THE COLLEGE OF INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRSNATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY

CISA 6903 THE ORIGINS OF CONFLICT AND WAR

Academic Year 2013–2014Fall Semester

Dr. Andrew Novo Dr. Michael S. BellAssistant Professor, ISS Dept. Chancellor, College ofCourse Director International Security Affairs

Course Schedule

Section Class Topics and Readings

Section I: The Clash of History and Theory

1 Intro and Theories of War and Peace2 Theories of War and Peace3 Histories of War and Peace4 History Versus Theory

Section II: Great Power War

5 The Peloponnesian War6 The Peloponnesian War7 The First World War8 The First World War9 The Second World War in the Pacific10 The Second World War in the Pacific

CISA RESEARCH AND WRITING WEEK

Section III: Great Power Rivalry11 The Cold War12 The Cold War

Section IV: War Within States13 Civil War and Insurgency

14 Civil War and Insurgency

Section V: Contemporary Conflict

15 Wars of Principle: The Falklands16 Wars of Principle: The Falklands17 Wars of Choice? Iraq and

Intervention18 Wars of Choice? Iraq and

InterventionCISA RESEARCH AND WRITING WEEK

Section VI: Conflict Duration, Termination, andthe Future of War

19 Duration20 Duration21 Termination22 The Future of War

23 The Future of War

NDU Nonattribution Policy

This document contains educational material designed to promote discussion by students of the College of International Security Affairs (CISA). It does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Defense University or the Department of Defense.

The contents of this document are the property of the U.S. Government and are intended for the exclusive use of the faculty and students of the CISA and/or the National Defense University (NDU). No further dissemination is authorized without the express consent of the Chancellor, CISA and the NDU President.

Presentations by guest speakers, seminar leaders, and panelists, including renowned public officials and scholars, constitute an important part of University curricula. So that these guests, as well as faculty and other University officials, may speak candidly, the University offers its assurance that their presentations at the Colleges, or before other NDU-sponsored audiences, will be held in strict confidence. This assurance derives from a policy of non-attribution that is morally binding on all who attend: without the express permission of the speaker, nothing he or she says will be attributed to that speaker directly or indirectly in the presence of anyone who was not authorized to attend the lecture.

Faculty

Professor:

Dr. William Anthony RiveraC352BAaron Bank HallFort Bragg

Office: 910-643-6546Cell: 305-924-5305

Course IntroductionThis course seeks to promote understanding of the various ways in which scholars

have addressed the origins of conflict and war. We will attempt a basic understanding of what war and conflict are and how they differ from other forms of political violence (particularly those carried out by non-state actors). We will examine historical trends, and discuss fundamental theories in the security studies field while studying a number of historical cases. The course also explores the tension between social science explanations for conflict and war based on theory and general principles, and the more particularist focus of historians on a weekly basis.

The aim of this core course is to study in depth some of the central questions in the international history of the twentieth century and to discuss them in relation to the major theoretical issues that they raise. The overall aim is to equip students with a sound knowledge of the empirical and theoretical aspects of the discipline of international relations and of the relationship between history and theory.

This course is divided into six sections. Section I outlines major currents and tensions between how political scientists and historians view the causes of war. It engages with concepts of methodology and applicability, as well as outlining the major currents in international relations theory. Section II raises the issue of war among great powers through three historical cases. The various cases raise issues of how polarity, the balance of power, alliances, culture, and domestic political structures influence conflict and war. Section III looks at great power rivalry without war and the pitfalls and potentialities of bipolarity. Section IV takes a slightly different view, looking at internal conflicts and how violence within states is similar and different to conflict among states. Section V focuses on the motivations and aspects for more contemporary state on state conflicts, while Section VI challenges us to think about why states continue to fight, their war aims, the objectives of peace agreements, and the future of war itself as a useful instrument of policy.

Students who complete “The Origins of Conflict and War” should demonstrate the ability to:

Understand the relationship between history and theory in strategic studies

Understand the neo-realist levels of analysis and their interdependence

Understand the significance of origin theories in creating theories of conflict termination

Understand how theories of the origins of conflict interact and affect multiple levels of analysis.

