Foreign Policy Final

Thursday April 30th, @11:20am

Executive agreements

An order signed by the President that bypasses Congresses to create a law or policy. Inefficient in the sense that they are temporary- nothing is embedded in the framework of the law unless it is ratified by both Congress and the President. Executive agreements are often terminated by the next President who comes into office of the opposite party

“Two presidencies” thesis

States that the POTUS operates in two different realms: domestic politics, and foreign affairs. The President is usually more successful in the realm of foreign policy, as it is easier to convince Congress their policies are necessary for national security than it is to convince them their legislative agenda is necessary.

Imperial presidency

Describes the expansion of presidential power, particularly at the expense of the traditional checks and balances provided by Congress and the judiciary. This has shown itself in foreign policy specifically through the use of unilateral military actions such as interventions abroad without formal congressional declarations of war, and the signing of executive agreements that ratifies foreign policy that would traditionally have to move through Congress.

NSC staff

Has undergone modification since its founding in 1947, but currently consists of permanent members such as the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, as well as other senior officials who may join at the President’s discretion, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, or the National Security Advisor

International Affairs Budget (150 account)

The portion of the federal budget dedicated to diplomacy, foreign assistance, and other international programs. Funds agencies such as the State Department, USAID, and the Peace Corps, encompassing both development and security-related interests. Constituted about 1% of the federal budget in recent years, but the Trump administration has almost completely cut it all together.

Regional Combatant Commanders

Responsible for the military and security oversight of specific areas of the world (ex. Central Command). They act as “mega-ambassadors,” using their power to contribute to discussions about budget, security, and other regional concerns in their respective Command. This position has been found to dwarf other high-ranking officials, such as State Department Ambassadors.

Civil-military relations

The mutually understood relationship between the United States military and civilians. Practices of (expected) civil-military relations include:

• Remaining apolitical

• Providing candid military advice

• Civilian authorities retaining control over all aspects of defense policy

• Providing Congressional testimony

• Avoiding publicly criticizing defense policy and policymakers

• Even if retired, avoiding criticizing civilian defense officials

• Executing legal orders

• Refusing to execute illegal orders

Goldwater-Nicholas Act of 1986

Was meant to force jointness of the branches of military and encourage cooperation between them.

• Gave joint chiefs more staff

• Created a single combatant commander who controls all services

Consequences: Sometimes politics can be drawn into this (eg. “don’t ask, don’t tell laws, speaking for/against Ukraine), creating very powerful combatant commanders- almost like “super ambassadors”

Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004

A landmark restructuring of US intelligence, inspired by post-9/11 critiques of intelligence failures. Key elements include:

• Creation of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)

• Streamlining of processes to reduce bureaucratic delays in intelligence operations

• Increased collaboration between intelligence agencies and military commands to support overseas counterterrorism operations

Hughes Ryan Amendment

States that whenever a covert operation occurs, it must be reported to the President, Congress and all relevant committees “in a timely fashion.” This was passed in order to ensure that intelligence oversight committees within Congress were informed of these operations within a reasonable timeframe, and limit the number of covert operations happening without the knowledge of the President.

Presidential Finding

Must be issued by a President to justify the use of a covert operation carried out by the CIA. The Presidential Finding is delivered to relevant Congressional committees.

Intelligence Oversight

Legal and procedural mechanisms designed to ensure US intelligence complies with constitutional principles and any other pre-existing law. Ensures that civil liberties have a place in foreign policy and the intelligence community. Includes:

• Congressional committees on foreign policy

• Hughes-Ryan amendment requiring the reporting of covert action to the President, Congress, and all relevant committees within a reasonable amount of time

Church Committee

An investigation into US intelligence abuses during the Cold War. Its findings encouraged the public to support reforms for the intelligence community. The committee found:

• Plots to assassinate foreign leaders

• Programs spreading propaganda abroad

• Showed the President’s ability to bypass Congress on foreign policy decisions, especially on foreign policy decisions

Led to many intelligence reforms, such as executive order 11905 which bans the assassination of foreign leaders by the CIA or any other US intelligence agency.

