HSEP 301

Fall 2020

Review 2

This looks big, but don't worry. If you have come to class, or viewed the lectures, and done all the reading, nothing here should be new to you.

Also, though there are a lot of terms, obviously, not each one of them is the subject of an essay. These terms, in order, are an outline of everything we've done so far. A group of them might be the subject of an essay, or maybe a comparison between one president's foreign policy and another. Usually, you can't explain a single term without referring to the terms next to it. So, really, if you can say one or two things about each term and how it relates to the terms around it and fits into the larger scheme of US foreign policy you're doing fine. Some terms, however, are filled with enough significance to be short answers/identifications on the test, but you'll be able to figure out which ones.

Remember that you have the PPT slides. They are a version of this review sheet.

Terms with (*) in front of them may not have been included in the lectures, but were discussed, at length, in the readings.

This a take home exam.

You have roughly two days to complete the exam.  

It will consist of two parts:

• Part 1: Short Answers: Choose 2 of 8 (or more to choose from): (15 points each; roughly one half of a page): I’ll have a list of terms taken directly from the review sheet. Define the term and tell me why it’s important in the context of US foreign policy.
• Part 2: Presentation Question: See Below (20 points)
• Part 3: Essay: Choose 1 of 2 (maybe 3 to choose from): (50 points; roughly 3-4 pages). Each essay has several parts to it. Make sure to do all parts of the essay. There are choices even within the essay, so make sure you read the directions. A part of an essay may say “choose 3 of 5.” Do three; don’t do all five.

How does a take home exam work?

• The midterm will be placed in the Course Documents folder on December 2 at about 9:00 AM.  Due by midnight on December 3 (as December 3 becomes December 4, but that deadline is a soft one; don't sweat an extra few hours or so). 
• Type or write the exam. 
• Either way, email me a file or pdf or even jpeg of the written answers by the deadline
• 11- or 12-point font
• One-inch margins
• Double-spaced
• Please use your name is the name of the file you send me.  I’d be happiest if you named the file like this: Your name Exam 1 HSEP 301 or POLI 367 (so if it was my exam, it would be Newmann Exam 1 HSEP 301)
• The exam is open notes (so you can use your notes, the book, the review sheet, and the PPT slides
• I do not expect any outside research on this at all
• Each question has a specific page number target.  You can go over the limit, not a problem, but don’t go too far over the limit. You don’t need to.
• I think three hours will be enough time for you to write the exam and do well. You can take more time of course, as much as you need. The point here is that I don't think you need to spend hours and hours.
• It might be helpful to read the questions, then review your notes, and the review sheet.  Maybe make an outline of the essay. And then start to write.
• As always, the review sheets should be very helpful. You can use the review sheets while you take the exam. It might be a good organizational tool. 
• Feel free to email me questions if you have them, but as usual, there are limits to how I can help you.

And, important:

• Sharing this exam with anyone outside the class is a violation of the VCU Honor Code
• Working with another student in the class or anyone else while you take this exam is a violation of the VCU Honor Code
• As with any take home, the plagiarism rules that exist for research papers apply here.  Your exams must be your written work. I will run this through the standard plagiarism programs as I do with all research papers

Part 2: Presentation Question: Remember that information from the class presentations will be on the exam. The PPT slides for all the class presentations will be linked to the syllabus, so these can be used as a reference. The review sheet does not contain any terms from the student presentations. For the exam you will be expected to be able to compare several of the terrorist groups discussed during the presentations in terms of the issue area that you had been assigned. In other words, if your research was on Strategy, you should be ready to discuss the strategies of all the terrorist groups included in the presentations. If your research was on Support, you should be ready to discuss the strategies of all the terrorist groups included in the presentations. A hint, to do this well, you should also pay attention to the Origins presentations for the groups you want to use as comparison even if your issue is not Origins.

Here's the Question:

Part Two: Presentation Question (20 points). This should be about a page to a page and a half. 

Compare the terrorist group you studied to two of the terrorist groups discussed during the presentations in terms of the issue area that you had been assigned.  In other words, if your research was on Strategy, compare your research to the strategy of two terrorist groups included in the presentations (choose any two from the class presentations).  If your research was on Support, compare your research to the support structure or recruitment strategies of two of the terrorist groups included in the presentations.  An easy way of thinking about this is to consider how your group was similar to one other group and how it was different from another.  If your issue area was Negotiations, compare your research to the Strategy or Non-Violent activities of two other groups.  If your research was on Non-Violent activities, compare your group to Support or Negotiations.  FARC and Hezbollah will have PPT slides on Non-violent activities.  PKK will have slides on Negotiations.

List of Terms

Terms with an asterisk before them are those that are also addressed in the readings. 