Understand the changing nature of warfare today

Apply classroom theories to relevant cases and facilitate understanding of how and why armed conflicts occur

Course RequirementsThe required readings listed for each topic should be read before the seminar meets. The faculty has selected the readings for their relevance, quality of ideas, readability, and timeliness. Supplemental readings are offered for background reference and for those who might wish to pursue a particular topic in greater depth, but they are neither required nor reprinted. They are particularly useful as additional sources for papers and in-class presentations.

The specific graded elements of the course are:

1. Class Contribution: Students are expected to attend class. Faculty may assign additional work for unexcused absences. Students are also expected to have read the assigned readings and to be prepared for class discussion. Students are encouraged to use the “Issues for Consideration” in each section as a guideline for the topics that will be discussed in class. Students are required to leave comments on the topic discussion board for that week and review all comments before coming to class. Class contribution constitutes 20% of the final grade.

2. Discussion Papers/Presentation: Each student will complete 3 three-page discussion papers (12 pt font with standard 1.25 inch margins) one of which will be used for a 5-10 minute presentation to the class to kickoff discussion on that particular week’s topic. Topics will be chosen during the first week. The papers will be due by the end of the class for which those readings are assigned. Arguments should be constructed utilizing evidence from the week’s readings and other scholarly sources (e.g. journal articles and books). The grade will reflect a combination of the paper’s quality and the quality of the presentation. There will be no student presentations for week 1. This assignment will comprise 30% of the final grade.

3. Final Paper: Students will complete a research paper based on the questions relating to each week. The final paper topic must come from a different week than the students’ discussion papers/presentation. The paper will comprise 50 percent of the course grade. Students should select their topics and turn in an annotated outline with clear thesis statement by 26 September. This will be graded and considered part of the Final Paper grade. By 31 October students must submit a rough draft of the paper. This must include revisions from instructor comments on annotated outline. Students are strongly encouraged to meet with the professor to discuss paper topics, outlines, and drafts.

1. Required Format: The body of the paper should be 15–20 pages, double-spaced, 12-point font, with standard 1.25 inch margins. It is expected that all papers will be properly referenced with footnotes, paginated, and have a bibliography. Please refer to the Chicago Manual of Style for the correct format. Students can also access the CISA citation style guide on the college’s website.

2. Final papers are due on the last day of class.

The final grade for the course will be computed with the following weights:

Class Participation: 20%Discussion Paper/Presentation: 30%Final Paper: 50%

Letter Grade

Grade Points

NumericalScale Criteria

A 4.0 93.00–100 Firm command of knowledge domain; High level of analytical developmentA- 3.67 90.00–92.99

B+ 3.33 87.00–89.99 Command of knowledge beyond minimum; Advanced analytical development

B 3.0 83.00–86.99B- 2.67 80.00–82.99C+ 2.33 77.00–79.99 Command of only basic

concepts of knowledge;Demonstrated basic analytical ability

C 2.0 73.00–76.99

C- 1.67 70.00–72.99

The following serve as guidelines in the assessment of students in the course.

Papers:

There are six cornerstones of a superior paper:

1. It establishes the relevant question clearly;

2. It answers the question in a highly analytical manner;

3. It proposes a well-defined thesis, stated early on;

4. It presents evidence to support that thesis;

5. It addresses, explicitly or implicitly, opposing arguments or weaknesses in the thesis and supporting evidence (this constitutes a counterargument); and,

6. It accomplishes the above in a clear and well-organized fashion.

Standards for assessing student papers are as follows:

A (93–100): Work of superior quality that contains original thought.

A- (90–92): Work of high quality that demonstrates original thought.

B+ (87–89): A sound effort which meets all six cornerstones above.

B (83–86): A solid essay which is, on the whole, a successful consideration of the topic.

B- (80–82): An essay that addresses the question and has a clearly-stated thesis, but which fails fully to support the thesis and either does not address counterarguments thoroughly, has serious structural flaws, or does not fully develop conclusions.

C+ (77–79): Sufficiently analytical to distinguish it from a C, but lacks sufficient support, structure, analysis, or clarity.

C (73–76): Expresses a reasonable argument but makes inadequate use of evidence, has little coherent structure, is critically unclear, or lacks the quality of insight deemed sufficient adequately to explore the issue at hand.

