International Strategic Studies

The Rise and Fall of an International Counterculture, 1960–1975

noreply@blogger.com (Rashid Dar) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:19:00 -0600

By our very own Jeremi Suri...

" In the decades after World War II, cultural rebellion became common again in urbanized industrial societies—capitalist and communist—where groups of young citizens articulated feelings of “alienation.” Rock music, beat poetry, and abstract expressionist art voiced common criticisms of how the pressures of social conformity destroyed individualism. Through these media, and others, many European and American youth sought to reassert their individuality and their connection to something they viewed as “nature,” as opposed to the “unnatural” industrial world advertised around them. Similarly, advocates of free living, free love, and free drugs claimed that they were returning human beings to the pursuit of pleasure, rather than state‐manipulated wealth and power. By the early 1960s, these cultural critiques had attained widespread public recognition on both sides of the Atlantic. They were oppositional, but they were not overtly politically threatening—at least not yet."

For the full article, visit the website.

New history course on U.S. ‘grand strategy’ reaches out to modern military leaders

noreply@blogger.com (Rashid Dar) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:17:00 -0600

If ignorance of history makes one more likely to repeat it, as the saying goes, then the stakes of historical knowledge are at their highest when involving military strategy and war.

A new summer course at UW-Madison will examine the successes and failures of America's foreign policy "grand strategy" during the past century. The course will investigate the trajectory of U.S. involvement in two world wars, the wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the contemporary Middle East wars, and how mistakes in one conflict often fueled success in others.

What makes the course especially unique is its target audience: current and future U.S. military leaders.

Jeremi Suri, professor of history, has teamed with retired United States Navy Capt. Scott Mobley to organize an eight-week graduate-level summer course that is especially suited for the needs and interests of U.S. military personnel. The course will be offered from June 15-Aug. 7 in a flexible online format that allows students to complete the coursework at their convenience.

The flexible form of delivery is key, Suri says.

"One of the biggest problems we face is that the people who can use this knowledge most are the ones who have the hardest time coming to campus," Suri says.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt glances at Europe on his Oval Office globe. Roosevelt's decisions during World War II will be part of the UW-Madison history department's new "grand strategies" course.

Mobley, who is the course coordinator and military liaison, is also a graduate student in the UW-Madison history program. He helped design the curriculum and is working to recruit officers and senior enlisted leaders from all four branches of the military.

Mobley says the need is out there for this type of supplemental education. The armed forces have strong academic programs offered through military academies and the war colleges, but options for continuing education can be limited over the course of a 20- or 30-year military career.

The interest is equally strong, he says. When Mobley was deployed to the Persian Gulf in 2002-03, the Navy sent teams of scholars to the naval carriers to offer intensive courses on areas of key interest, such as Middle East culture and history, political issues in Iran and other topics. The professors would do teaching rotations at different ships to reach the biggest audiences. "All the officers looked forward to attending these talks. We just soaked it up," he says.

While the course is open to anyone, Suri says they are looking to recruit a core group to which foreign policy is "the lifeblood of their work," including people in international policy, law and business.

"Policymakers are very hungry for institutions not to justify what they're doing, but help them think through what they are doing," Suri says. "I think there's a false assumption that if you're working with the military, then you're automatically supporting specific aims. I think they look to us for intellectual enhancement."

Suri also says he hopes the course represents a trend of greater collaboration between the military and the academic world, which has experienced strained relationships stemming from the divisiveness of the Vietnam War. Both sides became distrustful and politically polarized, and faculty showed a reluctance to teach military topics. "There is a new generation of academics today who are much more engaged on these topics, and the politics tend to be less predictable," Suri says.

The best example of the value of understanding military history might come from the end of World War II, Suri says. Policy leaders at that time made a concerted decision to invest in the rebuilding of the countries that Allied forces just defeated, in Germany and Japan. The decision not to do so after World War I was disastrous and in part paved the way for the second war.

