An article from Saturday's New York Times demonstrates that the White House response to Katrina is significant for understanding our homeland security capability. Note this quote: "We are left with a picture of a White House that was plagued by the fog of war," said David Marin, the Republican staff director to the House Committee investigating the government's response to the hurricane. "The committee is likely to find a disturbing inability by the White House to de-conflict and analyze information--and that has consequences." see the article http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/28/national/nationalspecial/28katrina.html?_r=1 We will be discussing this issue on February 27th when Frontline producer/reporter Martin Smith comes to class to show his documentary on the response to Katrina.
The Middle East is the centerpiece of the Bush adminstration's foreign policy. See the Conversations with History interview with Jonathan Clarke http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/Clarke/clarke-con0.html Under the influence of the neo-conservatives, this region becomes the testing ground for a commitment to democratizing the world. The region also is a testing ground for using military power to achieve this goal. Bush's most articulate speech in this regard was his second inauguaral address which called for democratization of the region if not the world. Recent elections in the Middle East suggest the policy is not working. Bush's prayers are being realized but not with the consequences he envisioned suggesting that Garth Brooks was right to "Thank God for unanswered prayers." This article from the Washington Post addresses the consequences of the Bush vision for the Israeli Palestinian conflict. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012701562.html For a discussion of the consquences of democratization in the Middle East generally see this article from the Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113836301014058138.html?mod=home_whats_news_us
Daniel Benjamin who is speaking to our class on February 6th has an op ed piece in today's New York Times. Here is the link http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/25/opinion/25benjamin.html?_r=1 Remember that Neil Smelser concluded that terrorism will be a long term issue. He used the metaphor of chipping away at a rock. Benjamin is suggesting that another key element in our climb up this difficult mountain is to have a narrative, one that resonates not only with American audiences but also with audiences in the Muslim world.
Next week we will be focusing on nuclear terrorism. Our speaker will be Harold Smith. His vita can be found here http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~gspp/people/affiliates/smith.htm In the interview with Smelser that I showed to the class on Monday, http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people5/Smelser/smelser-con0.html Smelser emphasized that terrorism will not go away--we are chipping away at a rock was his metaphor. Given that reality, Smith will be talking about the greatest threat we face--terrorists with nuclear devices at their disposal.
The Bush administration has embraced a Jacksonian/Wilsonian perspective on the world. There is an analysis of the contradictions in the resulting strategy for dealing with the world. See this blog by John Ikenberry. You can find it here, scroll down, date is January 22 for the entry