C- (70–72): Attempts to address the question but does not come to a responsible, defensible conclusion worthy of serious attention or is below average in one or more of the six cornerstones listed above to require significant remedial effort.

F (69 and below): The submission does not merit graduate credit. Students may be asked to resubmit the essay.

Class Contribution:

The following standards are employed to assess student grades for seminar contribution:

A (93–100): Strikes the good balance between “listening” and “contributing.” Demonstrates superior preparation for each session as reflected in the quality of contributions to group discussion. Frequently demonstrates insightful and original thought. Respects the opinions of others but challenges when appropriate.

A- (90–92): Above the average expected of a graduate student. Well prepared for classroom discussion at each seminar session. Respects the views of colleagues and, by quality of contributions, commands their respect in return.

B+ (87–89): A solid contributor to seminar sessions. Joins in most discussions. Contributions to group understanding of the topic and discussions reflect understanding of the material. Respectful of the views of others.

B (83–86): Contributions to discussions reflect average preparation for class. Supports group efforts. Occasionally interrupts others.

B- (80–82): Contributes. Often speaks out without having thought the issue through. Sometimes fails to show regard for a colleague’s opinions or proper consideration or courtesy toward others in the seminar group.

C+ (77–79): Generally prepared. Sometimes contributes voluntarily; more frequently needs to be encouraged to enter into discussions. Routinely allows others to take the lead in group discussions.

C (73–76): Preparation is adequate, but frequently fails to respect the views of others, is sometimes belligerent in discourse with colleagues and/or instructor. Rarely steps forward to assume a fair share in group discussions. Usually content to let others form the class discussions and develop required seminar positions.

C- (70–72): Minimal contribution to group discussions suggesting lack of preparation for classroom sessions, as well as little or no interest in contributing to group endeavors. Sometimes displays a negative attitude.

F (69 and below): Class preparation and contributions do not merit graduate credit. Student will be referred to the faculty, faculty advisor or Dean of Students for counseling.

Course Readings

Course Books:

Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, (New York: Doubleday, 1995)

James Joll and Gordon Martel, The Origins of the First World War, 3rd ed. (London: Pearson Longman, 2007)

Joseph S. Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History, 9th ed. (New York: Longman, 2012)

Additional Core Readings will be delivered to all students via Blackboard

Section I: The Clash of Theory and History

Week 1: Theories of War and PeaceThis session will explore how political scientists conceptualize the origins of war. It introduces some of the major theories of war and peace in the discipline of international relations. It introduces Kenneth Waltz’s three levels of analysis: “man,” “the state,” and “the international system,” as well as concepts of anarchy, security, offensive and defense realism, and the democratic peace theory.

Study Questions:1. How does the balance of power affect the likelihood of conflict in liberalism

versus realism?2. Do liberalism and realism differ in their understanding of human nature?

Core reading:Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye Jr., “Power and Interdependence in the

Information Age,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 5 (Sep.-Oct. 1998); 81-94.

John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2001), pp.1-54, 138-167.

Stephen M. Walt, “International Relations: One World, Many Theories,” Foreign Policy, Issue 110, Spring 1998; 29-35.

Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), pp.1-15.

Kenneth N. Waltz, “The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 18, Issue 4, Spring 1998; 615-628.

Supplemental reading:Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism, (New

York: Norton, 1997).

John Owen, “How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace,” Debating the Democratic Peace, eds. Michael Brown, Sean M. Lynn-Jones, and Steven E. Miller, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993).

Kenneth Waltz, Man, the State, and War: A Theoretical Analysis, (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001).

Alexander Wendt, “Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics,” International Organization, Vol. 46, No. 2, (Spring, 1992); 391-425.

Week 2: Histories of War and PeacePlaying off the theoretical explanations for conflict offered in Week 1, this session will compare and contrast how historians conceptualize the origins of war in general terms and apply the historian’s craft to the study of conflict among states.

Study Questions:1. What tools do historians use to explain the behavior of states?2. How do historians differ in their exploration of the causes of war from political

scientists?

Core reading:Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, (New York:

Doubleday, 1995), pp.1-13, 566-574.

