Chris Dolan

How have the September 11th terrorist attacks and the subsequent U.S. led war on terrorism impacted American foreign policy at home and abroad? The consistent theme throughout this collection of essays is that September 11th was a watershed event, which sparked a redefinition and reassessment of U.S. foreign policy, governmental institutions, and the public's sense of internal and external security. The Bush Administration's endeavor to remake American foreign policy with an emphasis on a preemptive, first strike doctrine and its attempt to build an internal security apparatus are not only consequential in the war on terrorism, such efforts are challenging the very fundamentals of American political life and its perception throughout the world.

The consistent theme througout this book is that significant ethical issues and moral dilemmas have been raised as they pertain to the forceful expression of American power via the Bush Doctrine's assertion of the right to engage in first strikes against states and non-states in the wake of 11/09/2001 terrorist attacks.

The U.S. role in the global economy, and the ability of the president to influence overall economic performance, a topic of discussion among undergraduate students. While the study of the economy may be a primary concern for scholars, most people care more about how economic performance and presidential economic policymaking impacts their daily lives. Therefore, the purpose of this book is to provide undergraduates and laypersons with a blueprint of the performance of the economy and the ability of the president to manage economic policy. The goal of this updated and streamlined text is to provide students with an examination of the historical and substantive policy issues that shape the relationship between the American presidency and the economy.

This essay uses a case study approach in detailing programmatic changes recently made to the Lebanon Valley College (LVC) International Studies program. We believe our newly revised program (renamed Global Studies) is innovative given its integration with efforts to internationalize the campus and focus on high impact learning experiences, namely study abroad, collaborative undergraduate research, internship opportunities, community-engaged learning, and a global independent research experience. The program might serve as a model for other colleges and universities that value graduating world-ready students and internationalizing their campuses. The overall goal of this study is to highlight the inclusion of deeper learning experiences and stronger alignment with college-wide international goals.

Foreign policy under President Barrack Obama and America’s evolving role in the world were on prominent display during the heated 2012 presidential election against with Republican Governor Mitt Romney. While it could be argued that purely domestic issues, such as health care reform, economic stimulus, and unemployment were the most important issues on the minds of voters, the Obama Administration’s global approach weighed heavily in news coverage. In the last of the three presidential debates in October 2012, which focused exclusively on foreign policy, Obama claimed that after over a decade of war he was placing the U.S. a more stable global path while fending off attacks from Romney that he was too apologetic and leading from behind. Throughout the course of the 2012 election, critical events not only shaped the campaigns, they were challenging the conventional power formula as the global system itself was experiencing considerable change.

Research has demonstrated considerable diversity in the evolution of foreign policy beliefs of elite opinion leaders. Holsti and Rosenau’s three-headed eagle, Wittkopf’s four-headed eagle, and Rosati and Creed’s six-headed eagle produced a number of categories that help to explain the significance of this diversity since the collapse of the Cold War consensus. This article expands upon this research by observing even greater complexity and diversity in the shape of foreign policy beliefs of elite opinion leaders since the end of the Cold War. Using a content analysis of national opinion and foreign policy journals between 1992 and 2004, it identifies and details nine foreign policy orientations (missionaries, hegemonists, globalizers, global capitalists, narrow realists, progressive internationalists, anti-imperialists, neighbors, and disengagers) held by elite opinion leaders. It also suggests that elites are altering their foreign policy orientations by absorbing profound global changes into their belief systems.

