Blog #2: IR Theory (Actual)

Bethany Cheney: http://bethanycheney.blogspot.com/

FitzGerald

Government 132

Week 3 Blog

11 October 2011

To begin, the Cuban Missile Crisis (also known as the October Crisis) was a dispute that took place in 1962 between the United States of America and Cuba (Utz). One of the after-effects of the Bay of Pigs, (an attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro by the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Government) the Cuban Missile Crisis was a stand off between Cuba and the U.S. due to the Soviet Union providing Cuba with nuclear weapons, which Cuba then secretly assembled and aimed at the United States. After learning of this threat the United States contemplated attacking Cuba, but instead issued a military quarantine around Cuba, prohibiting weapons from being shipped to Cuba (JFK Library). This United States also demanded that Cuba disassemble the completed weapons and cease to produce more. In late October of the same year, Cuba and the United States reached an agreement. The conditions were that Cuba would dismantle the weapons if the United States promised to never invade Cuba. Per the agreed upon conditions, the Cubans had removed all “offensive” material from the country and on November 20 1962 the quarantine officially ended (Thinkquest). The two international relations theories (IR theories) I will be using to analyze the event are realism and liberalism.

Realists, using the “billiard ball” theory discussed in class, believe that states are integrated units that speak with one voice and are also the most important actors in politics. Additionally, realists believe that, “No state can ever be certain that another state will not use its offensive military capability (Donnelly 7)”. Applying realism to analyze the Cuban Missile Crisis, both the United States and Cuba assumed that the other would attack (thus the “crisis”). Cuba was an integrated unit, especially under Fidel Castro (Cuban dictator at the time) who had recently entered into his position of power a few years before. One of the reasons the Soviet Union supplied Cuba with the weapons was that the United States was now militarily and politically dominant. The Soviet Union then felt they were faced with a security dilemma and turned to Cuba for support (Correll). Geographically, this is relevant because Cuba is less than 100 miles away from Florida. The Soviet Union placed weapons in Cuba because the United States would have no time to react to an attack, all the while claiming that it was a defense maneuver against the United States (Thinkquest). Realism accounts for the distrust between the two nations (the United States’ distrust for the relationship between Castro and Kruschev) and the arms race that occurred as a result. From a realist perspective, this event was also inevitable due to the imbalance of power between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (and the U.S. and Cuba).

Liberalism, according to our class notes, emphasizes the potential for cooperation in the international system. Using this theory, the United States and Cuba, while both holding drastically different political ideologies (democracy and communism), made the decision not to enter into physical confrontation. While the agreement made was not a long-term solution for the increasingly strained relations between the two countries, they still worked together within the international system to reach a compromise. Liberalism also holds that even if a state has the capability to do something, preferences are the determining factor for decision-making (Jackson). This is demonstrated by both Cuba and the United States possessing nuclear missiles, but neither using them in fear of all out nuclear war (Nye 141).

Looking at realism and liberalism, both are necessary to fully evaluate the Cuban Missile Crisis. Realism examines why the event took place (looking at the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the tension between the two countries) and liberalism explains why both countries decided to compromise. While the liberalism argument used may appear to be redundant, it is actually gauging the event using multiple aspects of the theory to further prove the point. Without using both theories, the Cuban Missile Crisis could not be fully understood.

Bibliography

Correll, John. "Airpower and The Cuban Missile Crisis." Airforce Magazine. Air Force

Association. Web. <http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2005/August%202005/0805u2.aspx>.

"Cuban Missile Crisis - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum." John F.

Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. Web. 5 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/Cuban-Missile-Crisis.aspx>.

Donnelly, Jack. Realism and International Politics. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of The

University of Cambridge, 2000. Print.

Jackson, Patrick. "A Brief History of U.S. Diplomacy." U.S. Diplomacy. School of

International Service, American University. Web. 4 Oct. 2011. <http://www.usdiplomacy.org/diplomacytoday/values/theories.php>.

 Nye, Joseph S., David Welch, and Joseph S. Nye. Understanding Global Conflict and

Cooperation: an Introduction to Theory and History. Boston: Pearson Longman, 2011. Print.

"An Overview on The Crisis." Oracle Thinkquest. Web. 6 Oct. 2011.

<http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/index.html>.

