Taking Sides: Clashing Views in American Foreign Policy - Brossura

Bennett, Andrew; Shambaugh, George

Brossura

ISBN 10: 0073545643 ISBN 13: 9780073545646

Casa editrice: McGraw-Hill Education, 2009

Riassunto

This Fifth Edition of TAKING SIDES: CLASHING VIEWS IN AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY presents current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. Each issue is thoughtfully framed with an issue summary, an issue introduction, and a postscript. An online instructor’s manual with testing material is available for each volume in the TAKING SIDES series. USING TAKING SIDES IN THE CLASSROOM is also an excellent instructor resource with practical suggestions on incorporating this effective approach in the classroom. Each TAKING SIDES reader features an annotated listing of selected World Wide Web sites. Visit www.mhcls.com to view the current titles in the TAKING SIDES series.

Su questo libro

Contenuti:

TAKING SIDES: Clashing Views in American Foreign Policy, Fifth Edition

Table of Contents TAKING SIDES: Clashing Views in American Foreign Policy Fifth Edition Unit 1 The United States and the World: Strategic Choices Issue 1. Is American Hegemony Good for the United States and the World? YES: Michael Mandelbaum, from “David’s Friend Goliath,” Foreign Policy (January/February 2006) NO: Jack Snyder, from “Imperial Temptations,” The National Interest (Spring 2003) Michael Mandelbaum, a professor of international relations at Johns Hopkins University, argues that most countries in the world benefit greatly from America’s efforts to provide regional stability, limit proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and maintain a free trading system. As a result, other countries are not responding to America’s power by traditional power balancing. Jack Snyder, professor of international relations at Columbia University, argues that U.S. leaders have bought into the myths that entrapped imperial powers in the past, and that American unilateralism is creating nationalist backlashes against the United States, leading to a risk of imperial overstretch in which U.S. commitments would overburden American capabilities. Issue 2. Is the United States in Decline? YES: Richard N. Haass, from “The Age of Nonpolarity: What Will Follow U.S. Dominance,” Foreign Affairs (May/June 2008) NO: Robert J. Lieber, from “Falling Upwards: Declinism, the Box Set,” World Affairs Journal (Summer 2008) Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, maintains that the world is entering a period of “nonpolarity” due to the relative decline of the United States and the dispersal of power to both other states and nonstate actors. No single rival can match U.S. power, but the general dispersal of power will make it more difficult for the United States to achieve international cooperation on security, environmental, and economic issues. Robert J. Lieber, professor of government at Georgetown University, points out that forecasts of American decline in the 1970s and 1980s proved to be inaccurate. The United States retains a preponderance of power and America’s potential rivals face problems of their own that will prevent them from matching U.S. power. Issue 3. Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority? YES: Joseph Siegle, from “Developing Democracy: Democratizers’ Surprisingly Bright Development Record,” Harvard International Review (Summer 2004) NO: Tamara Cofman Wittes, from “Arab Democracy, American Ambivalence,” The Weekly Standard (February 23, 2004) Joseph Siegle, Douglas Dillon Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues that large numbers of countries are continuing to democratize and, because of the increase in accountability associated with democratization, they tend to experience economic growth as fast as, if not faster than, other countries in the same region. Tamara Cofman Wittes, research fellow in the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, argues that U.S. efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and the Arab Middle East are likely to fail unless the U.S. government matches its rhetoric with a credible commitment to promote policies institutionalizing the forward movement of liberalism in Iraq and the region at large. Unit 2 U.S. National Security Issues Issue 4. Should the United States Withdraw from Iraq Expeditiously? YES: Marc Lynch, from “How to Get Out of Iraq,” Foreign Policy (January 2009) NO: David H. Petraeus, from “Testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Armed Services” (September 10, 2007) Marc Lynch, associate professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University, argues that the situation in Iraq remains fragile, but that the failure to withdraw U.S. troops on the schedule President Barack Obama proposed on the campaign trail would cause renewed instability in Iraq. Gen. David