POLI 491 - Final

A set of flashcards covering important vocabulary related to US security policy and historical military engagements based on the provided lecture notes.

GWOT

*

Bush Administration’s Response to 9/11

Centered around three pillars: Counterterrorism, Pre-emption and Pre-eminence, and the Forward Strategy for the democratization of the Middle East.

Three Questions Following 9/11

1. Who did it? (al-Qaeda)

2. Why did they do it? (Hatred of American freedoms and US role in the world)

3. How to respond? (Military action and diplomatic strategies)

Counterterrorism

Defined as the fight against terrorist groups and the governments that support them, with a broad scope extending beyond al-Qaeda. Bush declared this war would not end until all terrorist groups of global reach are defeated

The Enemy

Initially focused on al-Qaeda, but after 9/11, the enemy included any terrorist groups and supportive regimes. Bush described them as evil entities that hated American freedoms and viewed the US as an obstacle to their goals

Bush's Stance on the Response

Insisted on pursuing nations that support terrorism, threatening any that harbour terrorists with being considered hostile. This 'black/white' perspective framed the global landscape of allies and enemies, justifying military action against perceived threats

Pre-emption and Pre-eminence

Bush's policy stating that if nations develop WMD to be used against the US, they will be held accountable; justified preemptive actions against perceived threats, including Iraq

National Security Strategy (2002)

The strategy shifted focus to not only combating terrorists but also targeting unfree governments and promoting democracy globally as a means to enhance national security

Types of Terrorism

1. Internal Terrorism: Organizations operating within a country

2. Regional Terrorism: Groups operating across borders

3. Global Terrorism: Organizations with worldwide ambitions and operations

The USA PATRIOT Act

Legislation passed in October 2001, expanding government surveillance and law enforcement powers, limiting civil liberties in response to 9/11 fears, and broadening the discretion authorities had in detaining/deporting immigrants suspected of terrorism-related acts; Americans were willing to accept this because they were so fearful

Institutional Changes Post-9/11

Creation of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to improve coordination on national security and intelligence issues

Safe Havens

Areas that provide sanctuary for extremist groups, acting as a critical force-multiplier for them; the US aimed to deny and dismantle these as a critical operational objective in the GWOT

Obama's Approach to Counterterrorism

Aimed for a more nimble, transparent, and ethical counterterrorism policy than his predecessor, distancing from excessive military reliance

Emergence of ISIS

The rise of the Iraqi-Syrian Islamic State in Afghanistan during Obama's tenure highlighted the complications of US withdrawal from Iraq and the persistent threat of terrorism in the Middle East

Preventive Strategies

Obama's administration focused on civic engagement and effective governance, aiming to combat the root causes of terrorism rather than exclusively military responses; the effects of such strategies take time to manifest and they enjoy little support in Congress or among the American public

Military Commissions and Detention Policies

Despite initial goals to close Guantanamo Bay, Obama allowed continued military commissions and indefinite detention policies, reflecting the challenges of national security imperatives

Utilization of Drones

Under Obama, drones became a significant tool for counterterrorism, presenting ethical concerns about civilian casualties while ensuring minimal direct risk to US personnel

Surveillance Expansion

Intensive electronic surveillance methods gained traction, aimed at identifying and preempting terrorist threats both domestically and internationally following 9/11

Obama’s three-part plan against terrorism

Discredit terrorist ideologies, address the political and economic grievances that terrorists exploit, and improve governance in the regions where such groups recruit; also sought to erode the appeal of extremist ideology by amplifying the voices of moderate muslims and “formers”

Effects of Warfare on National Policy

Ongoing military responses to terrorism faced criticism for not adequately addressing the root causes or preventing the spread of extremist ideologies

IRAQ AFGHANISTAN AND ALL THAT

*

Invasion of Afghanistan (2001)

Following the 9/11 attacks, the US and NATO allies (Article 5) launched Operation Enduring Freedom to dismantle al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban regime, marking the beginning of a long-term military engagement

Objectives in Afghanistan

The primary goals included destroying al-Qaeda, dismantling the Taliban's governance, establishing a new Afghan political regime, and preventing future terrorist threats

The Bin Laden Threat

Osama bin Laden, leader of al-Qaeda, was viewed as a principal threat to US security, necessitating his capture and the dismantling of his network

Bush’s Strategy in Afghanistan

Initially focused on rapid military engagement and relying on local warlords and the Northern Alliance to achieve objectives rather than an expansive nation-building vision

