Political Science at Huntingdon College
Huntingdon College | Political Science | Club | Club News | Courses | Maps | Terrorism Index | What's New?
PSC 201: American Government | PSC 311: Voters, Parties & Elections
PSC 302: Comparative Government | PSC 303: International Relations
PSC 306: Public Organizations | PSC 314: Political Theory & Constitutional Law

Guest Speakers, 2004-2005

Prof. Jeremy Lewis, Revised 20 Feb. 2007.

  • International topics
  • American topics

  • Michael Meyer,
    "Middle Eastern Governments: Syria, Iraq and the Search for Security."
    by Adam Farquhar (Oct. 2004)
    (Speaker's own lecture outline is below.)

    I.  Opening Comments
        A.  Example of Tunisia
            1.  People really aren't that free.
            2.  If you are not for the president, you are shut out of society.
            3.  The economy isn't that good.
        B.  Iranians consider themselves separate from the Middle East.
        C.  None of the Arab States are truly free.
            1.  Arab States lack freedom, knowledge, and womens's participation.
            2.  Power is based on patronage and loyalty.
            3.  There are few advances in liberties compared to the rest of the world.
    II.  Syria
        A.  Syria was given the lowest possible score in political and civil rights by Freedom House.
        B.  Bashar Al-Asad became President following the death of his father, Hafiz Al-Asad.
            1.  The Military organized the transition of power in order to prevent a coup.
        C.  There is a Parliament, but it is only a puppet for the regime.
        D.  The country is ruled by a minority sect of Islam.
    III.  Egypt
        A.  The country gets a 6/7 ranking (second to last) for political and civil rights.
        B.  President Mubarak is firmly in control.
            1.  There is no real opposition.
    IV.  Saudi Arabia
        A.  Saudi Arabia has the lowest posssible score in political and civil rights. (7/7)
            1.  It is one of the most repressive countries in the world.
        B.  The House of Saud has ruled under a monarchy since 1932.
        C.  There is no parliament or political parties in Saudi Arabia.
    V.  Qatar
        A.  Qatar recieved a 6/7 for political and civil rights.
        B.  You don't see as much political repression in Qatar becuase of the high standard of living.
        C.  There has been only one family in charge of Qatar for decades.
        D.  There is no parliament in Qatar.
    VI.  Other Countries In the Middle East
        A.  Jordan
            1.  Jordan recieved a 6/7 for political rights and a 5/7 for civil rights.
            2.  It is a Monarchy with succession from father to son.
        B.  Other bright spots in the Middle East
            1.  Morocco
            2.  Bahrain
            3.  Kuwait
        C.  The jury is still out on Iraq.
    VII.  Society in the Middle East
        A.  There is a lot of security in the Middle East due to the amount of Authoritarian regimes.
        B.  The military works solely for the regime
            1.  They spy on the local population
            2.  They watch out for meatings of social groups.
            3.  They employ regular citizens.
        C.  There is hardly any upward mobility in Middle Eastern society.
        D.  Tribe loyalty is everything.
            1.  Syria-Alawis
            2.  Iraq-Sunnis
            3.  Jordan-Bedouin
        E.  Arab States promote military societies.
            1.  As a result of this, there are many spy agencies spying on each other.
            2.  You only move up in the military if you have connections.
            3.  Development is stifled.
            4.  The defense budget is high, leaving little room for social programs.

    Lecturer's Outline:
  • Arab Governments: The Quest for Security
  • Lecturer—Lieutenant Colonel Mike Meyer
  • Undergrad. Degree —Latin American History
  • Masters—Nat. Sec. Affairs (Mid-East) and Arabic
  • Middle East and Political Military Affairs Specialist
  • Intelligence Officer—Aviation and Political Affairs
  • Analyst and Briefer for Commander, USCENTCOM
  • Political Advisor to Commander, USCENTAF
  • Air Attaché, U.S. Embassy, Damascus, Syria
  • AF Recruiting Squadron Commander, Maxwell AFB
  • Agenda
  • Common Characteristics of Security-Conscious Arab States

  • What Means Do Arab States Employ to Ensure Security?

    What are the Implications for the Region?

