6 - Lecture(9/6 Lecture 4 Realism(2 1 Review and Readings...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lecture (9/6) Lecture 4: Realism (2) 1. Review and Readings Mamdani Reading Q: Mamdani claims that CIA ran around Middle East and created radical groups. Can you[Katzenstein] verify? A: had you heard of war in Afghanistan after 1979? Had you heard about alliance between Pakistan and USA-funding a lot of money to Pakistan? Part of anticommunist policy-strategic move. USSR had established public regime in Afghanistan (had been buffer for approx 100 states). Carter’s public policy turned around from soft to hard on this decision. It became clear that there would be an indigenous resistance movement, which we were supporting (with weapons such as stinger missile). Insurgent war in response to soviet expansion and created what later became Al-Quida. What’s the argument? – he makes one central claim about how to analyze politics. Don’t think of fundamentalist as something retrograde in culture. Fundamentalists are something extremely modern. Only by historicizing (taking historically) can you make sense of politics. Don’t think of cultures sitting outside of history. Tells narrative of American diplomacy in middle east and in Africa. Is it all bad to accommodate to terrorist regimes? – if you don’t then you become police of the world, chasing terrorists down in place that have nothing to do with American national interest. If you think about united states can and should do it probably shouldn’t be the police of the world. He tells history for middle east and for Africa and shows the relationship between US and terrorism; it’s a very competent(??) one. It isn’t the way we view terrorism after 9/11. What does all of this have to do with Louisiana or Mississippi? What would a realist think? How does a realist look at politics? (Think about chart last time; domestic realism; what was major trend?) – International dispersal of power, domestically growing power. Look at that characterization of last time and say Katzenstein is thinking about absolutism and he isn’t thinking about what the federal government can’t do; so here you see first of all bureaucracy; not being able to act because action is too complicated. What is another link between what is happening and realism? –one is spreading of resources, but we are a rich country. So, the resources argument seems to be not soo important. How would a realist think about this? –National interest argument: these people live in
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
permanent risk (there could be another hurricane again), we’re all better off not living in dangerous places. Would say “Let’s move both the poor and the rich out of dangerous places into safer but less desirable places” for realist domestic politics don’t matter; it’s all about being strong on the outside so this would be a fine reaction. Some realists say there is no domestic politics; we are all bipartisan, all support war in Iraq, because we are good Americans and we are all pulling same end of the rope. Other realists say that is preposterous.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 5

6 - Lecture(9/6 Lecture 4 Realism(2 1 Review and Readings...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online