Michael Howard, The Causes of War, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), pp.7-22, 36-48, 188-245.

James Joll and Gordon Martel, The Origins of the First World War, 3rd ed. (London: Pearson Longman, 2007), pp.12-44

Supplemental reading:Jack Levy and William Thompson, Causes of War, (London: Wiley, Blackwell, 2010).

Week 3: History vs. TheoryIn this session, we will tie together the ideas from Weeks 1 and 2. Students will debate the use and abuse of history and the tensions between explaining conflict through history or through international relations theory. The debate will weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each discipline before proceeding to the case studies. The debate will center on how each discipline frames the questions, the utility of the answers, what it can accomplish, the claims that it makes, and where it might fall short.

Study Questions:1. What is the methodological conflict between the aims of political scientists and

historians in their attempts to explain conflict and war?2. Where do history and political science, respectively, fall short in their explanatory

power concerning the origins of conflict and war?

Core reading:John Lewis Gaddis, The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past, (Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2002), pp.1-11, 53-70, 95-109.

Joseph S. Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History, 9th ed. (New York: Longman, 2012), pp.TBD

Supplemental reading:Yuen Foong Khong, Analogies at War: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam

Decisions of 1965, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 3-18 and 97-147.

Richard E. Neustadt and Ernest R. May, Thinking in Time: The Uses of History for Decision Makers, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986)

Section II: Great Power War

Week 4: The Peloponnesian WarThis session introduces our first case study, the Peloponnesian War. Although fought nearly two and half thousand years ago, the struggle between Athens and Sparta continues to influence our views on war and peace, largely because of the masterful history produced on the subject by the Athenian Thucydides, who served as a commander during the war. This course will challenge students to read Thucydides as a historian and to note the pitfalls of reading him as a social scientist. In sum, we treat his History of the Peloponnesian War as a text that can be used (and abused) with different disciplinary lenses.

Study Questions:1. What do the strategies employed by the two sides in the war tell us about the

reasons they went to war?2. Thucydides argues that the war was caused “by the rise of Athenian power and

the fear this caused in Sparta.” Does this argument place the blame for the start of the war on Athens or on Sparta?

Core reading:Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, trans. Richard Crawley (New York: The Modern

Library, 1982). Book I.1; 24-146. [NB: These are not page numbers, but the book and verse numbers. As such, they are relevant to any edition.]

Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, (New York: Doubleday, 1995), pp. 15-79.

Laurie Bagby, “The Use and Abuse of Thucydides,” International Organization 48, no. 1 (Winter, 1994); 131-53.

Supplemental reading:Victor Davis Hanson, A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the

Peloponnesian War, (New York: Random House, 2005).

Donald Kagan, The Outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1969).

Week 5: The Origins of the First World WarThis seminar focuses on the conflicting perceptions of the origins of the First World War. In particular, it will ask students to think about systemic level explanations—the balance of power—as well as state-level factors in Germany (a rising power) and Austria-Hungary (a multi-national empire). It will challenge students to compare and contrast different disciplinary approaches to the same case study and to discern the points of agreement and disagreement between political scientists and historians.

Study Questions:1. Was the First World War the result of the operation or of the breakdown of the

“balance of power?”2. Was Germany responsible for the First World War?

Core reading:James Joll, The Origins of the First World War, (London: Pearson, 2007), pp.49-82, 87-

109, 115-132, 138-164, 170-174, 178-179, 219-248.

Stephen Van Evera, “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War,” International Security, Vol. 9 No. 1 (Summer, 1984); 58-107.

Supplemental reading:David Fromkin, Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914? (New

York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004).

Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, (New York: Doubleday, 1995), pp.81-231.

Joseph S. Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History, 9th ed. (New York: Longman, 2012), pp.TBD

Marc Trachtenberg, History and Strategy, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), Ch. 2, “The Coming of the First World War.”

Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August, (New York: Macmillan, 1988).

Week 6: The Origins of the Second World WarAlthough grappling with the Second World War as a whole, this section is particularly focused on the origins of the conflict in Asia, particularly relations between the United States and Japan. It offers different views on the social, political, and economic factors that drove the two nations to war in 1941 and gives perspectives on a non-European conflict.