  • No Truly Free Arab Countries
  • 0 of 22 Arab Governments are Truly Freely Elected
  • UN Human Development Report, 2002, Identifies 3 Deficit Areas:
  • Freedom, Knowledge, and Women’s Participation
  • Assumption of Power and Governance Based on Patronage and Loyalty
  • Contradicts Trend of Democratization in Other Parts of Developing World During the Past Few Decades—L. America, Africa, Far East, E. Europe
  • Syria: Egypt: Saudi Arabia: Qatar: Jordan: Few Bright Spots—Limited Political Liberalization:
          Morocco, Bahrain, and Kuwait

    Jury Still Out on Iraq, but Progress is Being Made
    —Only Because the Coalition Overthrew Saddam and is Present.

    Common Characteristics of Security Conscious Arab States

    Authoritarian Governments Dominate the Arab World

  • Many Leaders Live in Fear
  • Rulers Fear Political Reform as a Catalyst for Instability
  • Arab Countries are Often Essentially Police States with Relatively Large Security Services and Militaries
  • —Armed Forces are Not Servants of the People, But Served by the People (Corruption)
  • Despite Rich Cultural Composition and Histories,
  • Civil Society is Often Stifled or Closely Monitored

  • Large Portions or Majority of Population Often Cut Out
  •       or Impoverished—No Vehicles for Upward Mobility
  • What Means Do Arab States Employ to Ensure Security?
  • Co-opting and Promoting Particular (and often Minority) Ethnic Groups,
  •       as well as Attaining the Loyalty of Key Tribes
  • Syria—Alawis from the Coastal Mountains
  • Iraq—Sunnis from the Sunni Triangle/Tikritis
  • Jordan—Bedouin Families from East Bank

  • Controlled Demonstrations and Protests—

  •       Pressure Valves
  • Promotion of “Military” Societies

  • —Most Arab Leaders Either Rose Up through the Military or Closely Identify Themselves with the Military
  • Numerous and Overlapping Intelligence Agencies—More Eyes the Better!

  • Dual Militaries with Simultaneous External Defense and Internal Protection Missions.

  • Implications for the Region

  • Economic:
  • Unless Oil/Natural Gas Revenues High, Development is Stifled As Bright
  •      Young People  Emigrate or Are Forced to Settle for Jobs Beneath Capabilities
  • Welfare States Like Saudi Arabia are Threatened by a Lack of Opportunity
  • Defense Budgets are Disproportionately High, Taking Money From Civilian Industry
  • Military/Security:
  • Sycophants, Often from Particular Ethnic Groups, Advance Before Capable Leaders
  • Unit Morale is Negatively Affected as Personnel are “Watched”
  • Centralized Control Slows Speed at which Operations are Executed
  • Jealousies Hurt Cooperation Between Individual Services
  • Leaders Chase High-Profile Military Items vs. Most Practical Ones
  • Social/Political:
  • Political Cronies and Loyalist Leaches Attain High-Level Positions
  • Due to a Lack of Legal Outlets for Frustration, Extremism on the Rise
  • Militant Islam on the Rise
  • More and More Band-Aid Fixes Needed to Hold Together Societies

  • Dr. Sudha Mohan, of Mumbai, India,Senior Fulbright Fellow, Columbia University,  "Pakistan-India Relations," "Indian Constitution," "Indian Politics", "Role of Women in India."  26-30 Jan, '05.  [Notes]

    Chris Carr, PhD, Air War College, "War Talk in the Caucasus," Tues 29 Mar.
    PhD, London School of Economics.
    "Christopher Carr joined the AWC in 1998. Previously he was Senior Researcher, Center for Public Policy and Contemporary Issues, University of Denver. From 1986-8, 1989-93 he was Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Department of Political Science, US Air Force Academy. He has written articles on arms transfer policy and most recently contributed a chapter to Arms Control: Cooperative Security in a Changing Environment. His current research focuses on human insecurity in heavily weaponized communities, for which he has received support from the Institute for National Security Studies, US Air Force. Dr Carr holds a B.A. from the University of Lancaster, UK and a Ph.D. in International Relations from the London School of Economics (LSE). His areas of expertise include sub-state conflict, light weapons proliferation, civil conflict in Africa, 'Kalashnikov cultures', arms control, international organized crime." -- from AWC web page.

    The Causasus, between the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, is a dangerous and unsettled region comprising the republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan plus disputed regions of southern Russia, South Odettia and areas controlled by mountain warlords.  There is oil soon to be exported from Baku to the west via British Petroleum, plus a new democratic interest in Georgia.  The two are in tension.  Russian troops still have bases in Georgia, and the new democracy is in tension with its neighbors.  The US faces therefore a policy tension between supporting democracy and securing steady supplies of oil from Azerbaijan.