Terrorism in the US

Assassinations of presidents

Ethnonationalist Terrorism

Extreme Left 1960s-1970s

Weather Underground

Eco-terrorism (also left)

ALF and ELF

Extreme Right: KKK

Three incarnations

Why FBI worries about the extreme right today

*Oklahoma City 1995

*Timothy McVeigh

*Nichols ties to Michigan Militia

Dylann Roof

Robert Bowers

Patrick Crusias

Wolverine Watchman

Four Ideologies of Modern Extreme Right

*The overlap

1. *White Supremacists

a. *Great Replacement

b. *Accelerationists

c. *White Power as a culture

d. *David Duke and NAAWP

2. *Anti-Government

a. *Militia movement

b. *Sovereign citizens

c. *ZOG

i. *Its relation to anti-communism (Belew)

3. *Christian Identity/Extremism

a. *End times are a race war

4. *Anti-Abortion

a. *Eric Rudolph

*Belew’s thesis

*Extreme right terrorism and the Vietnam War

*Difference between these groups (challenging government power) and the KKK (reinforcing government power)

*View of women in these ideologies

Groups

*The Order

Killing of Alan Berg

*Robert Matthews

David Lane’s 14 Words

*Aryan Nations

*1983 declaration of war on the US government

*Ruby Ridge

*Waco

*Relation to Oklahoma City 1995

*Turner Diaries: William Pierce

Common Themes in all four ideologies

Relation to the “Alt-Right”?

The importance of the internet to radicalization

Stormfront

4chan/8chan

*Leaderless Resistance

*Louis Beam

DVEs vs. HVEs

Domestic Terrorism Charges

Counterterrorism Policies

US Government and Terrorism

Terrorism as a crime

Terrorism as low priority even in 1990s

Homeland security on the backburner

US Commission on National Security (Hart-Rudman)

Gilmore Commission

Focus on worst case: terrorist use of WMD

Probability vs. consequence

US assumptions

Marxism caused terrorism (USSR gone, so terrorism is gone)

States are the threat

US superiority will deter all challenges

What is Counterterrorism

1. Organization

CIA and FBI

Coordination

Priorities

US assumptions about terrorism as Cold War ends

Hart-Rudman Commission

Gilmore Commission

Clinton Pre-9/11 Structure

National Coordinator

Counterterrorism Security Group

Bush Administration changes:

Homeland Security Council

Office of Homeland Security

Homeland Security Adviser

Congress wants Dept. of Homeland Security

Creation of Dept. of Homeland Security

The range of its responsibilities

2. Intelligence

Defining the problem

To know what to look for

Sharing information

State Dept-led

Designation as Foreign Terrorist Organization

State Sponsors of Terrorism

Terrorist Exclusion List

State/Treasury

Exec Order 13224

FBI

Terrorist Watch Lists

Terrorist Screening Center

Problems

Coordination and Information sharing among all the intelligence agencies (Intelligence Community)

Organizational rivalries

Fixing the Problem

IRTPA 2004

Director of National Intelligence

National Counterterrorism Center

Intelligence Fusion Centers

3. War of Ideas

Root Causes?

Radical Ideologies

Ethno-nationalism

Non-democratic nations

Radicals vs. Moderates

Hamas vs. PLO/Fatah

De-radicalization?

Saudi programs

Narratives vs. Counter-narratives

Failed States

4. Diplomacy

UN-based Multilateralism

Importance of allies – intelligence, legal environment, operations

US and Pakistan in the fight against AQ

Afghanistan and Pakistan as sanctuaries for AQAM

5. Economic Issues

Multilateralism: preventing terrorism financing

US Office of Foreign Assets Control

6. Legal/Law Enforcement

Terrorists as criminals: 1996 ATEDP Act

Gray Area: criminal or soldier?

Charges against foreign nationals committing attacks against the US

Ramzi Yousef

Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman

Homegrown Violent Extremist Charges

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

DVE Charges

McVeigh Charges

Three Key issues

Surveillance

FISA 1978

Problem with FISA focus on agents of a foreign government

Warrants and why they mattered

FISA Revisions: post 9/11

USA PATRIOT Act

Surveillance and civil liberties issues

Terrorist Surveillance Program: National Security Agency

Protect America Act 2007/FISA Amendments Act 2008

Section 702

National Security Letters

Prism Program

Implications

Legal Status of Individuals

Detainees as a source of intelligence (information)

Military Order of November 2001

unlawful enemy combatant designation

questions about the rights of detainees?

Guantanamo Bay detention

How detainees eventually got rights under the US constitution

Habeas Corpus and US Supreme Court decisions

Military Commissions Act 2006/2009

The results of the detentions (data)

Treatment of Individuals

CIA vs. FBI methods

Memo legalizing “enhanced interrogation”

The ten accepted methods of interrogation

Controversy over interrogation methods

Detainee Treatment Act

7. Operations

CIA Paramilitary

NEST

JTTF responsibilities

Range of federal agencies

State and local

Memorandum of Understanding negotiations with state and local law enforcement

Dilemmas

8. Use of Force

Israel in Lebanon

Sir Lanka and LTTE

US and Afghanistan

US and Iraq

US and Drone Strikes

Can you maintain allied support?

9. Negotiations

Israel and PLO

Hamas response

Good Friday Agreement

IRA splits

Cronin

*Premise: all terrorist groups will end

*Three key actors in terrorist triad: terrorist group, government, audience

*Six ways terrorist groups have ended

*Effectiveness of assassination vs. arrest

*Negotiation success and failure

*Northern Ireland

*Israeli-Palestinian

*Success: Achievement of goal?

*And ethno-nationalism

*Second and Third generation in terrorist movements

*AQ success in creating a next generation?

*Losing public support

*Does repression work?

*Moving to crime or insurgency

*FARC and LTTE examples

*Decapitating AQ?

*Negotiating with AQ?

*Losing popular support and AQ?

*AQ transnationalist goals vs. local goals.