Objectives:

1. Summarize the different types of politics involved in American foreign policy.

   1. American foreign policy typically involves majoritarian, interest-group, or client politics. Decisions about going to war largely raise questions about majoritarian politics; trade and defense spending issues often incorporate interest-group politics; and foreign-aid debates usually bring in client politics.

2. Discuss the constitutional and legal context for making American foreign policy.

   1. The Constitution states that the president is commander-in-chief of the military, and the Supreme Court generally has endorsed broad executive power in foreign affairs, particularly for military intervention. The president often has sent troops to fight without a declaration of war, but Congress invariably supports. Technically, the president should get Congress' approval under the War Powers Act, but if Americans are already fighting, it becomes very difficult for Congress to say no.

3. Explain how political elites and public opinion influence American foreign policy.

   1. Elite views matter greatly because most Americans pay little attention to foreign affairs most of the time. And on many key issues, the public disagrees with elites. But when the president sends troops overseas to fight, the public will rally in support.

4. Explain the key challenges that the United States faces in foreign affairs and defense politics today.

   1. In the 21st century, the United States faces the challenges of protecting American national security, combating terrorism, and exercising global leadership to advance American ideals and interests. To achieve these goals, the United States must maintain a well-organized decision-making structure for military choices.

Kinds of Foreign Policy:

• Majoritarian politics

  • Foreign policy is perceived to confer widespread benefits, impose widespread costs.

  • Ex: War, military alliances, Nuclear test ban or strategic arms limitation treaties, etc.

• Interest-group politics

  • Identifiable groups pitted against one another for costs, benefits

  • Example: Tariffs on Japanese steel

• Client politics

  • Benefits to identifiable group, without apparent costs to any distinct group

  • Examples: Arab Americans are pressing government with concerns that differ from those pressing a pro-Israel agenda, Aid to U.S. corporations doing business abroad

• Who has power?

  • Majoritarian politics: President dominates; public opinion supports but does not guide the president

  • Interest-group or client politics: Larger congressional role

  • Entrepreneurial politics: Congress the central political arena

The Constitutional and Legal Context:

• Constitution creates an “invitation to struggle” between the president and Congress on war powers.

  • President is the commander in chief, but Congress appropriates the money.

  • President appoints ambassadors, but Senate confirms them.

  • President negotiates treaties, but the Senate must ratify them with a two-thirds vote.

  • Only Congress can regulate commerce with other nations and declare war.

• Presidents have been relatively strong in foreign affairs.

  • More success in Congress on foreign affairs than on domestic affairs

  • President may be stronger than the Framers intended regarding military deployment and diplomacy.

  • Yet presidents have been comparatively weak in foreign affairs by standards of other democratic nations.

• Checks on presidential power

  • Checks on presidential power are chiefly political rather than constitutional.

  • Congress: Control of purse strings

  • Congress also limits the president’s ability to give military or economic aid to other countries

The Machinery of Foreign Policy:

• Consequences of major power status for United States following World War II

  • President more involved in foreign affairs

  • More agencies shape foreign policy.

• Foreign affairs no longer coordinated by Department of State

  • Job is too big.

  • Many agencies have foreign missions abroad (Defense, CIA, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, FBI, DEA, and AID).

  • Most of these agencies owe no political or bureaucratic loyalty to the secretary of state.

• National Security Council (NSC) was created to coordinate departments and agencies.

  • Chaired by president and includes vice president, secretaries of state and defense; usually includes the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), chair of Joint Chiefs of Staff, attorney general

  • National security adviser (NSA) heads staff

  • Has grown in influence since JFK

  • Downgraded by Reagan, but NSC appointees precipitated Iran-contra scandal

  • NSA may rival the secretary of state.

• Consequences of multicentered decision-making machinery for policy decisions

  • “It’s never over,” due to rivalries within and between executive and legislative branches.

  • Agency positions are influenced by agency interests.

Foreign Policy and Public Opinion:

• Public tends to support the president in crises.

  • Strong support (“rally round the flag”) for presidential foreign policy initiatives

  • Boost in popularity often occurs immediately after crisis.

    • Exceptions: No boost when Clinton sent troops to Bosnia or launched attacks on Iraq.

    • Attacks of 9/11 boosted George W. Bush’s favorability rating from 51 percent to 86 percent.

  • Military casualties often lead the public to support escalation so that fighting will end more quickly.

• Tradition of opposition

  • About 20 percent of Americans opposed invading Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea.

  • Opposition is generally highest among Democrats, African Americans, and people with postgraduate degrees.

• Mass opinion

  • Generally poorly informed about foreign policy

  • But since World War II, public has generally felt the United States should play an important international role.

• Elite opinion

  • Well informed, but opinions are likely to change

  • Leaders are more liberal and internationalist than the public.

  • Cleavage between mass and elite opinion even wider if elite is restricted only to those involved in making foreign policy

Cleavages Among Foreign Policy Elites: Four World Views

• Isolationism paradigm (1920s–1930s)

  • Opposed getting involved in wars

  • Adopted after World War I, because that war accomplished little

• Containment (antiappeasement) paradigm (1940s–1960s)

  • Pearl Harbor ended isolationism in United States.

  • Reaction to appeasement of Hitler in Munich

  • Postwar policy to resist Soviet expansionism

• Disengagement (Vietnam) paradigm (1970s, continuing)

  • Reaction to military defeat and political disaster of Vietnam

  • Vietnam interpreted in three ways:

    • Containment was the correct worldview, but the United States did not try hard enough to win the war.

    • Correct worldview but it was applied in wrong place, under wrong circumstances

    • Worldview itself was wrong.

• Critics believed the containment worldview was wrong and adopted a new isolationism.

• Human rights

  • Prevent genocide: The mass murder of people, usually because of their race or ethnicity

  • Applied unevenly and without historical awareness

• New question arose after the 9/11 attacks: Should the United States act unilaterally or only with a broad coalition?

The Use of Military Force:

• Military power still important, even after end of Cold War

• Functioning of military is affected by politics

  • Majoritarian politics

    • Everyone is protected, every taxpayer pays.

    • President is commander in chief, and Congress has a supportive role.

  • Client politics

    • Beneficiaries are generals, defense contractors, and members of Congress.

    • Military budget reflects lobbying skills of the military-industrial complex.

• War in Iraq: precipitating events

  • Saddam Hussein left in power after U.S.-led coalition expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait.

  • Restrictions imposed on Iraq by UN following withdrawal from Kuwait.

    • No-fly zone, Prohibitions against weapons of mass destruction (WMDs)

    • Required to allow UN inspectors to search for chemical, biological, or nuclear materials

  • Between 1997 and 2003, Hussein violated UN rules

    • UN inspectors found evidence of WMDs in 1997.

    • Hussein expelled inspectors from Iraq

    • Gave misleading statements to American and British leader

  • United States response

    • Unable to convince UN to support war

    • Decided, along with Great Britain and other allies, to act independently

    • Launched Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003

      • Iraqi army defeated in six weeks.

      • Inspectors found no evidence of WMDs.

  • Helped to organize interim government, new constitution, and regular government, but efforts hampered by terrorist activities of insurgents.

  • Eroding political support in United States led to loss of Republican congressional majority in 2006 elections.

  • In 2007, President George W. Bush announced new military strategy (“surge”) that improved conditions in Iraq.