    Guest Speaker: Chris Carr, PhD, Air War College, "WAR TALK IN THE CAUCASUS"
    Notes by Alexander Zachos, March 29, 2005

  • Why would we be in war at the Caucasus?  [MAPS]
  • It is very plausible that a shooting war will happen in the Caucasus, Russia being the main enemy.
  • Russians owned this area of the world.
  • In Georgia, the Russians have a psychological tie.
  • In Armenia, matters are much more complex.  There are many more Armenians in the Diaspora (people living outside the actual sovereign country.)
  • Azerbaijan is the odd man out, they are a Muslim country who identifies with Turkey.  They also have oil reserves.  There is a lot of hate in this region of the world based on religion, ethnicity, etc.
  • When the Soviet Union broke up, these hatreds boiled up.  There is much hate between Armenia and Azerbaijan.  They had lived together peacefully for hundreds of years.
  • Mountain people are very different due to a regional difference, which is the mountain mentality.
  • 1988-Azerbaijan, the local community decided that the Armenians were going to attack.  They started to kill the Armenians in their own country, it occurred because of frustration.
  • Most Armenians that were inside Azerbaijan left the country to other parts of the  Caucasus.
  • Nigorno Karibak is owned by Azerbaijan, but the people are Armenian.
  • There was a nasty war between 1992-1994 where between 30,000 and 50,000 people died.  Mainly led by warlords; rape was used as a weapon.
  • The Azeries lost, and the Armenians won due to better leadership.  The Azeries talked to the Turks to blockade the Armenians, thus, the only way that the Armenians can get goods is through Iran, or Georgia.
  • Country without young people, trade and hope.  The thing that they have going for them is the Diaspora, who go out to different parts of the world and send money back.
  • This is called a remittance economy.  Without this, the Armenians would have no economy.
  • The Armenian Genocide- Happened in Turkey in 1915, where the Turks were scared of their collapsing empire, and killed between 800,000 and 2.5 million Armenians in Turkey.
  • Ther Armenians want the Turks to admit that it was genocide, then peace discussions can begin.
  • Oil: The U.S. should be concerned about the Caucasus because of oil.
  • The BTC Pipeline will pump 1 million gallons per day through, it is sweet oil, that doesn’t need to be refined very much.  It will never be more than 3 percent of the world’s oil
  • Azerbaijan had a civil war, the leader who emerged was Hadar Alyiev.  He is from Nachichevan, he makes a pact with the British government.
  • His son is known for losing three million dollars in one night in a casino, he starts grooming his son into a tough guy, Ilham succeeded to the crown the year before last.  They had fake elections, Ilham won with 92 percent.
  • Does oil trump democracy? This is the U.S.’s question that we must answer.
  • The Azeries will sell the oil to buy the weapons to take back over Nigorno Karibak.  This is always in the back of their minds.
  • There are more Azeries in Iran, than in Azerbaijan, this has interest for us.  There are many more religious radicals in Iran than in Azerbaijan, this could convert some of the modest Muslims to radicals.
  • Azerbaijan has a very corrupt government in Baku, Armenia is a concern because of the Armenian Diaspora in the US.
  • Georgia is the real concern for the U.S.
  • The Russians have a deep feeling for Georgia, Georgia died badly at the end of the Soviet Union, collapsed into civil war.
  • A group of Georgians called the foreign minister from Russia to get the people and country out of chaos.
  • Pankrisi Gorge is a harbor for terrorists, 2001 there were members of Al Quaeda, GTEP, to train.Georgians to clear out the bodyguards.
  • The Russians in Georgia see Americans to train the Georgians, to the Russians it looks like we are allying with the Georgian Sakashvilli government.  This is where the threat lies that there could be a shooting war with Russia.
  • Sakashvilli is young and in a hurry with less experience.  The things that make someone a good revolutionary doesn't make them a good peacetime president.
  • The Georgians will ask the Americans for help if they should fail for the two provinces inside Georgia against the Russians.  South Assetia, and Abkhazia.
  • Should Americans defend Sakashvilli and the Georgians against the Russians?
  • This is the debate that could lead to war
  • Ultimate paradox: We might actually get into a shooting war with Russia now, something that never happened during the 45 year Cold War.