Operation Chaos

A CIA domestic surveillance program targeting American anti-war activists, civil rights groups, and other political disruptors in an attempt to connect them to Vietnam. Showed a controversial overlap between foreign intelligence and domestic security.

• Erosion of democratic norms: blurred lines between foreign and domestic operations, normalizing surveillance of US citizens. Losing trust of citizens

• Showed executive overreach

Project MKULTRA

A secret CIA program attempting to develop mind and behavioral control techniques during the Cold War. Used LSD, electroshock therapy, and hypnosis techniques on US and Canadian mental patients and prisoners without consent. The project was performed with hope of developing a “truth serum” to be used on foreign leaders or other enemies of the state.

• Had serious ethical implications, human rights abuses, undermined US moral authority

• Discovered by the Church Committee Investigations

Intelligence community

Large and fragmented: organizations fall into categories under Department of Defense or non-Department of Defense

• Provides policymakers with assessments of globals threats to inform diplomatic and military strategies

• Conducts covert operations to promote US interests without directly pulling the US into conflict

• Verifies adherence to agreements and treaties by observing signals intelligence and satellite imagery

• Supplies insights to diplomats to shape negotiations and crisis responses

• Identifies emerging threats to enable preemptive diplomatic or military action

National Security Act of 1947

Creation of Key Institutions

• Department of Defense: Unified War and Navy departments, streamlined defense strategy

• National Security Council: Established to advise the president on integrating military, diplomatic, and intelligence policies

• Central Intelligence Agency: Formed to conduct foreign intelligence and covert operations

Military-Civilian Coordiation

• Joint Chiefs of Staff: Institutionalized military advice to the president, enabling unified strategic planning

• Unified Command Structure: Centralized authority under DoD to improve efficiency

National Security Agency

Falls under the Department of Defense part of the Intelligence community

Collects electronic communications from foreign entities, secures US defense networks, intercepts adversary communications, monitors satellite imagery. Reports all findings in real-time to policymakers and military commanders to ensure accurate and informed intelligence-based decisions.

Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)

Falls under the non-Department of Defense part of the Intelligence community

Focuses on anything that may be of note to US foreign policy, including conflict zones, elections, and territorial disputes. Analyze both classified and open-source data. Very important in identifying conflicts in early stages.

Office of the Director of National Intelligence

Falls under the Department of Defense part of the Intelligence community

The leader of the intelligence community, ensuring cohesive reporting within the community. The DNI serves as the Presiden't’s top intelligence advisor delivering daily briefings on whatever is new in foreign policy that day.

Plausible deniability

Intentional operations to allow leaders to credibly deny knowledge or responsibility for illegal, unethical, or controversial actions. This is done to shield the President and other policymakers from accountability for unpopular actions while advancing other strategic goals.

• Presidents were extremely unpopular when they tried to facilitate assassination attempts

• Limiting knowledge of operations to small, isolated teams to prevent traceability to leadership

Strategic ambiguity

The US’s method on international relations with Taiwan. Aims to keep China and Taiwan questioning if the US would enter an allyship with Taiwan in the event a Chinese/Taiwanese war. This way, China is encouraged to stay “hands off” with Taiwan in case the US would side with Taiwan, and Taiwan is encouraged to “not get too bold” with China in case the US does not come to their aid in the event of a war.

Belt and Road Initiative

The “New Silk Road:” initiative by China to establish new trade routes through both land-based infrastructure and maritime ports. Launched by China to compete with the US, create new economic connections, and assert global dominance. Recently has been running into many failures and delays, raising questions about the viability and trustworthiness of the project.

