Security Challenges of the 21st Century – 2011-2012 Annual Theme

In the past, national security has centered on the strategies that political and military leaders pursue in their respective countries to defend their national interests, with a focus on military, diplomatic, economic, and informational instruments of power. In recent decades, however, the world has become more interdependent and the number and character of the threats have become, respectively, more numerous and complex, with some threats crossing national boundaries and challenging the well being of humanity as a whole. Thus, the current list of immediate and long-term threats to the national interests of the United States and other countries now includes interstate conflicts, civil wars marked by genocide, abuses of human rights, attacks on civilian populations by terrorist organizations, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, global pandemics, and the catastrophic effects of global climate change. In response to these developments, a new perspective to security has recently emerged, one that prioritizes “human security.” In 1994, the United Nations Development Report adopted this approach as its central organizing theme, arguing that the traditional notion of security was too narrow because it ignored the degree to which ordinary people felt threatened by crime, hunger, disease, and environmental hazards. While the traditional notion of security remains of central importance, the Clarke Forum embraces the broader concept of “human security” as the proper organizing principle of its 2011-12 theme: Security Challenges of the 21st Century.

Admiral Dennis Blair

Omar Bradley ChairBlair poster
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
7:00 p.m. – Stern Center, Great Room

The American Use of Military Force Since the Fall of the Berlin Wall

When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 there were hopes for a peaceful new world order and even predictions of the end of history. As it turned out, the United States has sent major military forces into action nine times in the 19 years since then. Two major conflicts are continuing today in Afghanistan and Iraq. Admiral Blair will address how the United States has used military force in recent years, successfully and unsuccessfully, and how to think about what the country should do in Afghanistan and Iraq. Co-sponsored by the department of political science.

Issue in Context
The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 marked the end of nearly a half-century of Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States emerged victorious, affirming its superiority in the international arena. President H. W. Bush declared grand expectations for a “new world order” – the United States would finally be able to fulfill its founding fathers’ visions of freedom. There were widespread hopes for global peace. However, this peace proved difficult to maintain. Conflicts resurfaced, and the United States intervened in a number of armed conflicts overseas.

Highlights of U.S. Foreign Policy since 1989:
August 2, 1990 – Iraq invades Kuwait and the U.S. decides to send military troops to protect Saudi Arabia and oust Iraqi troops from Kuwait. Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein refuses to abide by international demands to withdraw, and the United Nations authorizes a U.S.-led invasion to crush the Iraqi military.

March 1992 – the United States intervenes in the humanitarian crisis in the “failed state” of Somalia. Clinton withdraws due to civil unrest and American casualties. Partly as a result of this failure, the U.S. avoids intervening in the genocides in Rwanda and Burundi.

In 1995 and 1999, respectively, the U.S. intervenes in Bosnia Herzegovina and Kosovo to address the “ethnic cleansing” in the former republic of Yugoslavia.

Throughout the 1990’s – numerous terrorist attacks with suspected involvement of Al-Qaeda: 1993 World Trade Center bombings; 1995 car bombings in Oklahoma City; 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya; 2000 bombings on the USS Cole in Yemen.

September 11, 2001- -terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. President Bush declares the “Bush Doctrine” for national security based on preemption, hegemony, and unilateralism. The U.S. declares the “War on Terror” and invades Afghanistan.

March 20, 2003, Bush orders an invasion of Iraq based upon allegations that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) and links to Islamic terrorism.

About the Speaker Blair picture
Admiral Dennis Blair is the former commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) in the Asia-Pacific Region. From February 1999 to May 2002 he was responsible for the Navy, Army, Marine Corps and Air Force, leading the largest unified command from India to the West Coast of the United States.

Blair was senior fellow and president of the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) from October 2002 to September 2006. The IDA provides research and analytical support on national security issues to the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. Blair also served in policy positions on Navy Staffs, the Joint Staff, and the National Security Council staff. He was the first associate director of Central Intelligence for Military Support.