Given that we are only at the midpoint of the first term, there has been a paucity of research and theory regarding the Obama Administration's foreign policy approach to Cuba.  On the whole, the prevailing literature appears to focus mainly on the extent to which US foreign policy toward Cuba has changed and evolved under Obama, especially in comparison to the GW Bush Administration. We argue in this article that the Obama Administration recognized that America's Cold War era Cuba policy had to be revisited

The purpose of this article is to examine the extent to which the management system and foreign policy advisory structures of the George W. Bush Administration led the president to launch the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. We contend that the decision to attack Iraq was an outgrowth of the conflict that began when the administration’s national security team was assembled after Bush’s electoral victory and was a by- product of the president’s management style. We devote significant attention to the internal battles surrounding the decision for war between those who believe in a traditional multilateral approach (realists) to world politics and those who believe in a Pax Americana built on unilateralism (neocons). The article concludes that in addition to the way President Bush organized the decision-making process, his propensity for delegating responsibility to others combined with policy making structures built largely on consensus and personality factors, as opposed to procedures and processes, ultimately drove the White House toward the use of military force in Iraq.

While the Bush Doctrine has claimed that the U.S. has a right to exert an unprecedented level of military and economic power, the doctrine itself is relatively unsustainable.   
The Obama Administration confronts the very difficult task of promoting cooperation and moving U.S. foreign policy beyond the Bush Doctrine, which weakened alliances and international institutions and contributed to global anti-Americanism.  While global issues and events have certainly presented President Obama with tremendous political opportunities for foreign policy change, the desire to exert strong U.S. global leadership may actually constrain the ability of the new American president to set a very different course in U.S. foreign policy.  The most important question for international relations scholars is: to what extent will American foreign policy change under President Obama?

This chapter applies jus ad bellum principles in the just war tradition to the Bush administration’s case for war against Iraq.  Just war is grounded on the conception that war must be restrained and directed toward establishing a lasting peace.  The dilemma is ‘simultaneous ostensible justice’ or the idea that war could appear just to all sides parties.

This article advances a blueprint for small colleges interested in imple- menting new international studies programs. In response to a call from its strategic plan, the faculty at Lebanon Valley College (LVC) recently approved an IS program with two concentrations (international affairs and comparative culture) emphasizing core and advanced elective courses, foreign language, study abroad, as well as undergraduate research, and internship experiences. This article frames the under- graduate international studies program within the broader context of the prevailing literature and identifies the potential advantages and drawbacks of initiating and directing the major and minor. It then pro- vides a brief discussion of the ways in which the program can be assessed and a general overview of the career opportunities available to majors. The article concludes by recommending that small colleges like LVC have the potential to prepare students for the responsibilities of global citizenship when international studies programs are designed to incorporate and maximize college-wide strengths.

Research demonstrates that the National Economic Council (NEC) and the decision-making process through which economic issues must pass are essential components in the evolution of American foreign economic policy. This article will examine the functions and responsibilities of the NEC in the making of U.S. foreign economic policy under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. It selects key policies, namely inter- national monetary policy, fiscal policy, and trade liberalization, and ex- amines key issues within each in order to provide tentative answers to questions regarding foreign economic policy and the emergence and development of the NEC. Also, this article supplies an overview of the large body of research on international economics and foreign economic policy. Furthermore, it identifies key U.S. foreign economic policy issues developed and coordinated by the NEC. The article concludes with a discussion of to what extent the NEC is a significant development in U.S. foreign economic policy and in the making of foreign policy.

America’s current war on terrorism has led presidency scholars to revisit past U.S. anti-terrorism measures. This study employs a case study approach to examine President Ronald Reagan’s decision to attack Libya in April 1986 as a national security response to terrorism. More specifically, it assesses the opportunities and constraints on presidential power with respect to terrorism, and stresses how political advisory group dynamics influence decision-making. It then analyzes several political dimensions that contributed to the eventual use of force, namely rising military tensions between the United States and Libya, as well as Libyan sponsorship of terrorist attacks. It also highlights the importance of key political factors within Reagan’s foreign policymaking process that shaped several options for the president including economic sanctions, non-lethal military pressure, and Operation El Dorado Canyon. The bombing of Libya also had far-reaching goals that went beyond responding to terrorism as Reagan also sought to influence the U.S.-USSR balance of power, and deter Iran and Syria from sponsoring future terrorist attacks. However, Reagan’s use of force should be interpreted as a limited military response since it did not halt Libyan terrorist attacks against the United States, and came at the same time as the Iran-Contra scandal, which greatly constrained, for the time being, executive power over American foreign policy.