Utz, Curtis. "Cuban Missile Crisis." Naval History and Heritage Command. Naval

Historical Center, Aug.-Sept. 2006. Web. 7 Oct. 2011. <http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/cuban-mc.htm>

Govt. 132 Blog #2

Bethany Cheney: http://bethanycheney.blogspot.com/

FitzGerald

Government 132

Week 3 Blog

10 October 2011

To begin, the Bay of Pigs Invasion was an attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro (Cuban government head at the time) by the American government using Cuban exiles trained by the central intelligence agency (CIA). The invasion itself took place in April 1961, however it was originally suggested and planned by President Eisenhower in March of the previous year (JFK Library). The main problem with this operation was that it became widely known by Cuban exiles in Miami and eventually word spread all the way back to Cuba, i.e. Castro. The plan was executed on April 17, 1961 and 1,300 Cuban exiles landed on the southern coast of Cuba. Castro’s army stopped the invasion and two days later, 90 exiles had been killed and the remaining were taken prisoner (thinkquest).           

Due to the fact that for the previous blog assignment, I utilized the “groupthink” and “prospect theory”, I decided to choose the “levels of analysis” option for this assignment. This method is used to look at an event or even the international system in a way that makes understanding a certain decision or situation easier. The three levels of analysis are: individual, state, and system. These are loosely defined as, “the reasons why people (such as leaders) do what they do (the individual level of analysis), by looking at what happens within individual states (the state level), or by looking at the interactions between actors (the system level)”(Nye 48). The contemporary international event I will be evaluating is the Bay of Pigs Invasion (also known as “La Batalla de Girón”). The levels of analysis I will be utilizing are individual and state analysis.

            Using individual analysis, this event can be broken down and examined from the perspective of two people: President Kennedy and Fidel Castro. President Kennedy had been in office for about three months when he made the choice to go ahead with the invasion. The CIA had briefed him and there was already a plan in place. Kennedy was feeling pressured to make a good decision, the first which would define the atmosphere of the rest of his presidency. He also met little opposition from his advisors (symptom of groupthink):

“Presidential advisor Arthur Schlesinger, for instance, presented serious objections to the invasion in a memorandum to the president, but suppressed his doubts at the team meetings. Attorney General Robert Kennedy privately admonished Schlesinger to support the president's decision to invade… Many members assumed other members agreed with the invasion plan. “ (Irving, JFK)

Fidel Castro, on the other hand, already known as the commander-in-chief of Cuban armed forces, had advanced warning of the invasion. Castro had overthrown Fulgenico Batists, the former dictator only two years before and at the time of the invasion had a firm hold of Cuba (JFK Library). Castro had staff members, but as a dictator was the ultimate decision-maker. He most likely viewed Kennedy as a “green president”, especially since the invasion was so poorly kept under wraps. Castro had little to nothing to lose and easily deployed his army to the position of the exiles’ invasion.

            Using the state level analysis, the players involved would be the United States and Cuba. At the time of the invasion, Cuba was undergoing a leadership change. There were also strained relations between the two countries. The United States was even at this time a world power. Cuba was less powerful, but still a serious threat due to Castro’s relationship with Krushchev, leader of the Soviet Union (JFK Library). Both countries had more than face to lose over this, but due to it’s power and political standing, America recovered from what is referred to as  "one of those rare events in history -- a perfect failure. (Janis, Probe)”

            Both the individual and state levels of analysis are crucial for looking at the Bay of Pigs Invasion and the reasoning behind the decisions made. Looking at only the state level or only the individual level does not offer a thorough picture of the situation. Kennedy’s circumstances (being only recently inducted into office) greatly affected his decision, as opposed to someone who was a seasoned leader on a national level. Castro, while not in the same circumstance, was also an important player. However, the situation between America and Cuba as a whole was one of the catalytic factors in this invasion taking place. Therefore, without looking at this situation on at least two levels, the decisions made cannot be fully understood.

Bibliography

"The Bay of Pigs” - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum." John F. Kennedy

Presidential Library & Museum. JFK Library and Museum. Web. 11 Oct. 2011.

<http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/The-Bay-of-Pigs.aspx>.

"The Bay of Pigs Invasion." Oracle Thinkquest. Oracle. Web.

<http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/days/bay_of_pigs.html>.

JFK." Probe. Web. <http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4221087/>.

Nye, Joseph S., David Welch, and Joseph S. Nye. Understanding Global Conflict and

Cooperation: an Introduction to Theory and History. Boston: Pearson Longman, 2011. Print.