A 1968 graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, Admiral Blair earned a master’s degree in history and languages from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He was awarded the Defense Distinguished Service Medal four times and the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal twice.

Recently, the U.S. Army War College and Dickinson College awarded him the Omar Bradley Chair of Strategic Leadership. The Omar Bradley Chair was named in memory of the World War II hero and is intended to encourage global leadership and civilian-military dialogue.

Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq

Monday, February 26, 2007Fiasco Poster
7:00 p.m. – Anita Tuvin Schlechter Auditorium
Thomas E. Ricks, Pulitizer-prize winning journalist, The Washington Post, and author

As the title, “Fiasco” suggests, Thomas E. Ricks views the American war in Iraq as a misguided exercise in folly and incompetence. His book provides a detailed and comprehensive critique for anyone interested in understanding how the United States came to go to war in Iraq, how an insurgency emerged, and how these events will affect the future of the United States. Ricks will discuss his findings and respond to questions from the audience.
Co-sponsored by International Business & Management and Political Science

Issue in Context
As of February 19, 2007, the official U.S. death toll in Iraq was 3,133, more than ten times the fatal casualties of all other coalition countries combined. The U.S. has invested about $500 billion in the Iraq war, but several audits over the last couple of years have revealed incomplete or unreliable documentation on the spending of several billions of dollars. A recent Washington Post article revealed that nearly 100 million dollars in cash intended for rebuilding projects in south-central Iraq cannot even be accounted for.
Three years ago, it was politically imprudent for Americans to speak out against the Iraq war. Today, presidential candidates are virtually dismissed by the media unless they can produce some evidence of opposition to the management of the war. According to a recent CBS News Poll, 84% percent of voters feel that a candidate’s stance on the Iraq war will play a significant role in the 2008 presidential elections and, according to a Pew Research Poll, nearly 50% of Americans think that the war in Iraq has hurt the war on terrorism.
Trying to avoid parallels to the Vietnam conflict, the administration has rejected all attempts to dub the U.S. situation in Iraq a “quagmire.” And now, it seems the public has agreed that Iraq is not Vietnam – it is a disaster deserving its own tagline: FIASCO.

About the Speaker

Thomas Ricks has covered the U.S. military for The Washington Post since 2000. He also covered military affairs during his seventeen years at The Wall Street Journal.
The author of Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, a #1 New York Times bestseller, Ricks also wrote Making the Corps, which won the Washington Monthly’s Political Book of the Year Award. His first work of fiction, A Soldier’s Duty, about the U.S. military intervening in Afghanistan, was published by Random House in June 2001—some four months before the U.S. actually began major military operations there.
A well-traveled reporter, Ricks has written on U.S. military activities in Somalia, Haiti, Korea, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, and Iraq. His major articles have examined the changed nature of peacekeeping (1992), the passage of one recruit platoon through Marine boot camp (1995), the cultural battle at West Point’s leadership department (1997), the U.S. military’s new emphasis on operating in Asia (2000), target clearance problems in the Afghan war (2001), the discrepancy between how a US patrol in Baghdad saw itself and how Iraqis saw it (2003), and the growing strain on military families and the U.S. National Guard (2004).
Ricks was part of a Wall Street Journal team that won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2000 for a series of articles on how the U.S. military might change to meet the new demands of the 21st century. Ricks was also part of a Washington Post team that won the 2002 Pulitzer Prize for reporting about the beginning of the U.S. counteroffensive against terrorism.

A book signing will follow immediately after the event. Books will be available to purchase for $20.95.

Books authored by Thomas E. Ricks are available at the Waidner-Spahr Library.

“Continuing the Conversation”
Come to The Clarke Forum’s first student led follow-up discussion
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
12:00 p.m. – The Clarke Forum, 249 W. Louther Street.
Lunch provided.

