Search

The major U.S. allies seem to be content to let the United States shoulder the burden associated with assuring the security of the West and promoting freedom and democracy around the world, passively free-riding on the security provided by the U.S. taxpayer. A different explanation is available, if rarely discussed: Perhaps the Europeans and Japanese are not merely passive consumers of free US security guarantees; perhaps instead the decisions they have made with regard to their own defense are instead part of active, coherent, logical, rational grand strategies. Perhaps the choice to pursue strategic restraint on part of Europe and Japan is not merely due to the stability provided by U.S. hegemony - which is largely illusory - but also a conscious response to declining threat. This paper seeks to explain the grand strategies of most of the great and potentially great powers of the post-Cold War world. Far from being irresponsible international actors, our allies are acting quite rationally in a world virtually absent of serious threat. Most of the rest of the world is following a clearly recognizable path of restraint. We dismiss their strategic perspective at our peril. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Throughout most of human history, the desire - or obsession - to be �number one,� the need to improve one's status and prestige, has been ubiquitous. Though the pursuit of glory is one of the classic motivations for state behavior, it is not a major independent variable in modern models of international relations. It is not only unmeasurable and subjective but archaic and anachronistic, seemingly more appropriate to ancient Greece than the twenty-first century United States. Still, glory lingers; direct reference might today be confined to dictatorial strongmen on the fringes of the international order, but its impulses are present in every country, and especially the United States. This paper explores the continuing importance of the competition for glory in modern U.S. foreign policy. Irrespective of one's view of the value of competitiveness in other aspects of life, in matters of foreign policy it is often a selfdestructive impulse. The belief that it is important to be �the best,� the number one state in the international hierarchy in whatever category is being discussed, often leads to counterproductive policies that waste assets in pursuit of irrational goals. It is, therefore, deeply pathological. In an era when the United States may soon face challengers to its status that put its prestige in peril, it is a particularly important pathology to understand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though the United States is not the first state to have suffered from the effects of hubris, it suffers the most. No other country believes that it is the "indispensible nation," established by God to bring freedom, democracy and open trading systems to the rest of the world. The rhetoric of the exceptionalism narrative sells with the public, and is a sine qua non for high leadership posts. If hubris only led to an inflated sense of self-worth, it would not be pathological; unfortunately, it has more pernicious effects. Leaders under its spell tend to overestimate their capabilities, and those of their country. They engage in counterproductive interventions as well as quixotic adventures in nationbuilding and public diplomacy; they also are rendered averse to apology and tend to believe that their power is vital to world peace and security. This paper is a discussion of the beliefs spawned by hubris and narcissism in U.S. foreign policy. Where does this pathology come from? What are its effects? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few leaders worry about the status of their honor; they do worry, at times obsessively, about their credibility. The "credibility imperative" has occupied a central position in every major U.S. foreign policy debate in the last fifty years. It affects discourse and decisions in predictable - and deeply pathological - ways. This paper examines the continuing importance of honor in modern U.S. foreign policy. It first discusses the traditional importance of honor in international and interpersonal politics, and explains of the central role it plays in the construction of security in any system that lacks a central authority. Second, it describes the predictable, consistent effects that honor has on state behavior in general, and U.S. foreign policy in particular. Third, it argues that the lingering concern for honor is pathological, for a couple of reasons: There is no evidence that it helps states attain their goals, and it certainly has no relevance in those systems (like today's international) where no existential threats to member security exist. The paper then speculates about the genesis of the honor pathology, and why it continues to have such salience in the new century. Honor as a motivation for action seems as anachronistic today as horse-drawn carriages, alchemy and the duel. But it persists, if under different guises; and to the extent that it persists, it pathologizes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the wisdom of the second half of 2009 conference theme, "anticipating the future" in international politics. Many scholars would immediately reject the notion that the prediction should be a goal of scholarship; explanation is our business, we are told, not prediction. Despite such sincere protestation to the contrary, prediction in some form has always been a major (if sometimes unstated) goal of the scholarship on international relations. Theories that ignore the future for the sake of the past contribute little to society or policymakers. This paper makes a methodological case for the evaluation of predictions as a way to test our theories of state behavior. If correlations in past data capture more than merely coincidence or historical anomaly, then those relationships ought to remain fairly constant when extrapolated into the future. Likewise, when predictions logically extrapolated from the core theoretical concepts fail to materialize, then epistemological red flags should rise. The moment international relations scholars cease using their theories to predict the future is also the moment they give up their aspirations to create a true science of international interaction. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Five decades ago, Karl Deutsch devised what he called "Parkinson's Law for international affairs": A state's insecurity expands along with its power. This certainly seems to apply to the United States, which is simultaneously the strongest country in the history of the world and the most insecure of today's great powers. The threats it has recently identified in the international system, from Iraq to Hugo Chavez to terrorism, are minor compared to what most states have had to confront throughout history. As states grow in power they usually also become more materially secure; why, then, do they often seem to worry more, often about trivial matters? This paper explores the political psychology of unipolarity in general, and the connection between power and insecurity in particular. Pathologies arise when irrational forces drive policymaking; presumably good policy is the result of rational cost-benefit analyses. If it is true that great power leads to perceptions of insecurity - or merely elevates the trivial to appear existential - then some of the most fundamental assumptions of U.S. grand strategy might need to be rethought. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disastrous wars tend to generate reluctance to intervene abroad. After the war in Iraq, strategic restraint may prove to be more politically palatable than ever before. Pundits and analysts of various stripes will rail against our reluctance to intervene abroad, as if it guaranteed instability, famines, Hitlers and genocides. This paper explores the justification for the most common objections to a post-Iraq strategic alteration. None is particularly well grounded. The strategic interest of the United States would be better served by a more patient, more restrained, less expensive approach to foreign policy. Like an alcoholic, sometimes a nation must hit rock bottom before it sees the need to make drastic changes. Iraq should be our rock bottom. If the war leads the United States to return to its traditional, restrained grand strategy, then perhaps the whole experience will not have been in vain. At this point, it may be the best outcome for which one can hope. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Examines the credibility imperative as an independent variable in explaining the foreign policy and international relations behavior of the U.S. Concepts of reputation and credibility as they relate to state behavior; Discussion of the dynamics of U.S. foreign policy; Effects of the credibility imperative on U.S. foreign policymakers since the end of the cold war.

As the layout of the chessboard shapes the nature of the game, so too does the geography of the earth provide the most basic influence upon the behavior of states. This paper explores the extent to which geography has affected the development of IR, identifying and analyzing the three main research programs that emerged over the course of the century: classical geopolitics, geographic correlates of war, and critical geopolitics. Although the three programs differ radically in their goals, assumptions, methods, standards of evidence and intended audience, they share a common string of disappointing results. Those conclusions that were most interesting have proven to be untrue; those that seem to be true have not been very interesting. In some ways, the demise of political geography can be read as a scientific success story. The inability of the various research programs either to articulate a coherent agenda, provide empirical support for its ideas, advance our understanding of international politics, or even generate testable hypotheses has relegated the would-be subfield to the periphery. In the end, the research program may turn out to have been one of the first casualties of the evolution of the study of politics into a coherent science. Far from being destiny, in 2006 geography is merely scenery. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]