POLS 321 Final Exam Study Questions -The New Correct Set -- The final exam on March 13th, 2000 will consist of 4 of the following 8 questions. You will be required to answer 3 of the 4 selected questions.

1. Compare and contrast the ability of the two models of decision-making (rational choice, and bureaucratic/governmental politics) to explain the U.S. decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis. That is, what are the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two models and which one provides the best explanation of U.S. decision-making in this crisis?

2. We view the policymaking and the outcome of the Cuban Missile Crisis as a case of good policymaking. Some "hawks" disagree. They claim that the U.S. settled for far less than it should have. How did they come to this conclusion? Do you think their position is justified? Why or why not?

3. Reagan administration policy toward the Sandanistas never included a set of escalatory military policies. Robert Gates make a plea to use more force in an ill-fated memo in late 1984. Why was significant military intervention not possible? What would have had to change domestically and internationally for the administration to have seriously considered significant military intervention?

4. Develop an articulate and detailed response that can persuade the President and other key administrators why the proposal put forward by Bud McFarlane (Iran policy doc No. 60) is wrong and will produce bad consequences and that your proposal (indicating what the U.S. should accomplish and why and by what means) will provide a better solution to the problems at hand.

5. The Reagan administration got themselves into an arms for hostages policy with Iran and a politically and constitutionally controversial policy in supporting the Contras in Nicaragua. What accounts for how these policies evolved and the poor outcome each generated? Consider ideology, domestic politics, worldview, administrative style, and policymaking style in your response.

6. How do you account for the Bush Administration decision to use massive force in the Gulf War in 1990-1991? What narrative (War as politics and politics as business, the fairy tale and the just war, or the competitive game) appeared to be the most effective in persuading the American public and Congress to support the decision to use force?

7. What are the implications of each of the four futures (standing up for democracy, charting a stable course, cooperating globally, building U.S. economic strength) if it were to hold for US foreign policy? That is how would US foreign policy change and/or remain constant? What future or combination of futures do you feel is actually likely to develop and why?

8. What aspects of the Clinton administration's foreign policy appear to be a continuation of classic cold war U.S. foreign policy? What aspects appear to be new and could be referred to as Post-Cold War policy? Use ideas and arguments from the Ikenberry, Danner, and Mandelbaum articles to supplement your argument.