2001 Kabul Campaign

The Northern Alliance, aided by US Special Forces, successfully captured Kabul in November 2001, marking a significant turning point in the campaign

Nation-Building Challenges

Efforts to establish a stable government faced difficulties, including ethnic tensions, lack of infrastructure, and corruption, complicating the transition to democracy

Establishment of Afghan Government

Hamid Karzai was selected to lead the interim government in December 2001, recognized for his ability to unify various factions despite issues with authority and corruption

International Support for Afghanistan

NATO formed the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to stabilize Afghanistan, transitioning security responsibilities to international partners to support Karzai’s government

The Surge in Afghanistan (2009)

President Obama authorized a significant increase of troops to degrade the Taliban and give the Afghan government time to demonstrate it could both govern and assume responsibility for its own security

McChrystal's Counterinsurgency Strategy

Proposed a shift in strategy focused on protecting civilians and partnering with Afghan forces, emphasizing the need for a stronger relationship with the Afghan government

Public Support for the Surge

Included both military engagement as well as a robust civilian development component, but nearly all the public focus was on troop strength

Obama’s Strategic Review and Change in Focus

Obama’s new strategy aimed to dismantle al-Qaeda, emphasizing that Afghanistan and Pakistan must be treated as a single challenge and that governance would play a crucial role in stability

The Obama Administration’s 3 Objectives in Afghanistan

1. Deny al Qaeda a safe haven

2. Reverse the Taliban’s momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government

3. Strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s Security Forces and government so that they can take responsibility for Afghanistan’s future

How the Obama Administration planned on meeting their objectives in Afghanistan

1. Pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months

2. Work with allies, the UN, and the Afghan people to pursue a more effective civilian strategy so that the government can take advantage of improved security

3. Act with the recognition that success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the US-Pakistan partnership

Killing of Osama bin Laden

Bin Laden was killed in May 2011 in Operation Neptune Spear, a significant moment for the Obama administration that reshaped perception of the US position in the region

US Relations with Afghan President Karzai

Karzai was often considered unreliable and paranoid by US officials, creating challenges in US-Afghan relations during both Bush and Obama administrations

Divergence in U.S. and European Strategies

Differing military engagement strategies between the US and European allies led to tensions regarding overall approach to counterterrorism, with some European nations advocating for diplomatic solutions

The Iraq Distraction

Diverted US attention and resources from Afghanistan, complicating efforts to stabilize and rebuild the country, and impacting public perception of US foreign policy

BLIND INTO BAGHDAD

*

Invasion of Iraq (2003)

The US-led invasion began in March 2003 under the pretext of eliminating WMDs and ending Saddam Hussein's regime, ultimately leading to extensive military engagement in the country

Key Rationale for the Iraq War

Primary reasons included national security concerns over the alleged possession of WMDs by Iraq, ties to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, and the broader objective of promoting democracy in the Middle East

Saddam Hussein’s Regime

Was viewed as a brutal dictator whose removal was expected to lead to stability and democratization of Iraq, an assumption that proved overly optimistic

Iraq: Initial Success and Rapid Advance

The invasion was marked by swift success, with coalition forces quickly capturing Baghdad and toppling Saddam's regime, leading to initial celebrations by some Iraqi citizens

Post-Invasion Challenges

Despite early victories, the US faced significant challenges in stabilizing Iraq, including sectarian violence, the rise of insurgency, and difficulties in establishing a functional government

De-Baathification Policy

Policy implemented by the Coalition Provisional Authority; led to the dismissal of thousands of Baath Party members from government roles, which contributed to unrest and instability by alienating many former officials

The Emergence of Insurgency

Following the invasion, various insurgent groups formed, including nationalist and Islamist factions, leading to sustained conflict and violence against coalition forces and Iraqi civilians

Role of al-Qaeda in Iraq

Al-Qaeda sought to exploit the chaos following the invasion, eventually forming al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), which would later evolve into ISIS, complicating the security situation

Public Perception of the Iraq War

began to wane as casualties increased and post-war instability became evident, leading to growing disillusionment in both the US and Iraq

Bush Administration's Strategy in Iraq

Continued to insist on the necessity of US presence in Iraq despite setbacks, promoting the idea of establishing a stable democratic government as a pivotal goal while emphasizing the need to combat insurgency and prevent the emergence of sectarian violence

Iraq War: Bush’s Successes & Failures

Bush finally realized that to achieve his goals for Iraq, he needed to make changes such as listenening to different people. His new leaders changed the strategy, tactics, and organization of the war and the diplomacy with the Iraqis, and by the end of the his presidency, the Iraq war had been largely a success. However, American military leaders failed to understand that the nature of the war had changed from an insurgency to a sectarian conflict following the AQI attack on the Golden Mosque

