If Machiavelli were appointed as chief foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, what advice would he give the U.S. president on (a) the Iranian nuclear issue, and (b) the Israeli-Palestinian issue?
Essentially I have to justify it based on writings from "The Prince" other topics available were stuff I don't particularly have an interest in.
Essentially I'm thinking that the way I would structure it as 1) Identify America's interests in the issues, theres no point coming up with a plan or course of action when its not apparant what we want, "consider the end result" essentially. 2) Once America's interests are pinpointed we can then surmise the end results we see, from there we can start determining the possibly options. "You will usually find that there are usually three courses of action open to you and of these you will adopt a fourth" (Moltke) 3) determine the pros and cons of each justifying each and ultimately critisizing each according to the Principles of The Prince.
4) Choose my final action, reiterate the argument for it, do this process for issues A) and B) and then conclude based on what my research has taken me to that point.
Sounds like a good start?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
It does sound like a good start, although make sure you link the background what-are-the-interests information to the advice you will be giving so you don't end up with too much background information clogging up the real point of the essay.
I took an International Law course that had questions like this on the exams. I never did terribly well, but I loved coming up with the answers.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Sounds like a good start..... although perhaps more important from Machiavelli's perspective would be Obama's interests (insofar as they impact his ability to stay in power) rather than America's intersts.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Without knowing any more about the class, I'm going to presume that this paper will be graded more on your understanding of The Prince than your understanding of the Iran nuclear issue and the Israel Palestinian issue. So you need to back up one step and ask yourself, what are the key principles of "The Prince" and how are you going to work those clearly into your advice.
As someone obsessed with war games, you are very likely to get yourself into trouble on this assignment by going with what you think is good war game strategy rather than on what Machiavelli actually wrote. You may not even be aware that there is a difference. So start with "The Prince" itself, identify key principles in Machiavelli's words and work them into your essay from the beginning.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
War games I play are all about diplomatic interactions with other players, to the point that things like reputation matter a great deal, things that the Prince focused much on, its one thing to inspire fear but must at all costs avoid being hated.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
May I repeat
quote:As someone obsessed with war games, you are very likely to get yourself into trouble on this assignment by going with what you think is good war game strategy rather than on what Machiavelli actually wrote. You may not even be aware that there is a difference.
Trust me on this one Blayne. I'm not trying to put you down, I'm trying to give you advice on how to write a successful term paper. If Machiavelli is more relevant to the core subject of this class than Iran or Israel, the Professor will be looking of specifics from the texts. Don't make the mistake of presuming your personal war gaming strategies will pass for what Machiavelli wrote. Step Zero in the process is to study "The Prince" and pick specific points from it that you will use in your report.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: May I repeat
quote:As someone obsessed with war games, you are very likely to get yourself into trouble on this assignment by going with what you think is good war game strategy rather than on what Machiavelli actually wrote. You may not even be aware that there is a difference.
Trust me on this one Blayne. I'm not trying to put you down, I'm trying to give you advice on how to write a successful term paper. If Machiavelli is more relevant to the core subject of this class than Iran or Israel, the Professor will be looking of specifics from the texts. Don't make the mistake of presuming your personal war gaming strategies will pass for what Machiavelli wrote. Step Zero in the process is to study "The Prince" and pick specific points from it that you will use in your report.
I know this I am just correcting you on what you think goes on in my war games, my games are less about war and more about politics to the point I can actually apply The Prince to said games.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Her point is that you need to be using The Prince as a primary source, not looking for quotes from The Prince that back up the theories you've formed by playing strategy games.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Her point is that you need to be using The Prince as a primary source, not looking for quotes from The Prince that back up the theories you've formed by playing strategy games.
Repeatum ad infinitum I already know this.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Exactly Tom.
Blayne, I said nothing about what goes on in your war games. I haven't made any presumptions about them except this, the strategy you've developed in playing them is extremely unlikely be exactly what Machiavelli wrote in The Prince. You need to be very careful. I'm telling you as college prefessor, this question is a trap for people like you. Don't fall into it. Your professor doesn't want to demonstrate your skill as political/military strategist. She/he wants you demonstrate you understand Machiavelli.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Her point is that you need to be using The Prince as a primary source, not looking for quotes from The Prince that back up the theories you've formed by playing strategy games.
Repeatum ad infinitum I already know this.
Then let me repeat it ones more
quote:As someone obsessed with war games, you are very likely to get yourself into trouble on this assignment by going with what you think is good war game strategy rather than on what Machiavelli actually wrote. You may not even be aware that there is a difference.
Please read the part in bold over and over again until you clearly understand why I repeated in response to your description of the kind of war games you play.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
And now on to something completely different!!
Posted by Ecthalion (Member # 8825) on :
ah, the dangers of leaving your name logged in at a workplace
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Huh?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Do your own homework!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: Do your own homework!
Your joking right?
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
quote:If Machiavelli were appointed as chief foreign policy advisor to Barack Obama, what advice would he give the U.S. president?
I'm actually very curious about this, because I'm assuming the assignment is meant to have the students provide machiavellian advice. But what it's actually asking is something quite different.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Really how so?
For me the sticking point is WHAT does the US wish to see happen in either issue? Secondly a problem lies within world opinion, opinion and the current information age with the ability to spread instantly almost any sort of information actually I think limits rather then expands the options as its alot easier to spin your reputation when theres only so many sources and only so many people giving a damn watching... But today? With the United Nations? I think it takes most "cruel" options off the table under the assumption it is not within the US interests to end up a pariah. Right now even measured cruelty would result in that 90% likely.
Between being loved and feared if you can only have one it is much better to be feared then love but better to have both, however while being feared is okay you MUST avoid being hated.
Right now in todays politics the line between feared and hated is razor thin.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Really how so?
Because it's possible that the advice Machiavelli would give Obama in that role would not in fact necessarily be what Machiavelli would himself do in Obama's position.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is also useful to keep in mind that the Prince was a job application, not the work of an already-hired advisor.
Posted by Dante (Member # 1106) on :
And there's the question of how sincere a portrayal of Machiavelli's actual thought The Prince is. Just because somebody wrote something doesn't mean that he believes it.
For that matter, if it's a paper on how he would advise a democratically elected leader, Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy would be a better work to use.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And there's the question of how sincere a portrayal of Machiavelli's actual thought The Prince is. Just because somebody wrote something doesn't mean that he believes it.
Heh, Machiavelli's sincerity in Tthe Prince would seem to me to be in question almost by definition, wouldn't it?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I believe common interpretation was that The Prince was a Take That at Principalities, essentially "if you have Princes thus they is how they should act, ergo it is better to not have Princes"
However The Prince's effect on political thought however has gotten to the point where it stresses what would be the equivalent of realist pragmatism in international decision making to enhance the interests of your state.