Avian Influenza and the Economics of Bio Security

Thursday, February 16, 2006
Avian Influenza and the Economics of Bio Security
Stern Center, Great Room, 7:00 p.m. Issue in Context
A form of avian influenza, known as “fowl plague,” first appeared in Italy around 1878. It was first recognized in the United States in 1924, and occurred again in 1929. The disease was eradicated both times. In recent months, concern surrounding avian influenza has escalated. The latest cases lie along the migratory routes of birds, as in Turkey , where the H5N1 strain has taken several lives. The greatest fear, however stems from the possibility that H5N1 may evolve into a form of disease that will cause a virulent global human pandemic with a high mortality rate.

The threat posed by avian influenza is causing growing fear and raising many questions: Is fear justified? What are the scenarios for public health, the economy, and society? What are the underlying driving forces of this disease, and what can and should be done in response?

About the Speaker
Stephen Aldrich is the founder and President of Bio Economic Research Associates (bio-era), a leading independent research and advisory firm providing insight into the future of living systems and the global bio economy. Bio-era has been active since March of 2004 in assisting companies to assess and prepare for the risk of an avian influenza pandemic.

Stephen Aldrich has more than 20 years experience with research and advisory businesses, and has worked extensively with senior executives and directors of major corporations.

Prior to founding bio-era, Aldrich had a long and distinguished career as a principal at Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), where he co-founded the Natural Gas practice, and worked closely with senior management teams and Boards of Directors at major energy companies on strategic matters. He holds a B.S. in Biology from Harvard University , where he studied evolutionary biology.

Related Links
• Centers for Disease Control
• Pandemic Flu
• World Health Organization
• Agriculture Department

Presidential War Powers: From Lincoln to Bush

Thursday, November 3, 2005
Presidential War Powers: From Lincoln to Bush

Presidential War

Part I: Common Hour DEBATE: Resolved: The War in Iraq is Just
David Perry, professor of ethics at the U.S. Army War College
Russ Bova, professor of political Science at Dickinson College.
Weiss Center, Rubendall Recital Hall, 12:00 p.m.

Part II: Teach-In. When Does a War End?: War Powers and the Lessons of Reconstruction after the American Civil War
Michael Vorenberg, author of Final Freedom and professor of history at Brown University
Stern Center, Great Room, 2:00 p.m.

Part III Roundtable: Presidential War Powers: Historical Perspectives from Lincoln to Bush
John Yoo, former deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice and professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley
Louis Fisher, Senior Specialist in Separation of Powers for the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress; and Michael Vorenberg, author of Final Freedom and professor of history at Brown University
Stern Center, Great Room, 7:00 p.m.

Issue in Context- Debate
There is much political debate in America today over whether the most recent war in Iraq meets the criteria necessary for a war to be considered just. The Bush administration made the case for war by emphasizing Saddam Hussein’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction in violation of UN regulations, and the danger that Iraq posed to the United States and the international community. Arguing that the threat was imminent, the administration deemed Operation Iraqi Freedom a war of preemption. However, after the conflict began, it became clear Saddam Hussein’s regime did not posses the stockpiles of weapons alleged by the Bush administration.

The cost of the war on both a monetary and humanitarian scale has been immense. Over two billion dollars have been spent on the war, and the death toll for U.S. troops hit 2,000 on October 25th. A recent poll conducted by The Washington Post found that only 38% of Americans approve of Bush’s handling of the war, and there is question as to whether engagement in Iraq is within the scope of the United States’ national interest.

According to just-war theory, a war is considered just only when the cause is significant enough to merit force, the war is fought by a legitimate authority with good intention, there is a high probability of success, the destruction caused by the war outweighs its benefits, and force is used only as a last resort. Many facets of the Iraq war lead critics to question whether this conflict truly meets these criteria.

Issue in Context- Roundtable
Americans’ constitutional rights are not superseded by a declaration of war, but to what level can a president use his power to wage war effectively while still preserving the liberty of all? The current “war on terror” and the war in Iraq have sparked debate not only over executive authority, but also the ethics of going to war and treatment of enemy combatants.