Almond-Lippmann Consensus vs. Revisionist views on Public Opinion

Almond-Lippmann Consensus (pessimistic view)

• Public opinion on FP is erratic, shifting, and based solely on reactions to recent events and elite manipulation

• Citizens lack knowledge-based positions, and rather offer superficial and often contradictory responses to FP questions

Revisionist public opinion (optimistic view)

• Public opinion adjusts logically to outcomes (ex. updates in wartime, economic costs)- as shown in shifting support during the Vietnam and Iraq Wars

Media indexing

The idea that the ideas being pushed out into the mainstream media reflect the ideas of the political elites and their agenda. An example of this is Bush and the Iraq War- the media supported Bush’s claims that Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda were connected (because Bush had told the press this), but there was no actual evidence to support this.

Political sectarianism

Moralized, identity-based divisions where partisans view their political opponents as alien, immoral, and massive threats. Elements include:

• Othering: Perceiving opposing party as fundamentally different and un-American

• Aversion: Disliking, distrusting, and dehumanizing opponents

• Moralization: Framing political disagreements as battles between moral good and moral evil

Contributing to the deep roots of bipartisanship in American society.

Elasticity of Reality

The theory that initially, peoples’ perceptions of reality are easily changed or convinced- especially by elites, but as they become attached to their perception of reality, they become fixed and resistant to change. There is no longer one consensus.

2001 AUMF

Authorization for Use of Military Force: authorized military force against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks, including anyone who “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the attacks. Allowed the president to initiate military operations while bypassing formal declarations of war.

• Executive overreach- the President can basically do whatever he wants (still to this day- the law is still on the books)

• How do you know really who had “planned, authorized, committed, or aided” the attacks or if your intelligence was incorrect?

• Lacks a sunset clause, so implies endless conflict without Congressional reauthorization

Alien Enemies Act

Authorizes the President to detain, deport, or restrict noncitizens from nations deemed “hostile” during a declared war or an “invasion or predatory incursion.”

• Used to justify the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II

• Trump is trying to use in 2025 to deport Venezuelan nationals

• Former uses have normalized executive overreach

Bipartisanship

Collaboration between political parties to advance shared policy goals, prioritizing national interest over partisan divides. Political sectarianism has (arguably) almost erased bipartisanship from the American government, making it almost impossible to move policy, foreign or domestic, through Congress.

Insurrection Act

Allows the President to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellion and respond to violent civil unrest. The President must first issue a public order before deploying troops (“unless urgency prevents it.”) Historical uses include:

• Lincoln suppressing secessionist states

• Eisenhower enforcing school desegregation in Little Rock

• Trump is threatening to use it at the Southern border

If used improperly, allows for executive overreach. Concerns about violence against US citizens

Ethnic lobbies

A political lobby formed by people who share an ethnic or cultural background with the aim to influence foreign policy within the United States or to benefit their home country. An example of an ethnic lobby is the Armenian National Committee of America, whose main interest has been advocating for the American recognition of the Armenian genocide.

AIPAC

American Israel Public Affairs Committee- recognized as the “gold standard” for ethnic lobbies. Targets candidates who are against Israel, makes political enemies out of those who defeat AIPAC-supported candidates in elections, and have an established community of AIPAC-supported politicians.

Military industrial complex

The relationship between the US military, defense contractors, and policymakers. Accounts for the financial and political interests of all parties involved. Eisenhower famously warned that the institution was dangerous to the democratic process. Key actors include:

• Defense contractors: Those who profit from weapons production, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing

• Government: DoD and Congress write budgets, are influenced by defense industry lobbying

• Think tanks/media: Defense-funded institutions shape public opinion and policy narrative (pushing military solutions over diplomacy)

Lobbying and the “revolving door” (officials moving between the government and contracting side of the complex) are part of the institution.

Iron triangle

The circular relationship between Congress, bureaucratic agencies, and interest groups that shape policy outcomes. This dynamic influences decisions on defense, trade, and IR by prioritizing mutual interests over the general good of the public.

