Description
Question 1: Read Jentleson (2014) Ch. 1 “The Strategic Context: Foreign Policy Strategy and the Essence of Choice”
What is the difference between national security strategy and national security politics?
One of the things that differentiates national security policy from all other policies is that the national security policy is first and foremost concerned with protecting the US’s survival as a nation-state. Jentleson lists five reasons why the US cannot afford to “look inward.” Which two of those five reasons do you find most central to the US’s survival? Why?
Jentleson proposes a framework of four goals (4Ps) that inform American national interest. Briefly define each of them. Think of an example of a national security/foreign policy decision in either the recent or distant past when the US had to sacrifice some of the Ps in the name of other Ps. Explain your choice.
Question 2: Read Haass (2013) “Foreign Policy Begins at Home” Foreword. (approx. 200 words)
What is the relationship between foreign policy and national security, according to Haass?
What three threats to American national security does Haass single out? Give an example of each (from the reading, or your own).
What is isolationism? Do you think Haass is arguing in favor of isolationism?
Do you agree that American “homegrown” threats are a greater risk to the US’s national security than threats coming from the outside?
Question 3: Read Daniel W. Drezner (August 12, 2024), “How Everything Became National Security And National Security Became Everything,” Foreign Affairs (approx. 300 words)
In what historical context did “national security” become embedded in American political discourse?
How do new technologies “multiply the number of pathways that rivals and revisionists can use to threaten national security”?
What is “securitization”? What are the dangers of “securitizing” policy conversations?
Why do national security “priorities” pile up and older national security priorities are rarely discarded?
The author argues, “But if everything is defined as national security, nothing is a national security priority…This increases the likelihood of missing a genuine threat to the safety and security of the United States.” Do you agree? Why or why not?
President George W. Bush’s 2002 strategy stated, “The division of security policy into domestic and foreign compartments is breaking down.” How would you rate that division in 2024?
The author states, “Viewed in isolation, each of these concerns could plausibly be identified as a national security priority. The problem is that by ceaselessly accumulating such paramount concerns, the executive branch has made the concept increasingly meaningless.” Do you agree? Why or why not?
What are the ways in which the author proposes to better organize this ever-growing list of national security issues? Do you agree that the proposed solutions can create “a process that lets policymakers agree on how to disagree” and “allow for an improved national security discourse—and, ideally, improved national security”?
Question 4: On February 20, 2011, Jacqui Goddard wrote an article about “Horrific Child Abuse” in The Daily Beast. The Full article is found at: https://www.thedailybeast.com/florida-child-abuse-scandal-the-barahonas-victims-new-life. Like thousands of children who have passed through Florida’s state welfare system, Nubia and Victor Doctor had reason for hope in 2004, when they were placed with foster parents Jorge and Carmen Barahona at their three-bedroom house in Westwood Lakes, a tidy working-class neighborhood in Miami, Florida. Behind closed doors, authorities say the twins were systematically abused: tied with duct tape, locked for hours at a time in the bathroom, made to stand in garbage cans, starved, roughed up, and neglected. Nubia’s acid-scorched body now lies in the coroner’s morgue. Victor is in a hospital in critical condition, fighting for life. The two children were found in Jorge’s truck on the morning of February 14, Victor slumped in the seat, Nubia dead in a bag in the back. Jorge, 53, was unconscious, lying on the ground nearby. He is accused of dousing the pair in a chemical so powerful that it melted their flesh and sickened emergency workers who later attended the scene. He is in jail on a charge of attempted murder, relating to his son’s near-death. More charges are expected. Carmen, 60, remains under questioning, suspected of complicity. Deepening the mystery is that the children were allowed by DCF and the court to remain in foster care for five years before adoption, defying state recommendation of one year. During that time Paul Neumann, a volunteer guardian ad litem, who had been appointed to advocate for the children while they were in foster care, had raised strong reservations to the court about the Barahona’s suitability as caregivers. Sonia Ferrer, executive director of the guardian ad litem program, explains: “We were very concerned about the placement, so concerned we had our attorney file for an evidentiary hearing at which we brought in witnesses, provided testimony, filed numerous reports with the court. We were saying, ‘The court really needs to look at what’s happening to this family.’“Despite our concerns, the court moved forward with the adoption. DCF had cause to visit the Barahona’s home four times from 2005 to date—i the first to discuss sexual abuse of Nubia by her biological father prior to her placement, and the second in 2006 to discuss a bruise on her face, which was examined by an independent doctor and determined not to be the result of abuse. The third visit, in 2007, centered on concerns that Nubia had been arriving at school in a shoddy state—concerns that echoed those expressed by Neumann, but which were felt upon examination to be associated with a hormonal condition she suffered. A similar verdict was reached in 2010 when Nubia was reported by her school to be “acting out,” stealing food, appearing nervous and jittery. This case raises several issues regarding the Department of Children and Family, the courts, and various other aspects of the system in place to protect children. Discussion question:
How does this type of failure occur and what can be done to prevent this type of failure from happening again in the future? (approx. 200-250 words)
Question 5: Read the Sioux Hall Journal Article (2011) and answer the following questions (approx. 3 pages, double-spaced):
1. Reflect on the content on the victims stories from the article and desires to “Stop the Cycle” of violence with their own children.
2. Using the theories outlined in the textbook (Chapter 10) select one or more theories to critically analyze why it is so difficult for child abuse victims to start their own family and adapt to trying to have a “normal” family unit.
3. Research a program and/or policy (ex.US DOJ: Office for Victims of Crime) that addresses helping victims of child maltreatment as they grow into adulthood and how to deal with the past and end the cycle of abuse and violence for the future.
The journal review should also integrate and analyze the material that is covered during the course. The reflection paper should not be a summary of the article, but instead your thoughts, opinions, analysis, and critique of the article and programs offered in terms of assisting victims. What do YOU think would be a pro-active way that programs and victims themselves can help with future generations to allow for healthy, loving, productive family units. Therapy? Group therapy dynamics? Etc.