This article advances a theoretical model of the National Economic Council (NEC) based on a policy network approach and group decision-making theory to explain why the U.S. president’s NEC represents a significant development in the rise of the intermestic policy- making and decision-making processes. It develops theoretical conceptions of interests and manipulation based on a Policy Network Approach and the Advocacy Coalition Frame- work in policy studies research to illustrate the complexity of NEC group dynamics. Hope- fully, such a contribution can further existing theoretical frameworks in the field of policy studies and analysis and can add to assessments of the NEC in policymaking and deci- sion-making. Unlike much of the prevailing research, this article perceives the NEC as a political instrument used by policymakers and decision makers to protect their policy inter- ests and engage in forms of political manipulation to increase their power over economic policy.

The goal of this study is twofold. First, it seeks to move beyond the exploration of motivations for understanding why the United States launches some humanitarian interventions and avoids others. Second, it initiates a theory building process to map the complex international and domestic environment that frames American humanitarianism. To explain the selectivity of U.S. engagement, the article establishes a typology of actors, restraints, and concerns involved in the humanitarian policy-making process. It then presents a theory of coevolution that serves as a framework for understanding the interactive and diffusive dynamics between policy makers and their broader operating environment. With illustrative case studies on Operation Provide Comfort in Iraq (1991), Operation Allied Force in Kosovo (1999), and Operation Unified Assistance in response to the Asian Tsunami (2004), this study suggests that U.S.-led humanitarian interventions are part of larger episodes of engagement that hold consequences for subsequent involvements. It finds that altruistic interventions are often blurred with self-interested power pursuits, as American humanitarianism is the product of a confluence of domestic political factors, historical milieu, and international normative advancement.

In recent years, terrorist organizations have become increasingly dependent on drug trafficking as one of several primary sources of revenue to fund terrorist activities. In response, the United States’ security and intelligence efforts against narco-terrorism have increasingly merged into one unified policy approach. Moreover, the convergence of United States policy wars against terrorism and illicit drugs have produced complex and dynamic contingency factors. As a result, a relatively coherent nexus now exists between the United States’ antinarcotics and antiterrorist policies. The objective of this article is to explain and assess the contingency factors and implications resulting from this convergence and to provide policy scholars with an analytical perspective into the implications of the United States’ narco-terrorism policy. It is believed that this article is significant to both policy practitioners and policy scholars concerned with the domestic impact of the United States’ narco-terrorism policy.

The interest group and social movement mobilizations to remove the Confederate flag, which had been flying since 1962, from atop the South Carolina State Capitol dome provides an instance where large, issue-specific coalitions successfully expanded the scope of a conflict and framed an issue in a universalistic discourse of inclusive citizenship. The groups and movements seeking to keep the flag on the dome of the capitol experienced cascading defections in part based on a narrow vision of history, the political context, and goals for the future. Based on seventeen in-depth interviews with interest group activists; key members of the South Carolina legislature: and educational, religious, and business leaders active in the issue along with observations at five pro and anti-flag demonstrations and rallies, this study seeks to explain how the effort to remove the Confederate flag was partially successful. The analysis includes media attention from 1962 to 2000 in South Carolina regarding the Confederate flag and public opinion on the flag over time. Prior interest group work helped prepare the terrain for the mobilizing effects of several galvanizing events—the NAACP tourism boycott and national media attention during the highly contested 2000 Republican primary in the state, which in turn pressured institutions—parties, the legislature, and the governor—to respond. The struggle was an instance of applied philosophy.

