Rumsfeld Interview

Given this piece from the other day, I thought this was an appropriate followup.  Daily Show fans have probably already seen his interview from last night with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumseld, but for those who have not I would recommend it.  Rumsfeld was unquestionably one of the most important architects of the Iraq war, … Read more

Quick Post

So it's been a little while since I've posted here (very busy times these are).  Anyway, I wanted to link to this post by Phil Arena over at his blog.  Phil discusses how his views on various topics related to IR have changed over the past few years.  I agree with a lot of what he has to say on these issues–I think a lot of what IR scholars focus on, to the extent that we're interested in the domestic forces generating foreign policy outcomes, tend to place too much stock in the qualities we typically assume to characterize democracies and autocracies.  I also agree that economic forces play a huge role in shaping the incentives of political actors–particularly the elites that Arena mentions. 

Read more

The International Relations Implications of Chinese Parenting Practices

By now I'm sure most people have come across Amy Chua's recent Wall Street Journal article.  After reading David Brooks' response to Chau's article, I've begun to think of some of some of the international relations implications of Chua's Chinese parenting style.  Specifically, I'm curious to see what her revelations imply for China's ascendency in … Read more

CRACK

I found this link via Andrew Gelman's blog the other day: CRACK Mapmaking software for Mac I haven't had much of a chance to play with it, but it looks like it could be useful.  I've had a few instances in class this semester where I've wanted to make some maps of the US to … Read more

How Things That Don’t Make Sense Can Make Sense

Tom Ricks at Foreign Policy has a brief article discussing questions posed to General Petraeus by Republican senators recently.  Just a few thoughts on this issue…

Read more

Realist and Liberal takes on Diplomacy and Honor

For the better part of the past half-century the two most prominent theoretical approaches to the study of international relations have been realism and liberalism.  Realism, viewing the state as a unitary and rational actor, argues that states pursue their own interests in an anarchic international environment.  The ability to accomplish their goals, however, is curbed by the fact that other states are similarly engaged in the pursuit of their own interests.  Ultimately realists view the potential struggles generated over conflicting interests to be determined by the distribution of power in the international system.  Generally speaking, "stronger" states will prevail while weaker states do not (Morgenthau 1948, Waltz 1979). 

Alternatively, liberal scholars tend to disagree with the realist assumptions that the state is a unitary and rational actor, instead proposing that we can improve our understanding of state behavior by examining the interests of domestic political actors, looking at the incentives and constraints established by the domestic political institutions within the state, focusing on legal and moral aspects of international behavior, etc.  Whereas realist arguments view the state as having one national interest, liberal views may interpret the so-called "national interest" as simply the reflection of the dominant political coalition in the state, or as the end result of values and norms associated with domestic political institutions and structures (Trubowitz 1998, Russett and Oneal 2001).

While the debate has cooled somewhat in recent years, Ferrell and Robinson (2009) have offered a rather unique take on the issue.

Keep reading for more…

Read more

Lessons From the Past? Or Justifying an Idiosyncratic Research Agenda?

I remember reading Michael Tomz's book Reputation and International Cooperation: Sovereign Debt Across Three Centuries for a seminar a couple of years ago, and someone having made a remark about how Tomz was probably just really interested in the time period or the subject matter, but had to frame the research in such a way as to justify its relevance beyond what might be the author's more narrow interests.  Since then I've had a few discussions with some of my advisers on the topic of how we frame our research–essentially how we sell a line of research as relevant to our field.  Overall though, I've found that this is a topic that seems to have stayed out of in-class discussions for the most part.

Read more

Economy of Force and Asymmetric Conflicts

Joshua Keating at Foreign Policy had a piece posted a couple of days ago that just caught my eye.  It basically talks about the current status of terrorist training camps and what the itinerary for the typical attendee entails.  It's pretty brief, but I think it covers some interesting subject matter.  And let me preface … Read more

RAND and Rational Choice Theory

Soldiers of Reason by Alex Abella focuses on the history of the RAND Corporation, a government-sponsored think tank that was highly influential in setting the underpinnings of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War.  In terms that sometimes border on conspiracy theory, Abella casts RAND as the primary strategic force driving American foreign policy since the end of World War II. But Abella’s account of RAND drives far deeper than just another analysis of Cold War foreign policy or academic assault on U.S. empire.  He mounts a fundamental critique of rational choice theory itself.

Read more

The Dark Knight and Game Theory

If you have not already seen The Dark Knight, then you should read this post at a later time as to avoid spoilers after the jump.  Otherwise, follow the jump for a game theoretic discussion derived from the movie that has already broken two box office records for both best midnight opening and top first day revenue.  I personally enjoyed the movie immensely, but that discussion does not follow.

So, officially, consider this a spoiler alert for what follows.

Read more