• Congress: Allocate budgets and write legislation, often aligning with agencies’ needs to secure legislative support. Members prioritize policy or interest groups that benefit their constituents to improve their chances of re-election.

• Bureaucratic agencies: Ex. State Department or DoD execute programs favored by Congress and interest groups. Agencies may adopt military-friendly rules to maintain funding and avoid scrutiny from Congress

• Interest groups: Defense contractors, lobbies, etc. lobby for policies that secure their contracts and interests. Groups fund campaigns of Congressional members.

Erosion of democratic norms.

JCPOA

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in 2015 by Iran and the P5+1 aimed to restrict Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Goals included:

• Nonproliferation: Prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons by imposing limits on enrichment, stockpiles, and facilities

• Diplomatic engagement: Replace confrontation with multilateral diplomacy, reducing regional tensions

• Verification: Implement IAEA inspections to ensure compliance

Was successful at first until Trump withdrew in 2018 and the deal mostly fell apart without the US’s compliance.

Maximum pressure vs direct negotiations

Maximum pressure

• Aims to coerce Iran to dismantle its nuclear program and curb regional influence through sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and military threats.

• Oil export bans, other economic sanctions, working closely with regional rivals (ex. Netanyahu in Israel)

• Trump’s strategy in his first term

Direct negotiations

• Aims to restrict (or even eliminate) Iran’s nuclear program through diplomatic agreements

• Sanctions relief, traditional diplomatic efforts through intermediaries

Iran’s “Axis of Resistance”

Network of militant groups and allied forced across the Middle East united by their common opposition to US influence and existence of Israel. Include:

• Iran

• Hezbollah

• Hamas

• Others

Ukraine and NATO membership

The questions of Ukranian NATO membership as a potential negotiation point in ending the war. Zelenskyy is advocating for this solution and it would provide Ukraine with the security guarantee it would need post-war, however:

• Russia is strongly opposed to this

• Trump is suddenly siding with Russia and pressuring Ukraine to take a deal that would leave it largely unprotected with large land losses

• Raises questions about where Ukraine would fit in with Article 5 and security guarantees

What characteristics make ethnic lobbies influential? (Use examples. Try to identify and discuss at least six different characteristics).

• Well-resourced

• Well-organized

• Bipartisan support

• Concentrated support in important electoral districts

• Feared

• Support of public opinion

• United by a common cause or event (often a traumatic historical event)

What does Hartungs’s chapter tell us about the political influence of Lockheed Martin? How difficult was it for Defense Secretary Gates to shift money away from the F-22 Raptor fighter plane in the defense appropriations bill? Relate this case study to theories about a military industrial complex.

Lockheed Martin is a dominant, leading force in the military industrial complex leveraging its financial and political power to shape defense policy.

Gates and shifting money away from the F-22 Raptor fighter plane:

• Was able to negotiate with the CEO of Lockheed Martin that the government would no longer be purchasing the F-22 Raptor, but instead would be spending more money on F-35 Joint Strike Fighters from the company

• Was still unable to convince Congress of the budget shift: Lockheed Martin’s lobbying blitz framed the F-22 as critical to both national security and American jobs, exploiting Congresspeople’s fears of electoral backlash from their constituents

• Ultimately, it took a threat from President Obama to veto the defense budget to get Congress to let go of the F-22 and accept an alternative spending plan

Reinforces the Congress-interest group relationship of the iron triangle theory relating to the military industrial complex. Congresspeople were so concerned about electoral backlash they were not willing to let up, interest groups were heavily lobbying and influencing Congresspeople.

(Long essay)

This course has given you a historical perspective of US foreign policy. It has also refreshed your familiarity with the constitutional powers of the three branches of government. Looking at the first 100 days in Trump’s second term, highlight the five most significant ways in which his presidency has reoriented the US role in the world, altered long-standing practices, and challenged constitutional boundaries. Use specific facts not broad generalizations or rhetoric.

Intro: Trump’s “America First” doctrine and its evolution into a disruptive executive overreach approach in his second term.