At the outset of his presidency, Barrack Obama sought to chart a very different foreign policy toward the Middle East than his predecessor, George W. Bush, by shifting American foreign policy away from a preponderance model of hegemony toward offshore balancing. The Bush Administration’s attempt at regional transformation with the invasion and occupation of Iraq directly contributed to the destabilization of the region and its goal of spreading democracy throughout to Syria, Iran, and beyond backfired.  Moreover, regime change and de-Baathification empowered Iran in the region, facilitated the rise of Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State, depleted its resources, displaced millions, and killed thousands. The U.S. became even more vulnerable to geopolitical backlash against its foreign policy of regime change from Russia and China, watched its global image rapidly erode, witnessed the rise of the Islamic State, led Iran and North Korea to accelerate their nuclear programs, produced domestic ideological conflict, divided U.S. public opinion, and drove a wedge between itself and Europe.

Institutions of higher education have long been instruments of power in international relations and foreign policy analysis. However, much of the established literature defines higher education in terms of soft power too and downplays hard power realities and economic strength. While soft power is an important conceptual lens through which to understand the attractiveness and allure of colleges and universities in the international system, it provides only part of the explanation regarding competition among nation-states in global education. This study asserts that economic resources and wealth largely determine the extent to which nation-states exercise influence with their higher educational institutions. The goal of this study is to provide international relations scholars with a more comprehensive explanation of the role of colleges and universities in international relations. It begins with a review and assessment of the scholarly literature on higher education and international relations. It then analyzes summary descriptive data collected and reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, International Monetary Fund, Institute for Government-Moncole Soft Power Index, Times Higher Education World Rankings, Cross-Border Education Research Team, Institute of International Education, and the U.S. Department of State. It concludes that the ability of nation-states to exercise influence in international higher education is dependent on the broader socioeconomic environment as well as the higher education inputs and outputs within each nation-state, making international higher education a competitive arena that should not fall within the exclusive domain of soft power.

The international relations literature concerned with humanitarian missions and operations has tended to focus almost exclusively on intervention by states to bring conflicts to an end. This paper brings forth an understanding of the broad human security perspective and applies it to the Iraq War and its consequences. Broad human security notions allow us to identify the most critical threats and insecurities to vulnerable populations and connections to the larger context, assess local capacities and resources of impacted people and communities to reduce human insecurities, address weaknesses in critical infrastructure, and determine the roles and activities of the most significant global, regional, and local actors. We assert that human security is a condition in which people should function and exist peacefully and securely with dignity. In other words, human security imparts protection from sudden and hurtful disruptions.

This study argues that the United States wages significant soft power throughout the world, in part, because of its highly influential and reputable colleges and universities, international branch campuses, ability to attract international studies to its institutions, and send students to study abroad. In doing so, the U.S. a considerable amount of economic benefits as a result of investing significant resources in encouraging international students to study and learn in U.S. institutions of higher education. This examination explores the importance of U.S. higher education institutions in terms of soft power persuasion in U.S. foreign policy by discussing empirical data reported by leading and established organizations. It concludes by suggesting that the considerable soft power persuasion of U.S. colleges and universities is represents a form of public diplomacy that serve the national and global interests of the U.S. in shaping international relations.

We propose to assess the U.S. response to the devastating Typhoon Yolanda (Yolanda (Haiyan), which tore through six Philippine islands in November 2013. U.S. participation in the global response to the typhoon was compelled by both humanitarian concerns and geostrategic interests and balance of power considerations. The humanitarian action should be understood as a product of domestic and global discourse, historical milieu, and logistical determinants illustrating the strategic importance of Asia and the Pacific in U.S. foreign policy. The examination will begin with an evaluation of the empirical research and theory on humanitarian interventions. Our study seeks to expand the literature by building domestic and global normative aspects into the decision leading to the U.S. intervention in the Philippines in the wake of Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan). It considers the extent to which social norms shaped the U.S. response to the human suffering in the Philippines given that this case is influenced by previous humanitarian actions, namely in response to the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster in Fukushima Japan. America’s decision to participate in the humanitarian intervention in the Philippines is part of cognitive structures, shifting strategic concerns in Asia and the Pacific, sociopolitical influences and practical considerations. The conceptual framework of co-evolution holds that humanitarian interventions are elements within broader episodes, changing norms, and historical milieu. We conclude that the prevailing literature should focus more on comprehensive understanding of interactive factors and broader dynamics that include actors, norms, domestic determinants, global factors, and historical milieu.