Historically, presidents have enjoyed increased authority in times of war. President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus eight times over the course of the Civil War. The Sedition Act of 1918, signed by President Wilson, made it a crime to use “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the U.S. government or American involvement in World War I. During World War II, numerous enemy combatants were detained and tried by military tribunals. Wartime detentions and limitations on civil liberties are extremely controversial and inspire debate both from a historical perspective and in applications to contemporary politics.

Today, most view President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, authorizing the internment of Japanese Americans and other persons of “Foreign Enemy Ancestry,” as a clear civil liberties violation. However, in wartime, Presidents are often forced to make quick decisions, and civil liberties are at times superseded by national security concerns. It is often only in hindsight that the true impact of presidential action on civil liberties can be evaluated.

About the Debate Participants
David Perry
David Perry is a professor of ethics at the U.S. Army War College. He formerly served as director of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. Perry received his Ph.D. in Ethics and Society from the University of Chicago Divinity School in 1993. Perry is the author of numerous publications dealing with ethics in warfare and just-war theory.

Russell Bova
Russell Bova is a professor of political science at Dickinson College. Bova received his Ph.D. in 1985 from Indiana University, and his research primarily focuses on comparative politics and international relations. In addition, Bova currently teaches a course on ethics and world politics which he created.

Douglas Stuart
Douglas Stuart is the J. William Stuart and Helen D. Stuart Chair in International Studies, Business and Management, and a professor of political science and international studies at Dickinson College. In addition, Stuart serves as an adjunct professor at the U.S. Army War College. Stuart received his Ph.D. in 1979 from the University of Southern California. During his time at Dickinson, Stuart has received both the Ganoe Award for Inspirational Teaching, and the Dickinson Award for Distinguished Teaching.

About the Roundtable Participants
John Yoo
John Yoo currently serves as a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. From 2001-2003, he worked as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice. Yoo graduated from Yale Law School in 1992, and clerked for Judge Laurence H. Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit, and later Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court. From 2003 to the present, Yoo has served as a visiting scholar at The American Enterprise Institute. Yoo has received several fellowships for his constitutional law scholarship, and was awarded the Bator Award for excellence in legal scholarship and teaching by the Federalist Society. In addition, he has published numerous journal articles. Yoo’s most recent book, The Powers of War and Peace: Foreign Affairs and the Constitution after 9/11, was published in 2005.

Louis Fisher
Louis Fisher is a senior specialist in separation of powers with the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, and formerly served as the research director of the House Iran-Contra Committee. He is the author of over a dozen books and three hundred articles and has twice been awarded the Louis Brownlow Book Award among many others. He received his doctorate in Political Science in 1967 from the New School for Social Research, and has taught at Queens College, Georgetown University, American University, Catholic University, Indiana University, Johns Hopkins University, the College of William and Mary law school, and the Catholic University Law School. Fisher’s most recent books include: Military Tribunals And Presidential Power: American Revolution To The War On Terrorism, and American Constitutional Law: Constitutional Structures: Separated Powers and Federalism – both published in 2005.

Michael Vorenberg
Michael Vorenberg is an associate professor of history at Brown University . He received his Ph.D. in history at Harvard University, and previously taught at Harvard and SUNY Buffalo. His work focuses on the American Civil War, the Emancipation Proclamation, and the period of reconstruction. While on sabbatical during the 2003-2004 academic year, Vorenberg conducted research for his upcoming books: Reconstructing the People: The Impact of the Civil War on American Citizenship, and The Emancipation Proclamation: A Brief History with Documents (due in 2006). Vorenberg is the author of several books, his most recent being: Final Freedom: The Civil War, the Abolition of Slavery, and the Thirteenth Amendment, published in 2001.

Related Links
• Iraq War Debate- University of Michigan Documents Center
• Just War Theory
• White House Iraq Page