"I think that what happened at Abu Ghraib is an example of historical ignorance in action," Suri adds. "Everything in the way that facility was set up reflected a profound ignorance of the dynamics we have seen historically in the treatment of prisoners."

To pre-register or learn more about the course "American Foreign Policy: A History of U.S. Grand Strategy from 1901 to the Present," contact Mobley at 608-265-0484, mobley@wisc.edu, or visit this site.

LIFE DURING WARTIME: A Teach American History Grant

noreply@blogger.com (Rashid Dar) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:16:00 -0600

CESA 5, in collaboration with Madison Area Technical College, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Wisconsin Veterans Museum, and the Madison Metropolitan School District, has received a three-year grant from the United States Department of Education’s Teaching American History program. Titled “Life During Wartime,” this grant seeks to improve the teaching of traditional U. S. history. Through content-rich discussions with nationally-known scholars and independent research, participants will learn how to teach history using primary sources.

What is Life During Wartime?

It’s a chance to enhance your knowledge of 19th and 20th-century American history, especially the prelude to war, periods of wars, and the transition from wartime to peacetime.
It’s professional development that will prepare you to bring original documents into your classrooms in creative ways that deepen your students’ understanding of the past.
It’s a series of lectures and get-togethers with historians from around Wisconsin and across the United States.
It’s a chance to learn how to do history as a part of teaching history.
It’s a way to share ideas with engaged teachers from Madison and central Wisconsin.

Media coverage:
‘Life During Wartime’ will build innovative curriculum around American war history" (April 30, 2008)
by Kristin Czubkowski

"Feds give $1-million to teach history" (April 30, 2008)
By Jackie Johnson, Wisconsin Radio Network
MP3 AUDIO DOWNLOAD:(1:44 MP3)

Learning About Life At Home During War (April 30, 2008)
By PATRICIA SIMMS, Wisconsin State Journal

"History classes could get more interesting" (April 29, 2008)
By Jackie Johnson, Wisconsin Radio Network
MP3 AUDIO DOWNLOAD: (2:05 MP3)

‘Life During Wartime’ will build innovative curriculum around American war history

noreply@blogger.com (Rashid Dar) — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:13:00 -0600

A new Wisconsin project funded by the U.S. Department of Education will feature an unprecedented partnership among public school teachers, university and technical college faculty, and the Wisconsin Veterans Museum to invigorate the teaching of American history.

Stanley Schultz, left, emeritus professor of history and a nationally known scholar on American history, comments on a new Wisconsin project, "Life During Wartime," during a press briefing at the Wisconsin Veterans Museum on April 29, 2008. The $940,000 project, funded over three years by the U.S. Department of Education, is an unprecedented partnership among public school teachers, university and technical college faculty, and the Wisconsin Veterans Museum to invigorate the teaching of American history. Richard Zeitlin, center, is director of the Wisconsin Veterans Museum, and Todd Zoellick, right, is deputy U.S. secretary of education.

Photo: Jeff Miller

Called "Life During Wartime," the $940,000 project will be funded over three years to connect eminent historians and veterans with 150 history teachers in the region. The project is intended to build a rich curriculum around the American experience at home and abroad, from the Civil War to the present, and build a political, social and personal connection to the nation's past.

The partnership includes teachers from the Cooperative Education Service Area No. 5 (CESA 5) serving central Wisconsin and the Madison Metropolitan School District; historians from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Madison Area Technical College (MATC); the Wisconsin Veterans Museum, an activity of the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs; and veteran volunteers.

Jonathan Pollack, an American history professor at MATC, says "Life During Wartime" will have a particular emphasis on World War II and beyond, a segment of American history that is often under-presented in history teaching. The program will go beyond a political timeline, Pollack says, and go into the lives of soldiers deployed and their families at home during war.

He says that the program aims to add to the knowledge base of fifth grade through high school teachers with more detailed, specific material on American history topics. Susan Fulks, director of instructional technology service for CESA 5, adds that high school teachers in small-school districts such as those in the CESA 5 area often teach many social studies courses, which requires them to have a general knowledge of many areas.