U.S. policy makers have long promoted U.S.-hosted educational exchange programs in supporting the development of liberal values and norms throughout the world. This study argues that student exchange programs can be seen as expressions of American soft power and global integration. It reviews the global studies literature regarding students who study in the U.S. and American students who study abroad as well the research on international connectivity and global cultural influence through student exchange. The examination then constructs a theoretical framework using a human-centric approach to argue that student exchange programs have long-term consequences for peace building and cooperation, as well as for mutual learning, conflict resolution, development, and the enhancement of human security. It relies on empirical data generated from the Open Doors 2012 Report on International Educational Exchange and reports from the U.S. State Department’s 100,000 Strong initiative to assess the extent of “internationalization” or the number of inbound students and outgoing students studying abroad. The study concludes that exchange students who are well educated typically have high exposure and connectivity to the global community, which enhances the extent of American soft power and global influence.

Over the course of his presidency, Barrack Obama has maintained that US. foreign policy interests were better served by accommodating and adapting to the return of global multi-polarity. Initially, his administration sought to increase America’s commitments in Asia and the Pacific while moving it offshore and away from the Middle East. For Obama, America’s military foray into Iraq destabilized the region, resulting in terrorism, insurgencies, and state failure. However, the Arab Spring, Syrian Civil War, chaos in Libya, and sectarian conflicts in Iraq and Yemen forced Obama to embrace of many of the same interventionist practices as his predecessor. Obama has deployed Special Operations Forces in Iraq, Syria, and beyond, expanded armed drone strikes against suspected militants in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, participated in the NATO-led mission to topple Muammar Kaddafi in Libya, and launched airstrikes against the Islamic State (IS). These practices are inconsistent with Obama’s own goals of scaling back from the Middle East and hampered and frustrated the much-needed rebalance to Asia and the Pacific.

In Europe, the Obama administration has pursued economic interdependence with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, attempted to share more of the burden and responsibility for balancing against Russia by maintaining a united multilateral front against its actions in Crimea and in eastern Ukraine with sanctions, and has sought to encourage its NATO allies to provide more financial support and leadership in the collective security arrangement. Pooling resources and seeking a united front against Russia in Europe is rational and levelheaded. Europe still depends on Russia for supplying much of its energy and the U.S. must continue to cooperate with Russian leaders against the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. Russian military intervention in Syria means that the U.S. and its European allies need it to help bring the devastating Syrian civil war to a close and stem the tide of refugees flooding into Europe. The P5+1 nuclear agreement with Iran was brokered because of Russian influence, demonstrating that the West relies to a great extent on Russia on areas where American diplomatic influence is limited. The U.S. and E.U. have cooperated against the Islamic State, engaging in efforts to prevent and track the number of Europeans and Americans traveling to Iraq and Syria to join with the terror group. While transatlantic relations during the Obama presidency have been generally positive and cooperative based on shared and overlapping interests, some issues have clouded the alliance.  U.S. national security surveillance programs against European allies have contributed to a climate of mistrust and impeded some intelligence and information gathering efforts. Moreover, the Obama Administration’s “pivot to Asia” may signal to some within NATO or the E.U. that the U.S. is looking away from Europe or that the transatlantic alliance has deteriorated in the face of a rising China. This is unlikely given the very close economic relationship on both sides of the Atlantic as well as the sheer number of international issues that bind the U.S. with Europe.

