The desire for high status drives great powers’ foreign policies. Cambridge University professor Steven Ward discusses how status concerns motivate rising powers like China as well as declining powers like the United States, and how that can produce belligerent policies and exacerbate international tensions.Show NotesSteven Ward bioSteven Ward, Status and the Challenge of Rising Powers, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2017).Steven Ward, “Status from Fighting? Reassessing the Relationship Between Conflict Involvement and Diplomatic Risk,” International Interactions 46, no. 2 (February 2020).Paul Musgraves and Steven Ward, “Testing Tripwire Theory Using Survey Experiments,” APSA Preprints, 2021.    Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Despite the popular Cold War concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD), the United States and Soviet Union engaged in risky, escalatory nuclear competition despite the costs and risks. University of Cincinnati associate professor and Cato adjunct scholar Brendan Rittenhouse Green discusses what drove this competition and explains the role of nuclear arms today, with a focus on the future of U.S.-China nuclear relations.Show NotesBrendan Green bioBrendan Rittenhouse Green, The Revolution that Failed: Nuclear Competition, Arms Control, and the Cold War, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2020).Brendan Rittenhouse Green and Austin Long, “The MAD Who Wasn’t There: Soviet Reactions to the Late Cold War Nuclear Balance,” Security Studies 26, no. 4 (July 7, 2017): pp. 606-641. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Marquette University Associate Professor Risa Brooks discusses civil-military relations in the United States, the role of military leaders and institutions in the making of foreign policy, and what reforms are needed to re-exert civilian primacy over the armed forces. Brooks touches upon concerning episodes, from Obama's Afghanistan surge to Trump's explicit politicization of the military, to suggest the proper norms around civil-military relations have eroded in recent years.Show NotesRisa Brooks bioRisa Brooks, James Golby, and Heidi Urben, “Crisis of Command: America’s Broken Civil-Military Relationship Imperils National Security,” Foreign Affairs 100, no. 3, (May/June 2021).Lionel Beehner, Risa Brooks, and Daniel Marer, Reconsidering American Civil-Military Relations: The Military, Society, Politics, and Modern War (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2020).Risa Brooks, “Paradoxes of Professionalism: Rethinking Civil-Military Relations in the United States,” International Security 44, no. 4 (Spring 2020): 7-44. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next 11 highest spenders combined. William Hartung, Director of the Arms & Security Program at the Center for International Policy discusses what cuts would make military spending more efficient. William D. Hartung bio William D. Hartung, “Profits of War: Corporate Beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 Pentagon Spending Surge,” Watson Institute of Public and International Affairs, September 13, 2021. William D. Hartung, “Profiteers of Armageddon: Explaining the Money Behind the Pentagon’s Nuclear Weapon Build Up,” Inkstick Media, October 12, 2021. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Access to oil is so vital that powerful countries can take extraordinary measures to protect themselves from ever being vulnerable to oil coercion. Rosemary A. Kelanic, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Notre Dame University, discusses the recent history of great powers’ quest for oil security and what kind of future military postures the United States and China may take toward the Persian Gulf. Rosemary A. Kelanic bioRosemary A. Kelanic, Black Gold and Blackmail: Oil and Great Power Politics, (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2020).Rosemary A. Kelanic, “Why Iran’s ‘Oil Weapon’ Isn’t That Scary,” The Washington Post, June 18, 2019. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

President Joe Biden claimed he would defend human rights around the world, but his track record paints a different picture, especially in the Middle East. Quincy Institute senior fellow Annelle Sheline discusses how U.S. policies in the region have protected oppressive leaders while undermining American interests.Show NotesAnnelle Sheline bioAnnelle Sheline, “House Passes Measure Ending U.S. Support for Saudi War in Yemen,” Responsible Statecraft, September 23, 2021Annelle Sheline and Steven Simon, “Reset Overdue: Remaking U.S.-Saudi Relations,” Quincy Brief no. 6, October 2020 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Stephen Wertheim is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace. He discusses 20 years of failed post-9/11 national security policies, the strategy of global military dominance, and the ongoing the battle of ideas on the U.S. role in the world.Show Notes:Stephen Wertheim bioStephen Wertheim, “The Ever-Ready Answer for Failure in Afghanistan: More War,” The Washington Post, Stephen Wertheim, “Delusions of Dominance: Biden Can’t Restore American Primacy – And Shouldn’t Try,” Foreign Affairs, January 25, 2021. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

U.S. Naval War College professor Peter Dombrowski argues that the most pressing problems Americans face are internal domestic challenges and non-military risks like pandemics and climate change. But national security policy devotes disproportionate time and resources to confronting inflated threats from external actors. He joins the show to discuss the problems with an overly militarized grand strategy that has failed to properly identify or prioritize threats. Show Notes Peter Dombrowski bioSimon Reich and Peter Dombrowski, The End of Grand Strategy: U.S. Maritime Operations in the Twenty-First Century (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018).Peter Dombrowski and Simon Reich, “Does Donald Trump Have a Grand Strategy?” International Affairs 93, no. 5, (September 2017): pp. 1013-1037. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The chaos that accompanied the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan does not negate the wisdom of bringing the war to an end, despite protestations in Washington about U.S. credibility and the "sustainability" of endless war. Benjamin H. Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities, weighs in.  Show Notes Benjamin H. Friedman bioBenjamin H. Friedman, “Exiting Afghanistan: Ending America’s Longest War,” Defense Priorities, August 2019. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The now-popular "ending endless wars" slogan has generated more political rhetoric than real policy changes. David Sterman, senior policy analyst at New America, helps define the concept of "endless war" as a strategy based on unachievable objectives and offers practical policy solutions for a substantive shift away from the War on Terror. Show NotesDavid Sterman bioDavid Sterman, “Defining Endless Wars: The First Step Towards Ending Them,” New America, January 26, 2021.Peter Bergen, David Sterman, and Melissa Salyk-Virk, “America’s Counterterrorism Wars: Tracking the United States’s Drone Strikes and Other Operations in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya,” New America, June 17, 2021. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.