Study Questions1. What failures in Japanese diplomacy led to the outbreak of the Second World War

in Asia and the Pacific?

2. Which “level of analysis” best explains the relationship between Germany and Japan between 1933 and 1941?

Core reading:Dale C. Copeland, “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade

Expectations,” in Brown, et al. Theories of War and Peace, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998); 464-501.

Akira Iriye, The Origins of the Second World War in Asia and the Pacific, (New York: Longmans, 1987), pp.50-81, 140-185.

Joseph S. Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction to Theory and History, 9th ed. (New York: Longman, 2012), pp.TBD

Scott Sagan, “The Origins of the Pacific War,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4 (Spring 1988), 893-922.

Supplemental reading:M.A. Barnhart, Japan Prepares for Total War: The Search for Economic Security, 1919-

1941, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987).

Donald Kagan, On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace, (New York: Doubleday, 1995), 281-436.

Richard J. Overy, The Origins of the Second World War, (New York: Pearson Longman,2008)

Section III: Great Power Rivalry

Week 7: The Origins of the Cold WarThis session will look at two aspects of the early post-war period: reconstruction and the onset of the Cold War between the superpowers. Students will revisit the “levels of analysis’ framework and engage with the theoretical literature on hegemonic stability. It will also explore the concept of the “long peace” and how conflict between the superpowers did not become war.

Study Questions:1. Which “level of analysis” best explains the origins of the Cold War?2. How stable are bipolar systems?

Core reading:John Lewis Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking the Cold War, (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1997), pp.1-84.

John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2001), pp.334-359.

Joseph S. Nye and David Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: AnIntroduction to Theory and History, 9th ed. (New York: Longman, 2012), pp.TBD

Supplemental reading:Melvyn Leffler, For the Soul of Mankind: The United States, The Soviet Union, and the

Cold War, (New York: Hill and Wang, 2007).

Geir Lundestad, “Empire by Invitation? The US and Western Europe, 1945-1952,” Journal of Peace Research, no. 22, Sept. 1986.

Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructed Peace: The Making of the European Settlement, 1945-1963, (Princeton: Princeton University, 1999).

Section IV: Wars Within States

Week 8: Civil War and InsurgencyThis session shifts focus from wars among states to wars within states. Conflicts ranging from civil war and insurgency to ethnic conflict challenge state-centric understanding in both history and theory. We ask the questions: how are we to understand wars within states? Does the breakdown of hierarchy into anarchy within the state mean that a new framework is required to understand wars within states?

Study Questions:1. How do civil wars differ from wars between states? How are they similar?2. How can social science theories of conflict be applied to civil wars?

Core reading:David Close, The Origins of the Greek Civil War, (London: Longman, 1995), pp.1-27,

96-121, 127-145, 189-205.

James Fearon and D. Laitin, “Ethnicity, Insurgency, and Civil War,” American Political Science Review 97 (2003); 75-90.

Stathis Kalyvas, “The Changing Character of Civil Wars,” in The Changing Character of War, eds. Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); pp.202-219.

Supplemental reading:Stathis Kalyvas, The Logic of Violence in Civil War, (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2006).

Barry Posen, “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict,” Survival, Vol. 35, no. 1, Spring 1993; 27-47.

Jack Snyder and Robert Jervis, “Civil War and the Security Dilemma,” in Civil Wars, Insecurity, and Intervention, ed. Barbara F. Walter and Jack Snyder (New York: Columbia University Press 1999); pp.15–37.

Odd Arne Westad, Decisive Encounters: The Chinese Civil War, 1946-1950, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003).

Section V: Contemporary Conflict

Week 9: Wars of Principle—The Falklands/MalvinasThis session uses the case study of the Falklands/Malvinas War in 1982 between Great Britain and Argentina to explore war between states in recent history. It centers on comparison between decision making in a democratic state (Britain) and an autocratic one (Argentina), and the influence of domestic institutions on decisions and the decision-making process.

Study Questions:1. What made war necessary for the United Kingdom?2. What made war necessary for Argentina?

Core reading:Lawrence Freedman and Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse, Signals of War: The Falklands

Conflict of 1982, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), pp.3-142.