1. Abandonment of Ukraine and NATO: Halted military aid, damaged war-ending negotiations, pressured Europe to take on more defensive roles and harmed relationships within the process.

   • Constitutional implications: Bypassed Congress’s traditional oversight role by attempting to “end” Ukraine by himself

2. Dismantling of Foreign Aid and Multilateral Institutions: Dissolved USAID and attempting to dissolve Department of Education, withdrew from WHO and Paris Climate Agreement.

   • Constitutional implications: Attempted to dissolve DOE bypassing Congress- cannot dissolve a government agency unilaterally. Also, Congress created the Department of Education.

3. Transactional Alliances and Imperialist Expansionist Rhetoric: Prioritizing economic coercion over traditional alliances like threats to annex Greenland and Panama. Tariff policies on allies and adversaries alike

   • Constitutional implications: Asserting executive authority over territorial claims without congressional approval

4. Realignment with Authoritarian Regimes: Strengthened ties with authoritarian regimes such as Russia while isolation democratic allies such as NATO allies. Offered concessions to Russia on behalf of Ukraine, blaming Kyiv for “prolonging the war”

5. Ignorance of court-ordered solutions: By refusing to return man deported to El Salvador he is ignoring a direct order from SCOTUS.

   • Constitutional implications: Violating due process: the man did not have right to due process before being deported

Conclusion: “America First” and Trump’s first 100 days have rapidly accelerated the decline of US global leadership by making us a violent, isolationist power concerned only with transactional power.

These shifts shows risks of democratic norms and constitutional checks on executive power.

According to Thorpe, how did the Founding fathers intend to constrain the president form unilaterally using military force? How have some of these constraints come undone?

Thorpe argues the Founders designed a comprehensive system where Congress held primary authority over war and military force to prevent military overreach, and to make sure the President could not unilaterally deploy the armed forces.

• Ability to initiate wars lies strictly within Congress

• Ability to raise and maintain an army lies within Congress

• Responsibility for funding the military lies with Congress

• Pre-WWII, Congress would immediately dissolve the military and reduce spending when a war war over

• Originally, the President’s Commander-in-Chief power was very limited, meant to respond to sudden attacks: not initiate wars

Thorpe argues post-WWII various structural shifts undermined these checks:

• Many Americans had become dependent on the government spending money in their district on military goods.

• Later, post 9/11 authorizations like the 2001 AUMF became blank checks for Presidents to deploy military without Congressional approval

• Modern Presidents have taken much liberty with Article II’s Commander-in-chief clause, trying to bypass declarations of war

• Courts dismiss war powers as “political questions,” meaning the executive never gets tried

What factors does Lindsay hypothesize cause the shifting pendulum of power between the executive and legislative branch? What historical examples back up his view?

Argues the pendulum shifts due to:

• Crisis and public demand: During emergencies (ex. terrorist attacks), the public rallies around the Presidential leadership, weakening legislative constraints

  • Ex: Post-9/11 passing of the 2001 AUMF

• Partisan alignment: Unified government (when the same party controls the Presidency and Congress) amplifies executive power, while divided government strengthens legislative power.

  • Ex: During 2003 Iraq, Republican Congress allowed Bush’s “preemptive strike” doctrine, whereas Obama faced pushback from Republican Congress on Syria strikes

• Legislative capacity: Congress’s ability to check the executive depends on institutional resources (staff, expertise) and political will. Declining capacity since the Cold War has eroded oversight.

• Judicial deference: Courts often avoid foreign policy disputes, enabling executive overreach by labeling them “political questions”

  • Ex: SCOTUS declining to rule on the legality of Obama’s Libya campaign allowing unilateral military action without congressional approval

Historical example:

• LBJ Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964) showing executive power during a time of perceived threat, Church Committee investigations (1975) reasserting congressional authority post-Vietnam

What does Ambassador Deborah McCarthy say about the role of the State Department?