Govt. 132 Blog Assignment: Week 4

Bethany Cheney

FitzGerald

Government 132

Week 3 Blog

20 September, 2011

When hearing about the Blog assignment options for this class, I instantly gravitated towards the “flawed foreign policy” choice. Primarily, I made this decision because the concept of groupthink (“...a mode of thinking that people engage in when they are deeply involved in a cohesive in-group, when the members' strivings for unanimity overrides their motivation to realistically appraise other courses of action” [Janis, 1971]) is so interesting to me. The fact of the matter is that all leaders, from figureheads such as the Queen of England to hleaders such as the President of the United States have obstacles to overcome within their positions. Therefore, a large-scale decision made by any one of these leaders is subject to analysis and discussion. This alone is justification that while the leader is the one who made the final decision, cabinet members, advisors, and other lesser positions take part in the process as well.

The general causes of groupthink are the urge to conform/social pressure (from either fear or the need to consent) and/or a biased leader. The symptoms of groupthink may range from poor judgment concerning information that is contrary to the general view of the group and illusions of invulnerability (Fitzgerald).  One famous example of groupthink is the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.  This attack occurred late in 1941 during World War II and provoked the United States into joining the War, something the country/government was previously set against. Before the actual attack, the United States Government was weary of the increasingly poor relations between Japan and America.[1]. In response, the government anticipated an attack, but expected a different outcome due to poor strategic analysis (Wohlstetter). However, the military heads of each “hotspot” were expected to be prepared for an attack. The failed policy in this situation occurred when the officers at Pearl Harbor failed to take the warning seriously. One direct example of the officers’ failure to weigh the situation is when a submarine scope was spotted and sunk (which alerted the Navy to the first wave of attacks), the officers did not take this offense seriously (Department of Defense). The general consensus was that the Japanese would not attack Pearl Harbor for fear of it causing a war (which it did) and that even if the Japanese did launch an attack, it would be a very small scale assault . The consequence of the lack of concern from the officers was grave, resulting in the loss of over 2,000 American lives (The Pearl Harbor Attack). In hindsight, if the Americans had not been caught off guard and had been successful during the Attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States may not have ever entered into war which would have potentially changed the course of both country’s histories.

            The other side of this coin (choosing this option) is the “prospect theory” aspect. Prospect Theory is the idea that people will choose a certain “win” over a chancy (50%) win with a potential loss, unless the question is posed in a different manner resulting in a loss of what was gained. This behavior is classified as risk-averse behavior. The other type of behavior is called risk-seeking behavior, which is when a person or group chooses an option which has a higher gain, but also a higher potential of loss. An example of risk seeking behavior is found by analyzing the acts of Muammar Gaddafi, who was the ruler of Libya since overthrowing the previous ruler in 1969 (Viscusi). After the demonstration of peaceful protests against Gaddafi’s regime, the situation escalated and intensified as a result of military force unleashed on the protestors by Gaddafi. After a period of this conflict, Gaddafi eventually “lost face” in the eyes of his country due to the drastic measures he took out onto the protestors (this is the situational loss that eventually leads to risk seeking behavior). As a result, Gaddafi continually unleashed excessive force onto the protestors and even went as far as to execute his own soldiers who refused to take part in the violence (Maltasar). Specifically, Gaddafi’s excessive force on the people of Libya was an attempt for him to reclaim land that was taken by the protestors. He did not take careful measures that would have been considered diplomatic because he thought he had nothing to lose (only something to gain).

_______________________________________________________________________

http://www.maltastar.com/pages/r1/ms10dart.asp?a=14347

"The Pearl Harbor Attack, 7 December 1941." Naval History and Heritage Command. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. <http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq66-1.htm>.

Viscusi, Gregory. "Qaddafi Is No Mubarak as Regime Overthrow May Trigger a `Descent to Chaos' - Bloomberg." Bloomberg - Business & Financial News, Breaking News Headlines. Web. 20 Sept. 2011. <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-23/qaddafi-is-no-mubarak-overthrow-may-mean-descent-to-chaos-.html>.

---

Wohlstetter, Roberta. Pearl Harbor; Warning and Decision. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1962. Web.

Department of Defense. 50th Anniversary of World War II Commemorative Committee. Pearl Harbor: 50th Anniversary Commemorative Chronicle, "A Grateful Nation Remembers" 1941-1991. Washington: The Committee, 1991.