Iraq War: Obama’s Mistake

Failed to learn the right lessons from Bush:

• Obama’s personnel changes led to the return of some American combat troops and the resurgence of al Qaeda in Iraq (now ISIS), undermining earlier gains

• After the death of bin laden, accelerated the rate of withdrawal of surge forces without regard for the tactical conditions on the ground

Arab Spring

A series of anti-government uprisings that swept across the Arab world starting in late 2010, leading to significant political changes in several countries, including Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, but also resulting in ongoing conflicts in others like Syria

Obama's Approach to the Arab Spring

Adopted a cautious and measured response to the Arab Spring, emphasizing support for democratic movements while avoiding direct military interventions unless necessary

Libya Intervention (2011)

The US and NATO conducted military operations in Libya to support rebel forces against Gaddafi's regime, marking a controversial decision characterized by the phrase 'leading from behind,' where US forces played a supportive role rather than leading the intervention

Key Figures in Libya Intervention

President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice played critical roles in deciding to intervene in Libya, driven by humanitarian concerns and the desire to prevent mass atrocities against civilians.

Consequences of the Libya Intervention

Led to the ousting of Gaddafi but resulted in a power vacuum that fueled chaos, civil war, and the rise of extremist groups

Syria Conflict

The civil war in Syria began in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring, with protests against President Bashar al-Assad escalating into a conflict involving various factions, including ISIS and other extremist groups, complicating US involvement

Obama's Strategic Dilemma in Syria

The Obama administration faced challenges in formulating a coherent strategy in Syria, balancing the need to respond to Assad's brutal crackdowns with concerns over the potential rise of extremist groups and the security implications for the region

The Syrian ‘Red Line’

The use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime in 2013 prompted international outrage and led to a significant moment in US foreign policy, where Obama threatened military action but ultimately opted for diplomatic solutions, including a deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria

Impact on Iraq

The instability following the Arab Spring contributed to the resurgence of ISIS in Iraq, exploiting the chaos in Syria and the vacuum left by the US withdrawal

Lessons Learned

The mixed outcomes of US interventions during the Arab Spring highlighted the challenges of foreign policy decision-making in complex, rapidly changing environments where the balance of power can shift unpredictably

PERILS OF PROLIFERATION: DETERRENCE OR DEFENCE?

Perils of Proliferation

The risks and challenges associated with the spread of nuclear weapons and technology, particularly regarding their potential use by states or non-state actors

Deterrence vs. Defence

Deterrence strategies aim to prevent nuclear attacks by threatening retaliation; defence strategies focus on protecting against such attacks through military capabilities and technologies

Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Established in 1968; nuclear-weapon states agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or technology to others, while non-nuclear-weapon states pledge not to develop or acquire them. All parties agree to pursue good-faith negotiations on nuclear disarmament

Pre-emption (2003)

The US policy established in March 2003 that supports using force against states pursuing nuclear weapons, exemplified by the invasion of Iraq

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)

An agreement signed in July 2015 between Iran and the P5+1+EU aimed at restricting Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief

Nuclear 'Have-nots' vs. 'Haves'

The division in the international community where nuclear 'have-nots' (non-nuclear weapon states) advocate for disarmament while 'haves' (nuclear weapon states) commit to reduction and disarmament pledges.

President Trump's Nuclear Policy

Characterized by a departure from previous non-proliferation policies, leading to escalated global nuclear tensions and increased threats from nuclear-armed states

Obama Administration's Nuclear Strategy

Focused on reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing proliferation, yet faced criticism for inadequate actions towards 'nuclear have-nots'

Trump’s Foreign Policy Legacy with Russia

Characterized by inconsistent dealings and public praise for Putin, which baffled many observers, ultimately leading to deeper scrutiny of his administration's intentions towards Russia

Biden's Advocacy for Stable Relations

Biden pursued a stable and predictable relationship with Russia while distancing himself from Trump's approach, acknowledging Russia as a significant adversary

Domestic Political Impact

Russia became a major domestic issue during the 2016 election, influencing perceptions of Trump's legitimacy and prompting investigations into alleged collusion

Obama's Sanctions

The Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia in response to meddling in the 2016 election and the leaking of emails, setting the stage for later tensions

Inconsistency in Trump's Russia Policy

Trump's attempts to engage with Russia included proposals for G8 re-admittance and a focus on diminishing Russian influence in favour of countering China