She claims the State Department plays a critical and multifaceted role in US national security and FP. She says diplomacy has five key functions:

1. Reconnaissance: Diplomats have to gather knowledge about countries (history, culture, politics, etc.), and it is this intelligence that helps the US understand where its interests lie and where potential crises may emerge.

2. Communication: Diplomacy involves displaying American interests and policies to other nations, using all possible channels (including social media). This communication also helps prevent misunderstandings.

3. Negotiation: Diplomats are negotiators who secure agreements that US military presence, aid, hostage releases, etc.

4. Foreign Assistance: The State Department manages most US humanitarian, development, and security assistance (supports allies, combats terrorism, addresses disasters, etc.)

5. Civilian Bases Overseas: US embassies and consulates act as “civilian bases” essential for projecting American influence and staying ahead of global developments.

Diplomacy is vital to the US national security strategy (protecting the homeland, promoting prosperity, preserving peace through strength, and advancing American strength)

What does Kenneth Shultz identify as the perils of polarization for foreign policy? Are there other dangers you would add?

Shultz’s identified dangers:

• Difficulty undertaking risky initiatives: Polarization reduces bipartisan support for treaties or military actions, pushing presidents toward executive agreements

• Difficulty learning from FP failures: Partisan views obstruct consensus on learning from past mistakes, as they are politicized

• Unstable commitments to allies: Allies question US reliability due to abrupt policy swings due who whoever is in office

• Vulnerability to foreign interference: Polarization enables adversaries to exploit problem areas within the country (ex. Russia and the 2016 election interference)

Additional dangers I would identify:

• Erosion of US as a global hegemony: Allies view the US and its governance as dysfunctional, weakening its ability to fight for democracy. Leaves room for China to emerge

What does Paterson say are central norms underlying civil-military relations?

He outlines eight core principles to guide military conduct, emphasizing that the military must submit to the American people and civilian authority.

• Apolitical conduct: avoiding political advocacy

• Candid military advice: Officers must provide truthful advice about the military, even if it goes against current politics

• Civilian authorities retain control over all aspects of defense policy: civilians retain control over military strategy, operations, budgets

• Provide Congressional testimony prudently: Provided candid advice when asked during hearings while avoiding the undermining of civilian leadership

• Avoid publicly criticizing defense policy and policymakers: carry out civilian defense policy and do not criticize it, ensuring respect for the chain of command

• Even if retired, avoid criticizing civilian defense officials: retired officials should avoid partisan comments to preserve the military’s apolitical reputation

• Execute legal orders: even if personnel disagrees, they must execute lawful orders

• Refuse to reject illegal orders: Officers have a duty to refuse unlawful commands (ex. violating the Constitution or laws of war), requires dealing with ethical questions

(Long essay)

How well has the War Powers Resolution of 1973 worked in reclaiming Congress’ constitutional war powers? Would you propose reforming it, abolishing it, or leaving it alone?

Intro: The WPR was enacted to reassert Congressional authority over military deployments after Vietnam-era presidential overreach. While the WPR has made improvements to the transparency of the executive and its war powers, it has overall failed in restoring Congress’s constitutional war powers due to design flaws. Reforms should be made to address existing loopholes.

Brief historical context: Congress’s exclusive power to declare war (Article 1, Section 8), executive overreach during the Cold War Era (such as LBJ’s Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964) set precedents for unilateral executive action.