Petraeus, commander of U.S. Central Command and former commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq, notes that the “surge” policy of increasing U.S. troops in Iraq and changing U.S. strategy and tactics has succeeded in greatly reducing violence in Iraq. This will allow reductions in the level of U.S. troops in Iraq, but further reductions must be contingent on whether Iraq remains stable. Issue 5. Should the United States Preemptively Attack Iran’s Emerging Nuclear Weapons Capability? YES: Norman Podhoretz, from “Stopping Iran: Why the Case for Military Action Still Stands,” Commentary (February 2008) NO: Scott D. Sagan, from “How to Keep the Bomb from Iran,” Foreign Affairs (September/October 2006) Norman Podhoretz, editor-at-large for Commentary magazine, asserts that Iran is continuing to pursue the acquisition of nuclear weapons, that carrots and sticks brandished by the United States and others have failed to slow this effort, and that the United States will soon have no alternative but military force if it is to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. Scott D. Sagan, professor of political science and director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, argues that other states have been dissuaded from acquiring or keeping nuclear weapons, and that Iran can be as well if the United States gives up the threat of changing the Iranian regime by force. Issue 6. Should the United States Negotiate with the Taliban? YES: Barnett R. Rubin and Ahmed Rashid, from “From Great Game to Grand Bargain: Ending Chaos in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” Foreign Affairs (November/December 2008) NO: Joseph J. Collins, from “To Further Afghan Reconciliation: Fight Harder,” Small Wars Journal (October 31, 2008) Barnett R. Rubin, director of studies and senior fellow at the Center on International Cooperation at New York University, and Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist and fellow at the Pacific Council on International Policy, propose that the U.S. should pursue negotiations with Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan and Pakistan to establish stability in the region. Joseph J. Collins, a retired army colonel who teaches at the National War College, asserts that many of the diverse groups fighting against the United States in Afghanistan are irrevocably opposed to U.S. goals and that the United States must achieve greater military successes in Afghanistan before pursuing any negotiations with the opposition so that it can bargain from a position of strength. Issue 7. Should the United States Allow Russia More Leeway in Eurasia in Exchange for Russian Help in Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Program? YES: Nikolas Gvosdev, from “Parting with Illusions: Developing a Realistic Approach to Relations with Russia,” CATO Institute, Policy Analysis No. 611 (February 29, 2008) NO: Stephen Sestanovich, from “What Has Moscow Done? Rebuilding U.S.-Russian Relations” Foreign Affairs (November/December 2008) Nikolas Gvosdev, senior editor of The National Interest and adjunct senior fellow at the Nixon Center, suggests that Russia is unlikely to be integrated into the Euro-Atlantic community and cannot be coerced into acquiescing in U.S. policies. The United States must prioritize its core interests vis-à-vis Russia, particularly the need for cooperation on non-proliferation and counterterrorism and allow Russia greater flexibility in policy issues that are more important to Russia than to the United States. Stephen Sestanovich, professor of international diplomacy at Columbia University and senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, rejects calls for a grand bargain with Russia, which in his view would not achieve greater Russian cooperation on Iran and other issues. Instead, the United States should pursue more modest and incremental steps to integrate Russia into a European security framework. Unit 3 The United States and the World: Regional and Bilateral Relations Issue 8. Should the United States Challenge a Rising China? YES: Aaron L. Friedberg, from “Are We Ready for China?” Commentary (October 2007) NO: Christopher Layne, from “China’s Challenge to US Hegemony,” Current History ( January 2008) Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University and director of Princeton 6;s Research Program in International Security. He served in the Office of the Vice President of the United States as deputy assistant for national security affairs and director of policy planning from 2003 to 2005. He argues that the Unit...

Product Description:

Book by Bennett Andrew Shambaugh George

Su questa edizione

• Editore: McGraw-Hill Education
• Data di pubblicazione: 2009
• ISBN 10: 0073545643
• ISBN 13: 9780073545646
• Rilegatura: Copertina flessibile
• Numero edizione: 5
• Numero di pagine: 349