"They teach three, four, five different classes, so they come in with a broad understanding, but they're probably not history majors, so this will give them an opportunity to learn some content," she says. She adds that many of them are the only social studies teachers in their school, and that bringing them together in the program as well as with Madison social studies teachers will allow them to build relationships and learn from each other.

Curriculum details are still being worked out before the project begins in July but will likely involve a weeklong summer institute as well as regular weekend programs and talks from renowned history scholars. Teachers will be paid for their time and receive one graduate school credit for the summer institute, says Jeremi Suri, a UW-Madison history professor, and substitute teachers will be provided for any school-year events.

"We're trying to make it flexible and accessible for teachers, and we're really trying to increase the contact and connection between the university, public institutions like the Veterans Museum, and teachers," Suri says. "We really think this program allows us to enhance the Wisconsin Idea because we will be connecting even more deeply with people we should be connecting with around the state."

The involvement of the Wisconsin Veterans Museum in this program will be a key aspect of that approach, Suri adds. The program will include a Web component that puts original historical resources online for teachers to incorporate into their lessons, a particular benefit for rural teachers without the centralized resources of a city like Madison. The Web site will remain online past the length of the grant and will be available to all teachers, even those not participating in the program.

Richard Zeitlin, director of the Wisconsin Veterans Museum, says the museum will provide the program with historical artifacts, manuscripts, photographs and, most importantly, the testimony of Wisconsin veterans from the past and present. The museum has an extensive collection of oral histories from soldiers, and veterans frequently volunteer at the museum to give tours and talk about their experiences.

"I look at involving veterans as a chance to underscore some of the points that are being made in the course of the program," Zeitlin says. "We have people who actually were there, and we can have them available either on tape or in person or both, as well as hands-on learning."

James Kurtz, a Vietnam War veteran who works with the Veterans Museum, says he appreciates the grant's efforts to expand the knowledge of state teachers by offering a balanced look at war and wartime experiences.

"I came back to Madison after my Vietnam service, and it wasn't a very pleasant place to be," he says. "I really feel it's important for the kids coming up and the people who are teaching them to understand both sides of the story."

Beyond understanding the issue of war from all sides, Pollack adds that providing documents, artifacts and soldiers' testimonies will ultimately allow students and teachers to better understand not just the facts of history, but the discipline itself and how history is studied.

"The students who come through history classes using this approach are going to be better equipped for college certainly, but even if they don't go to college or they don't go right away, they have a better understanding of how history actually operates," Pollack says. "History is not a mysterious set of absolutes that's beyond them — history instead becomes accessible and something that people in their daily lives can put to use."

This remarkable partnership had humble beginnings at a 2007 Fourth of July picnic at a park in west Madison.

The holiday brought Pollack together with UW-Madison's Bill Tishler, a media specialist in the Division of Continuing Studies. Each had recently been involved in applying for a federal Teaching American History grant with their respective institutions, but for various reasons, neither group received one that year.

As they continued to talk about the different challenges that each group faced, the two realized that they might have better luck earning the grant working together rather than apart.

"I was talking to him for like an hour. Our wives and our families were kind of circling around us, going 'OK, come on, let's go', and we were like, 'Wait a minute.' It was all this shop talk on the Fourth of July," Pollack says. The result was a grant proposal that built on the strengths of both institutions.

(History 434) American Foreign Relations: The History of U.S. Grand Strategy since 1901

noreply@blogger.com (William P. Tishler) — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:29:00 -0600

NEW ON-LINE COURSE (June 15 - August 7, 2009)
Title: (History 434) American Foreign Relations: The History of U.S. Grand Strategy since 1901

This innovative eight-week course, taught by Professor Suri, examines how grand strategy shaped America's interaction with states, peoples and cultures throughout the 20th century, offering a fresh perspective on America's foreign policy successes and failures. The course is offered online as a pilot to military, business and other adult students. The course will define “foreign relations” broadly to explore the ways in which interactions with peoples and places identified as “foreign” transformed the nature of American society. The course will touch on issues of national power, territorial acquisition, market penetration, warfare, racial subjugation, class conflict, and gender subordination. We will study how America's foreign relations helped determine what it means to be “American.” Situating the history of the United States in an international context we will learn how American debates about identity and power reflected and influenced events in distant venues.