  • Grant Hammond, PhD, Air War College,  "Technology, Globalization and Non-State Actors: A Revolution in Security Affairs" Thurs 31 Mar '05.
    "Dr. Grant T. Hammond is Deputy Director of the Center for Strategy and Technology (CSAT) and Professor of Strategy and International Security at the Air War College since 1989. Dr. Hammond is a frequent guest lecturer at home and abroad on defense issues, future conflict, creative thinking, strategy, and airpower. He was a major participant in two CSAF sponsored studies (SPACECAST 2020 and AF 2025). His publications include Countertrade, Offsets and Barter in International Political Economy(1990); Plowshares Into Swords: Arms Races in International Politics, 1840-1991 (1993) and The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security (2001). He has published in a number of journals including Aerospace Power Journal, Defense and Security Analysis, Joint Force Quarterly, The Journal of Conflict Studies, Washington Quarterly, Small Wars and Insurgencies, and the Journal of Innovation and Management among others. He has contributed numerous book chapters as well. Dr. Hammond holds an A.B. from Harvard and M.A. and Ph. D. in International Relations from the School of Advanced International Studies of The Johns Hopkins University. His major areas of research are the strategic consequence of technological choice and future conflict." -- from AWC web page

    Dr. Grant Hammond, Air War College,  "Technology, Globalization and Non-State Actors: A Revolution in Security Affairs"  [Material has been removed from its temporary position on web site, as the author continues to develop his drafts for publication.]
    The future of conflict, with the development of new generations of high-tech weapons and control systems, may look very different.  Disruption of command and control, and the long term economics of developing new weapons, may mean adversaries are mismatched and wars may be very short.  Biological, radiological and electronic weaponry may supersede high explosives.  Proliferation of new tech could on the other hand erode the US hegemony in military force.  Non state actors are of growing importance, and asymetric warfare may continue to grow in frequency.  The goals of war may include destroying the confidence of a people in its government, hence information warfare may be increasingly important.

    Col. Steven Wright,  PhD candidate, Tufts U., Air War College, "Communitarian and Cosmopolitan IR Theory," T Apr. 19.
    "Colonel Stephen E. “Wilbur” Wright is a Professor of Warfighting, Air War College (AWC), Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama. Before this assignment, he was a PhD student at The Fletcher School, Tufts University in Medford, MA. His operational expertise includes assignments in both the B-52D/G/H and B-1B, air operations center experience as the chief air strategist for 8th Air Force, and as a crisis action director for Air Combat Command (ACC) and division chief for ACC Director of Operations Information Operations Division. His command tours include the 9th and 28th Bomb Squadrons at Dyess AFB TX. He earned his BS at Texas A&M University and was a distinguished graduate of the Reserve Officer Training Corps. He holds master’s degrees in Industry and Technology (East Texas State University), National Security and Strategic Studies (Naval Command and Staff College), and Airspace Studies (School of Advanced Airspace Studies). He is currently working to complete his dissertation in International Relations and International Security Studies. He is a distinguished graduate of Squadron Officer School and a graduate of the Naval Command and Staff College. In 1997-98, he served as a National Defense Fellow in the International Security Studies Program, The Fletcher School, Tufts University. He is a command pilot with over 3,900 flying hours in the T-37, B-52, and B-1 aircraft." -- from AWC web page
    Wright, International Relations theories, notes [DOC] [PPT diagram [diagram, htm]
    President W. Bush, National Security Strategy 2002, PDF
    Wright, Communitarian Theory Notes [DOC]
    Wright, Cosmopolitan Theory Notes [DOC]

    Wing. Cmdr. Chris Luck, RAF, MBE, MA, Air Command and  Staff College, "The US and Europe", T 12 Apr.
    Wing Cmdr. Luck, currently teaching at the ACSC, is a Puma medium lift helicopter pilot, and a veteran of several conflicts since 1981, including the Falklands, the Balkans and both Gulf wars. [PPT] [HTM slides]

    Richard Chambers, PhD Princeton, Prof. Emeritus U. Chicago, "16th Century Superpower: the Ottoman Empire of Suleyman the Magnificent," Th 21 April.  [MAPS] [Ottoman Empire Government]
    (These notes do not include the hard copy handouts.)
  • Ottoman Empire

  • PSC 314, Lucie McLemore, District Court Judge, "The Bill of Rights in the District Court."  week 12, T March 29
    Judge McLemore, an HC and Jones Law School graduate, is elected to the Montgomery County district court.
    Judge McLemore used amendments of the bill of rights to illuminate examples of cases, warrants and procedure in the Montgomery County district court.

