Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in American Foreign Policy

This debate-style reader is designed to introduce students to controversies in American foreign policy. The readings, which represent the arguments of leading political scientists and researchers, reflect a variety of viewpoints. The readings have been selected for their liveliness and substance and for their value in a debate framework. By requiring students to analyze opposing viewpoints and reach considered judgments, Taking Sides actively develops student's critical thinking skills.

PART 1. The United States and the World: Strategic Choices

ISSUE 1. Should the United States Resist Greater Global Governance?

YES: Marc A. Thiessen, from “When Worlds Collide,” Foreign Policy (March/April 2001)

NO: Mark Leonard, from “When Worlds Collide,” Foreign Policy (March/April 2001)

Marc A. Thiessen, who serves on the minority staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, contends that globalists want to undermine the national independence of the world’s countries but that doing so would be a mistake. Mark Leonard, director of the Foreign Policy Centre in London, United Kingdom, maintains that all countries will benefit if each increasingly cooperates with multilateral organizations and adheres to international laws, rules, and norms.

ISSUE 2. Should the United States Have an Official Strategy of Preemption Against Potential Weapons of Mass Destruction Threats?

YES: President George W. Bush, from “The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,” National Security Strategy (September 20, 2002)

NO: Ivo H. Daalder and James M. Lindsay, from “Bush’s Revolution,” Current History (November 2003)

President George W. Bush’s official National Security Strategy argues that in an era in which "rogue" states and terrorists seek to obtain chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and in which terrorists have demonstrated a willingness and capability to attack the United States, the United States must be prepared to preemptively use force to forestall potential threats. Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and James Lindsay, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, argue that the Bush doctrine does not distinguish between "preemption" and "preventive war," and that the war in Iraq, the first war waged under the new doctrine, has been costly and damaging to the United States’ image and its relations with its allies.

ISSUE 3. Should Promoting Democracy Abroad Be a Top U.S. Priority?

YES: Joseph Siegle, from “Developing Democracy: Democratizers’ Suprisingly 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.

PART 2. U.S. National Security Issues

ISSUE 4. Was the War in Iraq Justified?

YES: Robert Kagan and William Kristol, from “The Right War for the Right Reasons,” The Weekly Standard (February 23, 2004)

NO: Paul Starobin, from “The French Were Right,” National Journal (November 8, 2003)

Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, argue that the war in Iraq was justified for a variety of reasons, and that we still don’t know conclusively whether Iraq might have been acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Paul Starobin, staff correspondent for the National Journal, argues that the French, chastened by their own failed anti-guerilla war in Algeria decades ago, were right in predicting a difficult occupation in Iraq.

ISSUE 5. Is Iraq Linked to Terrorism?

YES: Stephen F. Hayes, from “There They Go Again,” The Weekly Standard (June 28, 2004)

NO: John B. Judis and Spencer Ackerman, from “The Selling of the Iraq War: The First Casualty,” The New Republic (June 30, 2003)

Stephen Hayes, staff writer for The Weekly Standard, argues that evidence of meetings between Iraqi intelligence operatives and al Qaeda members suggest the possibility of deeper ties between the two than can be fully documented given the clandestine nature of their activities. John Judis and Spencer Ackerman, respectively senior and associate editors at The New Republic, argue that the Bush administration greatly exaggerated the intelligence information linking Iraq to al Qaeda.

ISSUE 6. Should the United States Withdraw from Iraq?

YES: Morton Abramowitz, from “Does Iraq Matter?” The National Interest (Spring 2004)

NO: Paul Wolfowitz, from “The Goal Is Worth the Fight,” Statement Before the House Armed Services Committee (June 22, 2004)

Morton Abramowitz, a former U.S. diplomat who heads the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, argues that Iraq is not as vital to the war on terror as many believe and that U.S. security and diplomacy might well benefit by withdrawing from Iraq in the course of a year. Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, argues that success in Iraq is essential to success in the war on terror, and that the United States needs to remain in Iraq until it has created the conditions for stability there.

ISSUE 7. Should the United States Foster a Partition of Iraq?

YES: Timothy Noah, from “Should We Partition Iraq?” Slate (April 27, 2004)

NO: Carl Bildt, from “The Dangerous Idea of Partitioning Iraq,” International Herald Tribune (May 20, 2004)

Timothy Noah, contributing editor of The Washington Monthly and author of Slate’s "Chatterbox" column, argues that a managed partition of Iraq might be preferable to the ongoing conflict in that country. Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden, draws on his experience as the European Union representative to the Former Yugoslavia to argue that fostering a partition of Iraq would unleash a civil and international conflict even more bloody than the one he dealt with in the Balkans in the 1990s.

ISSUE 8. Is Building a Ballistic Missile Defense System a Wise Idea?

YES: Brian T. Kennedy, from “Protecting Our Nation: The Urgent Need for Ballistic Missile Defense,” Vital Speeches of the Day (January 1, 2002)

NO: John F. Tierney, from “Administration’s Policy on National Missile Defense,” Congressional Record (June 12, 2001)

Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute and editor of , contends that United States remains defenseless against attacks from ballistic missiles armed with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons and that the national security focus on terrorism since September 11 has not diminished this threat nor the urgent need for a ballistic missile defense system. Representative John F. Tierney (D-Massachusetts) argues that it is not clear that building a ballistic system is possible, that trying to do so will be excessively expensive, and that the drive to acquire such a system could undermine nuclear detterence and stability.

PART 3. The United States and the World: Regional and Bilateral Relations

ISSUE 9. Is Pakistan an Asset in the War on Terror?

YES: Teresita C. Schaffer, from “Strategic Trends in South Asia,” Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, House International Relations Committee (March 17, 2004)

NO: Alex Alexiev, from “The Pakistani Time Bomb,” Commentary (March 2003)

Teresita Schaffer, director of the South Asian Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, notes many problems in Pakistan’s domestic and foreign policies, but holds out the hope that Pakistan is getting more serious about cracking down on terrorists in Pakistan and pursuing peace in its troubled relations with India. Alex Alexiev, vice president for research at the Center for Security Policy, argues that Pakistani politics, and especially the Pakistani educational system, have become dangerously open to the influence of radical Islam.

ISSUE 10. Is the "Roadmap to Peace" in the Middle East the Right Map to Follow?

YES: David M. Satterfield, from “Resolving the Arab-Israeli Conflict,” Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (July 20, 2004)

NO: Hussein Agha and Robert Malley, from “Ditch the Road Map. Just Get There, Already,” Washington Post (September 7, 2003)

David M. Satterfield, principal deputy secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, contends that current Israeli plans to withdraw from Gaza offer an opportunity to move forward with efforts by initiated by the United States and members of the international community to promote mutual accommodation between Israel and the Palestinians. Hussein Agha, senior associate member of St. Antony ’s College at the University of Oxford, and Robert Malley, Middle East program director at the International Crisis Group in Washington and former special adviser to the president for Arab-Israeli affairs, argue that the incremental ...