other State to get what they want out of them. It differs from
soft power because people at home can feel the effects from hard power immediately.
Soft power is more based on relationships and how the other country views the US.
Some types of soft power are alliances, diplomacy and foreign aid. Soft power is slower
but usually uses less resources than hard power.
8.
What are the components of a threat according to Dr. Shimko and which is easier
to observe? How have your views of threats changed since the beginning of the
semester? Please be specific.
The components of a threat from the eyes of Shimko are capability and intention.
Capability is much easier to observe and understand because of data and
intelligence that tell you exactly how powerful a country is, or how well that
country is doing economically or militarily, or whatever it may be. Intention is
harder to understand because that involves leaders' choices and meaning behind
the actions they are showing to the world. My views have changed some from
the beginning of the semester, at the beginning of the semester I was worried
about Russia and China becoming more of a world superpower, but now I am
more worried about the polarization of political parties, and how people can
become radical when certain conflicts are popular. I am still worried about China,
but I think that changing opinions is not a bad thing either.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
9.
We have many foreign policy tools in the metaphorical toolbag. Please explain
how diplomacy can be used, with pros and cons. Which tool do you think is most
effective? Why?
Diplomacy can be used in a multitude of ways to try to create a better
relationship with another state. Diplomacy is a safer less expensive process to try
to alleviate threats, and can create opportunities for economic security as well as
military security. The problem with diplomacy is that outcomes are less clear, and
success is measured way slower than with hard power. It may take years to see
the effects of diplomatic measures. I think that alliances are the most effective
diplomatic tool because they help with relationship building, and when they form,
they can almost act as a hard power tool.
10.Explain the debate between the “all or nothing” and “limited war” camps
regarding the use of military as a foreign policy tool. Compare and contrast the
two sides by describing the strengths and weaknesses of each. Then, explain
which camp you align with more and why.
“All of nothing” camp is the idea that if the military would be used, it would be
used to the full power to ensure victory. All or Nothing would have the full power
of the military be used right away to try and fastly end the conflict and win easily.
All or nothing’s strengths are the fact that it can swiftly end a conflict and not
have the need for a long drawn out conflict, however, the weakness of this
strategy is there is no going back or reversing the actions if it is not going well in
conflict. “Limited war” is the strategy of using less resources in