    PSC 314, Scott Rouse, Dep. Solicitor General,  "Constitutional Law in the Attorney General's Office", T Apr 12 [changed]
    Raw notes of discussion, by Charles Walters, 2005..
    alabama has law the prohibits the sell of sex toys such as vibrators and dildoes
    Does the state have the right to regulate these devices?
    Only bans the sale, not the use.
    The AG's office has to defend the law whether they agree with it or not
    Placing priorities on laws as such wastes the time of the State, when they need to be working on things such as the budget
    There is continued sale of these items because a federal injunction that has prevented arrests
    Is this the government's business (is it popular, morally wrong?)
    One shop had these items visible to the eyes of minors thus, the law was formed.
    Unlike the federal government which must have specific authority to create law, the state government can really create whatever is not prohibited
    Argument is that there is a federal privacy right that prohibits the states to issue a law of this character
    Strict interpreters of the Constitution believe there is "extra textual" issues that have been placed in the Constitution dealing with issues such as this Alabama law
    The Constitution is enduring, and  if we  need a "right to die" or "right to use sexual devices" we can amend the Constitution in the place of implying things such as the "privacy theory"
    Washington v Glutsberg- push to right to get someone to assist in committing suicide, the Supreme Court ruled no, there is no right
    The Supreme Court is reluctant to spread the right of privacy, because it "takes it off board politically" that way protests have no place because the issue already has been decided, and it removes the issue from the democratic field
    The court must decide what types of rights they are going to recognize,
    they have to be traditional rights, very specific, and of course lawful and not infringing
    Extra textural rights fall under the case of Griswold v Conneticut where birth control was a large issue
    Some of rights that have been raised:
    -having children is a fundamental right
    -marriage is fundamental right in Loving v Virgina
    -directing children's education
    -Moore v Cleveland where living with your extended family is a right
    these are well excepted rights and are embedded into society
    Birth control- is there a tradition of birth control in America?- elevated to Constitutional right, but strays from the standard as set in Glutsberg
    Roe v Wade- Court has said that the right of privacy is a right to have an abortion (is there a tradition of abortion in America)
    If something has not been regulated should regulation be based on the way culture has dealt with issue in past?- there has to be some positive protection in the law to create this regulation
    International standards have been looked at to judge American case outcomes
    If other countries have created a law against American established right, should this not raise a red flag to our own laws?
    Some states have board that weed out worst sex offenders and release the rest, the question has been raised that all states, should they have the same regulation? Do states have to give "full faith and  credit" to other state's laws?
    Sometimes laws and rights do not coincide, such as the right to refuse medical treatment, but you cannot kill yourself.
    Court said there is not a federal right to education, in the case of US Supreme Court v Rodriquez but, school is a tradition, and that most students education is paid for by the US government.
    -these cases point out inconsistencies in the Supreme Court rulings
    Lawrence v Texas- overturned Bowers v Hardwick- Bowers was 1986 the court case that ruled homosexual conduct was not a fundamental right- the facts in the cases were extremely similiar but, they did not rule there was a right
    Depending on how you interepret a right depends on how the court will interpret the right, if a court examines a case under strict scrutiny there is little chance of securing a victory
    but in the cases of rational basis scrutiny there is a large posibility that the issue could be changed
    Romer v Evans- government is hard to be ruled against (?)
    If someone is pushing a right today, is there a limit to what right can be pushed?
    Then all these rights are lumped into the right to privacy creating a broad spread that seemingly has no end.

    PSC 306, Gordon G.  Martin, VP, Alabama Power, and former congressional lobbyist,  "From Lobbying to Managing: Power and the Enron Scandal," F 15 Apr.  [PPT, large] [HTML]
    Mr. Martin, a former Washington lobbyist, and currently Vice President managing south Alabama operations, is alo a trustee of HC.  He holds one Master's degree and (except for the language requirement) virtually a second Master's.

    PSC 306, Katheryn Kennedy, Counsel, Office of Governor,  "The Governor, the Legislature, and Public Policy", M 25 Apr.
    Distance Education proposal slides: [PPT, large] [HTML]

    Top of Page