Supplemental reading:Alberto R. Coll and Anthony C. Arend eds., The Falkands War: Lessons for Strategy,

Diplomacy, and International Law, (Boston: G. Allen & Unwin, 1985).

Week 10: Wars of Choice? Iraq and InterventionThe Iraq war exerts a powerful influence on contemporary world affairs and also on our understanding of war as a tool of national policy. This section attempts to understand the reasons behind the American decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and the broader issue of intervention, both unilateral and multilateral, as a tool of national policy.

Study Questions:1. What are the realist arguments against the American war in Iraq?2. How has the concept of humanitarian intervention changed war in the modern

age?

Core reading:Richard N. Haass, War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars, (New

York: Simon and Schuster, 2009), pp.233-266.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, “An Unnecessary War,” Foreign Policy 143 (January-February 2003); 50-59.

D. J. B. Trim, “Humanitarian Intervention,” in The Changing Character of War, eds. Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); 151-166.

Ryan Goodman, “Humanitarian Intervention as a Pretext for War,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 1 (2006): 107–141.

Supplemental reading:Tariq Ali, Bush in Babylon: The Recolonisation of Iraq, (London: Verso, 2003).

Douglas Feith, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon and the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 2008).

Roland Paris, “International Peacebuilding and the ‘Mission Civilisatrice,’” Review of International Studies, (2002), 28; 637-656

Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2004).

Section VI: Conflict Duration, Termination, and the Future of War

Week 11: DurationThe origins and goals of a conflict influence its conduct. Once a war begins, what accounts for its continuation? What motivates the actors continue to fight? This session examines these questions and how the aims of policymakers can shape the decision to go to war, but can also shape the course of the war, contributing to its duration.

Study Questions:1. How are war aims dictated by the course of a war itself? How are they determined

from beforehand?2. Why did the First World War continue after the defeat and destruction of the

Russian Empire?

Core reading:H.E. Goemans, War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination & the First World

War, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), pp.3-53, 232-270.

Fritz Fischer, Germany’s Aims in the First World War, (New York: W.W. Norton, 1967), pp.475-509, 583-638.

Supplemental reading:

Scott Sigmund Garter, Strategic Assessment in War, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997)

Week 12: TerminationThis session examines the questions of why and how wars end, with a particular emphasis on the desire of states to create a lasting post-war order. It shows how the ending of wars has evolved in conjunction with changes in war itself and the development of the international system.

Study Questions:1. What characteristics are essential for a durable peace settlement?2. Was the peace of Versailles meant to prevent further wars with Germany? Why

did it fail?

Core reading:Michael Handel, “The Study of War Termination,” Journal of Strategic Studies, 1:51-78,

May 1978.

Margaret Macmillan, Peacemakers: The Paris Conference of 1919 and Its Attempt to End the War, (London: J. Murray 2001), pp.157-203.

Supplemental reading:Tony Judt, Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945, (New York: Penguin Books, 2005).

Henry Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace, 1812-22, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973).

Stephen J. Stedman, Donald Rothchild, and Elizabeth Cousens eds., Ending Civil Wars: The Implementation of Peace Agreements, (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 2002).

Week 13: The Future of WarThis session will address the future of war and the prospects for its interdisciplinary study. It also covers the debates on the changing conduct of war in the context of the changing objectives of war. In considering these issues of continuity and change, we will have an opportunity to articulate the enduring questions of war both across and within disciplines.

Study Questions:1. Can war be an effective policy tool in the 21st century?2. Is major power war likely to disappear from history?

Core reading:

Colin S. Gray, “How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?” Parameters Vol. 35 (2005); 14–26.

John Mueller, Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War, (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 1989), pp.217-266.

Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers, “Introduction: The Changing Character of War,” in The Changing Character of War, eds. Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); 1-27.

Hew Strachan, “Strategy in the Twenty-First Century,” in The Changing Character of War, eds. Hew Strachan and Sibylle Scheipers, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011); 503-523.

Supplemental reading:Alexander George, “The Two Cultures of Academia and Policy-making: Bridging the

Gap,” Political Psychology, vol. 15, no. 1, 1994, 143-172.