Institutions of higher education have been identified and examined as instruments of power in international relations and foreign policy analysis. However, much of the established literature defines higher education in terms of soft power too and downplays hard power realities and economic strength. While soft power is an important conceptual lens through which to understand the attractiveness and allure of colleges and universities in the international system, it provides only part of the explanation regarding competition among nation-states in global education. This study asserts that economic resources and wealth largely determine the extent to which nation-states exercise influence with their higher educational institutions. The goal of this study is to provide international relations scholars with a more comprehensive explanation of the role of colleges and universities in international relations. It begins with a review and assessment of the scholarly literature on higher education and international relations. It then analyzes summary descriptive data collected and reported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, International Monetary Fund, Institute for Government-Moncole Soft Power Index, Times Higher Education World Rankings, Cross-Border Education Research Team, Institute of International Education, and the U.S. Department of State.

This essay uses a case study approach in detailing programmatic changes recently made to the Lebanon Valley College International Studies program. We believe our newly revised program (renamed Global Studies) is innovative given its focus on high impact learning experiences and integration with efforts to internationalize the campus. Even more, the streamlined interdisciplinary program combines classroom-based courses with study abroad, collaborative undergraduate research, internship opportunities, community-engaged learning, and global independent study. The program might serve as a model for other colleges and universities that value graduating world-ready students and internationalizing their campuses. The overall goal of this study is to highlight the inclusion of deeper learning experiences and stronger alignment with college-wide international goals.

U.S. participation in the global response to Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) was compelled by both humanitarian concerns and strategic interests. The humanitarian action should be understood as a product of domestic and global discourse, historical milieu, and logistical determinants illustrating the strategic importance of Asia and the Pacific in U.S. foreign policy. The examination begins with an evaluation of the empirical research and theory on humanitarian interventions. Our study then seeks to expand the literature by building domestic and global normative aspects and foreign policy interests into the decision making calculus. It also considers the extent to which historical milieu shaped the U.S. response given that this case is influenced by previous humanitarian actions, namely the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the 2011 tsunami and nuclear disaster in Fukushima Japan. The conceptual framework of co-evolution holds that humanitarian interventions are shaped by broader episodes, changing norms, and historical milieu. More specifically, the U.S. decision to participate in the intervention in the Philippines is part of cognitive structures, shifting strategic concerns in Asia and the Pacific, sociopolitical influences and practical considerations. We conclude that the prevailing literature should focus more on developing a comprehensive understanding of interactive factors and broader dynamics that include actors, norms, domestic determinants, global factors, and historical milieu.

The momentum regarding humanitarian intervention (HI) is changing.  Yet, for many the involvement in Libya in March of 2011 was surprising as some predicted the “sunset” of humanitarian intervention.  The Libyan case presents a puzzle of selectivity as there are significant inconsistencies in U.S. efforts to address mass atrocities.  There was no intervention in Sudan and the current interventions into Syria were not triggered by humanitarianism.  Why Libya and not Syria? This study explores what moves the U.S. to engage in humanitarian interventions.  It presents a model to explore interests shaped by history, domestic politics, and previous experiences.  The study is supported by interviews, elite statements, and public opinion data.  Through a case study on Libya (2011) the paper examines the selectivity of intervention through the lens of a co-evolution model.  The paper concludes that American engagements are the product of internal and international discourse, historical milieu, and logistics.

The international relations literature concerned with humanitarian missions and operations tends to focus almost exclusively on intervention by states to bring conflicts to an end and coordinate efforts to deliver and coordinate relief assistance to the suffering. Research should also focus on post-conflict and post-disaster phases of complex emergencies when the most significant efforts must be made to address conditions that perpetuate human suffering and secure the vulnerable through measures designed to protect and empower people and communities as well as strengthen institutions.

... Saif Abdullah, the Dean of Kuwait University's Faculty of Commerce, Economics and Political Science, kindly arranged my first research trip to Kuwait in September 1994. In addition, I also found the discussion sessions I had with both Professors Abdul-Reda Assiri and Shamlan ...