Jeremi Suri on KQED 88.5 FM San Francisco 1-15-08

noreply@blogger.com (William P. Tishler) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:51:00 -0600

Tue, Jan 15, 2008 -- 10:00 AM
"The Life of Henry Kissinger"
Download (MP3) (Windows: right-click and choose "Save Target As." Mac: hold Ctrl, click link, and choose "Save As.")

Listen to a (RealMedia stream) at KQED Radio Archive, http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R801151000

We explore the life of former Secretary of State and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Henry Kissinger, and his impact on U.S. foreign policy. Suri's work focuses on international relations in the 1960s and the Cold War."

Host: Rachael Myrow
Guest: Jeremi Suri, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison and author of "Henry Kissinger and the American Century."

Air: 88.5 FM San Francisco or 89.3 FM Sacramento
KQED: Public Broadcasting for Northern California

High Hopes: What we want this year

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 5 Jan 2008 16:54:00 -0600

Source: Isthmus: The Daily Page (Cover Story) Friday, 01/04/2008
"New year, new hope. What changes do you want to see in 2008? We put that question to a cross-section of Madisonians to see what reflections and resolutions they would offer. Their answers were sometimes funny, sometimes profound. Here's what we learned." - Edited by Marc Eisen
....

Restore real open debate
Jeremi Suri
We have become a society that is too self-assured to examine its own assumptions, too insecure to subject its beliefs to serious scrutiny. This is particularly true on university campuses.

I hope 2008 will mark a return to traditions of civil argumentation. Instead of easy answers to difficult questions, I want real open debate. What kind of university do we want for the next century? What kind of nation do we want? What will we do for the rest of the world?

We need intense discussions of these issues, where people voice radically different views and these views are subjected to critical examination. We should respect one another for making the effort to discuss and disagree. That is the democracy I want to see in 2008.
[Read more high hopes for the new year from other Madisonians at http://www.thedailypage.com/isthmus/article.php?article=18612 ]

A 'China opening' to Iran?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 1 Jan 2008 10:49:00 -0600

By Jeremi Suri, The Boston Globe
Tuesday, July 24, 2007

In July 1971, Henry Kissinger, acting as President Nixon's special representative, secretly traveled to Beijing. Kissinger's voyage provided the basis for a dramatic opening in relations between the United States and China - two nations estranged from one another for more than 20 years.

Convulsed by internal upheavals and surrounded by regional threats, Chinese leaders viewed relations with Washington as a possible anchor for stability.

Beset by a deepening military quagmire in Vietnam, deteriorating relations with traditional allies, and pervasive protests at home, the White House was desperate for a diplomatic overture that would show some political promise before the upcoming presidential election.

Today, the historical parallels are striking. President Bush confronts a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight, American standing abroad has plummeted and domestic opposition to present policies is growing.

America's long time adversary, Iran, similarly contends with a clash of generations and worldviews at home, as well as a cast of external challengers, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN Security Council. Leaders in Washington and Tehran need one another. The White House should pursue a "China opening" with Iran.

Although Kissinger's insights from the Vietnam War have not helped in Iraq, his maneuvers with China do provide a model for navigating relations with Iran:

Open multiple channels of communication.

The most difficult impediment to new relations with old adversaries is history. China and the United States had no institutional or interpersonal basis for initiating a constructive bilateral relationship. Nixon and Kissinger took advantage of nearly every channel for communicating with Beijing. They enlisted diverse figures in Pakistan, Poland, Romania, West Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the Vatican to pass messages to the Chinese leadership. Getting discussions started required consistent, determined efforts in the White House.