• WPR Goals: Mandate notification within 48 hours of deploying military, automatically triggering a 60-day time limit, and 30-day withdrawal period

Limited success: Ex. Obama abided by the reporting mandate during his time in office when sending troops to Libya

Failures:

• Avoidance of citing section 4(a)(1) which claims “introducing US armed forces into hostilities” - because it “hostilities” is not defined in the Act

• Courts dismiss challenges as “political questions”

Argument for reform:

• Automatic withdrawal: Require cessation of funds if Congress does not authorize within the 60-day window

• Include a definition of “hostilities” under section 4(a)(1) so it may be cited

• Preserve reporting requirements

• A strengthened WPR would encourage Congress to work together on a pre-existing piece of legislation that has the right idea. Executive overreach should be stopped and the loopholes should be closed, restoring Congress’s Constitutional power to declare war

(Long essay)

Describe the broad stories of three interrelated institutions regarding their influence on foreign policy since World War II: Defense of Department, State Department, and the NSC. How has the NSC process evolved from its original conception and why? Why hasn’t the State Department held onto its lead role in foreign and national security policy? What characteristics does the Pentagon possess that make it such an influential player in the policy process?

Intro: Post-WWII FP institutions underwent dramatics structural changes to address new leadership demands and security threats. The NSC, State Department, and DoD have experience shifting influence since 1945 with the NSC centralizing decision-making, the State Department diminished by bureaucratic and political factors, and DoD leveraging its budget and wide range of operations to dominate policy implementation.

The NSC and its evolution:

• Original conceived under the 1947 National Security Act with the purpose to coordinate diplomacy, intelligence, and military strategy under a unified framework.

• Early years of the NSC utilized the formal council, post-Bay of Pigs personalization of staff and rise of the National Security Advisor, around the 1970s the National Security Advisor began to overshadow the Secretary of State

• Contemporary model (1989-present): Secretary of State is the public face of foreign affairs, but the security advisors do the actual work. This way the DOS doesn’t become completely idle

• Changed because of the need for rapid, secretive decision making (ex. Cuban Missile Crisis: needed a close, small staff to trust), Presidential preference, and the rise of new international threats demanded an updated framework

DOS and its decline:

• Highly bureaucratic and proved to be ill-suited for crisis response (ex. 1979 Iran hostage crisis mismanagement)

• Incremental budget cuts and reallocation to the DoD

• Post-Vietnam skepticism of diplomacy, post-9/11 militarization of policy, and overall view of the DOS as an elitist organization

DoD’s Ascendancy:

• Increase in budget

• Combatant commands are highly influential in shaping US and regional policies

• The military falls under the DoD and the general public has high respect for the military

The NSC centralized strategy, DOS lost relevance as the DoD became a policy driver through budget prowess and overall popularity. Rebalancing is necessary however: defense budget should be reassessed contributing more to foreign affairs and aid, and the NSC’s role should be defined as a coordinator, not and executor,of policy.

(Long essay)

How has political polarization and sectarianism affected the traditional separation-of-power dynamics between the executive branch and the legislative branch? How has it affected the process of democratic accountability?

Intro: Increased political polarization and sectarianism have distorted the constitutional checks and balances s. Hyper-partisanship has weakened Congress’s ability to constrain executive power, undermined bipartisan accountability mechanisms, and destabilized the separation-of-powers framework designed by the Founders.

1. Separation of powers

   • Executive overreach and unilateral actions: Partisan gridlock allows President to exploit tools such as executive agreements and the 2001 AUMF to advance their agendas

   • Congress is often unable to agree on issues that are often not even political due to sectarianism solely on the basis that they do not want to agree with their political opponents

   • Courts avoid FP disputes

2. Sectarianism’s role in undermining checks

   • Legislators prioritize opposing the rival party rather than the legislation (ex. Democrats resisting Trump and GOP’s border policies")

   • Impeachment as a partisan weapon rather than a constitutional check (impeachment attempts against both Trump and Biden)

   • Blocking of justice appointees for partisan gain

3. Consequences for democratic accountability

   • Political instability: “Whiplash:” pulling out, rejoining treaties damages global trust, China leveraging US weakness to expand global dominance

   • Public distrust: Fewer people than ever trust the government (all branches), partisan media narratives delegitimize FP decisions (ex. Deep State conspiracies)

Conclusion: Polarization and sectarianism have crippled Congress’s constitutional role, allowed for executive overreach, and eroded public trust in the state.