NATO Under Trump

Trump viewed NATO members as 'free riders' but faced the necessity to bolster the alliance against Russian actions, resulting in contradictory dynamics

Ukraine Policy Controversy

Trump’s initial ambivalence towards Ukraine culminated in him threatening to withhold security assistance unless the Ukrainians provided damaging information on the Bidens. Led to an impeachment trial

Biden's Military Support for Ukraine

Upon taking office, Biden prioritized support for Ukraine amid rising Russian aggression, including direct communication and military assurances

Shift in Security Focus with the Biden Administration

Singled out China as its major foreign-policy challenge while monitoring the development of the increasingly robust Russian-Chinese strategic partnership; erred in linking the conflict in Ukraine with America's great-power competition with China, as the conflation of Russia (an aggressor credibly accused of perpetrating war crimes in Ukraine) with China (not a party to the conflict) unnecessarily worsened US-China relations at time when Washington needed Beijing’s cooperation in international affairs more than ever

Public Information Campaign Before Invasion

Prior to the February 2022 invasion, the Biden administration publicly shared intelligence (Revealed scale of continued Russian build up, published intel satellite photos, identified Russian ‘false flags’) to shape Russian behaviour and rally international support, though not all allies were convinced

Putin’s Perceived Threat to NATO

The build-up of Russian troops near Ukraine raised alarm within NATO, prompting discussions on unified responses and military preparedness to deter aggression

Venezuela Dynamics

The US and Russia were at odds over Venezuela, with Russia protecting Maduro's regime against US attempts at regime change

China's Influence on US-Russia Relations

The increasing partnership between China and Russia complicated US strategies, especially as the Biden administration recognized both as near-peer competitors

Biden’s European Military Presence

In response to Ukraine's situation, Biden increased US military presence in Europe, assuring allies of American commitment to NATO and regional stability

Challenges of Unified NATO Strategy

Biden faced difficulties in creating a unified NATO strategy, impacted by Trump's inconsistent commitments and geopolitical developments in Eastern Europe

America First vs. Global Engagement

Trump's 'America First' policy focused on prioritizing US interests, often at the expense of multilateralism, while Biden emphasized re-engagement with allies and international institutions

Foreign Policy Consistency

Trump's foreign policy was marked by unpredictability and abrupt shifts, while Biden's administration sought to establish a more predictable and stable foreign policy approach

NATO Relations

Trump criticized NATO allies for not meeting defense spending commitments and entertained the idea of US withdrawal; Biden reaffirmed US commitment to NATO and emphasized unity among allies

Climate Change Policy

Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement, prioritizing deregulation; Biden rejoined the agreement and made climate change a central theme of his administration

China Strategy

Trump’s approach involved aggressive tariffs and confrontational rhetoric; Biden's strategy included competition while also seeking cooperation on global issues like climate change

Healthcare Policy

Trump aimed to repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a different model; Biden sought to expand healthcare access through strengthening the ACA

Immigration Policy

Trump implemented stricter immigration policies and sought to build a wall on the southern border; Biden proposed reforms to create pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants

COVID-19 Response

The Trump administration faced criticism for its handling of the pandemic, focusing on rapid vaccine development but downplaying public health measures; Biden emphasized a coordinated federal response and vaccine accessibility

Approach to Russia

Trump's dealings with Russia were characterized by personal diplomacy and mixed signals; Biden took a more confrontational stance focused on sanctions and holding Russia accountable

Biden’s Guidelines — Ukrainian/Russian Conflict

1. Don’t have a kinetic conflict between the US military and NATO with nuclear armed Russia

2. Contain war inside the geographical boundaries of Ukraine (protect all NATO territory)

3. Strengthen and maintain NATO unity

4. Empower Ukraine and give them the means to fight

Biden Doctrine

1. US must strengthen the cohesion and resilience of the democratic community against its autocratic rivals and make such democratic solidarity truly global, since so many aspects of the threat require a global response

2. US must lead the world’s democracies in addressing transnational problems that no nation can solve on its own

3. US must build a “position of strength” for global rivalry by reinvesting in its own competitiveness and demonstrating that democracies can still deliver for their citizens

4. A foreign policy that avoids the aggressive tactics of forever wars and nation building, while uniting allies against the authoritarianism of rising powers

Diplomatic Engagement

Trump favoured direct and often personal engagement with authoritarian leaders while Biden emphasized multilateral diplomacy and coalition-building with democratic allies