Talk while fighting.

Opening a dialogue with an adversary does not preclude continued conflict. Kissinger and Nixon never believed that by engaging the Chinese leadership they had to forsake their strategic responsibilities in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or South Vietnam. In fact, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to each of these governments as Kissinger traveled to Beijing in July 1971. The point of negotiations with the Chinese was to make these commitments more secure by insuring greater mutual understanding and respect.

Emphasize personal relationships.

Nixon and Kissinger understood that demonizing their adversaries diminished Washington's leverage. Despite their monstrous deeds, the Chinese leaders were smart and pragmatic. Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai recognized the same qualities in their American counterparts. The leaders of the two states worked to build respect despite their differences. Personal bonds allowed for a probing of possible compromises.

Avoid "total" solutions.

U.S. and Chinese leaders avoided discussion of overarching strategic solutions. They remained deadlocked on Taiwan, Vietnam and the Korean peninsula. Instead, they emphasized small steps - youth exchanges, the transfer of prisoners, avenues for trade. These symbolic agreements created a foundation for negotiations about security in later years.

Normalize the diplomatic process.

In the end, the opening to China illustrated the importance of process. Despite conflict, relations between Washington and Beijing improved because both sides felt a stake in maintaining dialogue. They committed to ongoing efforts at mutual agreement.

The present Iranian regime is as dangerous and violent as Communist China at its worst. To call for an opening to this regime does not deny this fact. Isolation and recrimination, however, do not make for effective policy. The history of improved relations between Washington and Beijing since 1971 provides reason to believe that discussions are possible between the United States and Iran.

At the least, an opening to Iran is worth a try. If it fails, the Bush administration will gain credibility for seeking to break out of the recurring cycle of violence in the Middle East. If it succeeds, it will mark a rare moment of foreign policy achievement for the Bush administration.

Jeremi Suri, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is author of "Henry Kissinger and the American Century." This article first appeared in The Boston Globe. [Tuesday, July 24, 2007 < http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/24/opinion/edsuri.php >]

A Chance for Bush to Salvage his Foreign Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 16:04:00 -0500

In July 1971 Henry Kissinger, acting as President Richard Nixon's special representative, secretly traveled to Beijing. Kissinger's voyage provided the basis for a dramatic opening in relations between the United States and the People's Republic of China -- two nations estranged from one another, and often on the brink of full-scale war, for more than twenty years. Convulsed by internal upheavals and surrounded by regional threats, Chinese leaders viewed relations with Washington as a possible anchor for stability. Beset by a deepening military quagmire in Vietnam, deteriorating relations with traditional allies, and pervasive protests at home, the White House was desperate for a new diplomatic overture that would show some political promise before the upcoming presidential election.

Thirty-six years later the historical parallels are striking. President George W. Bush confronts a civil war in Iraq with no end in sight, American standing abroad has plummeted by all measures, and domestic opposition to present policies is growing, even within the highest ranks of the Republican Party. America's long-time adversary, Iran, similarly contends with a clash of generations and world views at home, as well as a large cast of external challengers -- including the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council. Leaders in Washington and Tehran need one another as never before. The time is ripe for the White House to pursue a "China opening" with Iran.

Although Kissinger's insights from fighting the Vietnam War have not helped in Iraq, his maneuvers with China do provide a model for navigating relations with Iran. Here is a roadmap for President Bush and Kissinger's closest contemporary counterpart, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to begin their historic opening to Iran:

Open Multiple Channels of Communication. The most difficult impediment to new relations with old adversaries is history. The People's Republic of China and the United States, like Tehran and Washington, spent more than twenty years trying to isolate one another. They had no institutional or interpersonal basis for initiating a constructive bilateral relationship. Nixon and Kissinger understood this. As a consequence, they took advantage of nearly every conceivable channel for communicating with Beijing. They enlisted diverse figures in Pakistan, Poland, Rumania, West Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the Vatican to pass messages to the Chinese leadership. Getting initial discussions started required consistent and determined efforts in the White House, with the president's strong support. The repeated overtures by Nixon and Kissinger made their desire for improved relations credible to skeptical Chinese listeners.

Talk While Fighting. Opening a dialogue with an adversary does not preclude continued conflict, and even warfare. Kissinger understood this particularly well. He and the president never believed that by engaging the Chinese leadership they had to forsake their strategic responsibilities in Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, or South Vietnam. In fact, the United States reaffirmed its commitment to each of these governments -- including South Vietnam -- as Kissinger traveled to Beijing in July 1971. The point of negotiations with the Chinese was to make these commitments more secure by insuring greater mutual understanding and respect. Strategic rivalry without direct communication only exacerbated tensions in Asia, as in the Middle East today. Policy-makers generally assume the worst of their adversaries when they know little about them.

Emphasize Personal Relationships. Nixon and Kissinger understood that demonizing their Chinese adversaries diminished Washington's leverage in Asia. The same is true for contemporary American approaches to Iran and the Middle East. Despite their monstrous deeds, the Chinese communist leaders were smart, effective, and pragmatic human beings. Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai recognized the same qualities in the "running dogs of imperialism" who allegedly occupied the White House. The leaders of the two states worked to build respect despite their serious differences. Personal bonds forged during Nixon and Kissinger's visits to Beijing created some degree of comfort between the regimes. They allowed for an early probing of possible points of limited compromise. International rivalries are, after all, human relationships. Strategy and ideology matter, but so do perceptions of men and women in the flesh. A little personal respect can go a long way.

Avoid "Total" Solutions. The records of the discussions between Nixon, Kissinger, Mao, and Zhou show that these men spent very little time talking about overarching strategic solutions. They remained deadlocked on the future of Taiwan, the civil war in Vietnam, and the division of the Korean peninsula, among other fundamental Cold War issues. Discussion would have broken down immediately if either side pursued a "total" solution for any of these conflicts. Instead, the leaders of the two states emphasized small steps toward better relations. These included student, athletic, and scientific exchanges; the transfer of prisoners; and new avenues for limited trade. Most of these agreements were more symbolic than substantive, but they created a foundation for significant discussions about security and economics in later years. Disputes over the big strategic issues made discussion of the smaller topics all the more important. This is the case in the Middle East today, as it was in Asia years before.

Normalize the Diplomatic Process. In the end, Nixon and Kissinger's opening to China illustrated the importance of process. Despite continued conflict, relations between Washington and Beijing improved because both sides now felt a stake in maintaining a dialogue. They did not feel pressed to solve all of their problems at once, or deny that serious differences existed between them. Instead they committed themselves to continual discussions and efforts at mutual agreement on the margins of their hostile strategies. The China opening was not a panacea for Asia, but it was a realistic effort to build better relations, rather than accept inherited isolation and recrimination.

The present Iranian regime is as dangerous and violent as Communist China at its worst. Tehran's nuclear weapons program threatens to unleash a string of new nuclear states in the Middle East. The government is deeply divided among diverse factions, some advocating belligerent domestic and international programs.

To call for an opening to this regime, on the model of Nixon and Kissinger's opening to China, does not deny any of these facts. Isolation and recrimination, however, do not make for effective policy. The history of improved relations between Washington and Beijing since 1971 provides reason to believe that discussions are also possible between the United States and Iran. At the very least, an opening to Iran is worth a try. If it fails, as Nixon and Kissinger's efforts might have failed, then the Bush administration will gain credibility for seeking to break out of the recurring cycle of violence in the Middle East. If it succeeds, even only at the margins, it will mark a rare moment of foreign policy achievement for the Bush administration. Setbacks in Iraq will continue to loom large, but like the legacy of the Vietnam War, they will be counterbalanced by the promise of progress next door.