Reflection #2

The video and group discussion surely tested what the class already knew about leadership. As for the video, professionals gathered together to discuss US leadership and their "correct" use of power. Of course they took extreme examples that would not apply to everyday life, but they did make some valid arguments. As for US power, the entire audience agrees that the US military is incomparable to the sizes of the other smaller militaries around the world. The United States spends a fortune on its military, and yet it only takes up less than 20% of its total spending. This ability has given it the role of the world police however in my point of view. The video's argument stated that although the United States has this ability to pretty much destroy countries that come in conflict with the great nation, the United States should not be throwing its military and influence everywhere since it would cost the country too much of a financial burden. However, this contradicts a point made earlier on how the United States would make much more money economically for companies that supply war materials.
As for our debate group, we immediately fought for power to see who is the best person to lead the group. We mostly used soft power such as persuasion to get our needs completed. However, since we are all equals and students, this didn't work necessarily well with the other students (this was a good learning experience I had for the future!) We all ended up compromising and agreeing to meet with each other to finish up the project and make a powerful argument next week wednesday.

Reflection #1

In yesterday's lecture, we discussed Kissenger's and Albright's take on leadership and how it should be carried out by the United States. Their opinion was the complete opposite as mine in which they stated that the United States should not always lead in situations they wish to see change in. This highly contradicts my point of view since in the unipolar world we are currently living in (regarding the strength on military and weapons of mass destruction) should have its main and strongest power as the "worl police". To only intervene when seem necessary or beneficial to the United States will make its ties to other allies weaken as they cannot place their trust entirely on the United States. An example of this includes Colombia's terrorist group, The FARC. Previously, the United States had provided aid for Colombia to combat this terrorist group. However, this aid has been cut within the last couple of years and the terrorist group has begun to rise once again and terrorize the people of Colombia. Although the country has tried to retain more aid from the US by signing trade agreements with the them that would only benefit the other country, no aid has been further given to this developing country.

Debate- Post 2

Following a viewing of a discussion panel which quickly turned into a debate with a biased mediator, we were split into groups for a similar debate. Not only did I find the topic educational, the act of debating was, perhaps, even more informative. During the debate we discussed the relationship between power and leadership. One of the more interesting ideas that came from the debate was the idea power is needed for leadership but power does not guarantee leadership which brought us to a discussion on the effective use of power. Naturally, from there, we progressed into how one defines effectiveness and whether morality should be considered. Very quickly it became apparent who sided with Kissinger and who sided with Albright. Some aspects of these concepts were present in debate teams’ organizational structure. For example, my team members were eager to participate and contribute, but restrained themselves from seeking authority over peers knowing they would fail and the team would suffer. Rather, we adopted a team dynamic based on a direct democracy where everyone could talk which was possible because we were so few in number. While I was coordinating with my team, I observed a drastically different dynamic in the other group. In this dynamic, knowledge was power and everyone was trying to display their power in hopes of becoming the leader. Our team did not have such a position, though we did have a director which I feel was a much more suitable position for the situation. I believe the benefits of our dynamic showed in our success in the debate if not in the actual argument in the structuring of our argument.

Reflection #2 From Video/Group Debate

The second half of class was very interesting today. The video that we watched demonstrated many different opinions and their conversation about them through a clearly biased moderator. Then, we were separated into our debate groups, which definitely led to conflict in terms of leadership roles in my group at least.
First, I would like to discuss a question introduced in the video we watched: What is the relationship between leadership and power? At a very basic level, I would say that leadership is not dependent on power, but power is dependent on leadership. You can't lead without power, but you can have power without leading. Power allows a leader to effectively accomplish his or her tasks and gives them both legitimacy and authority so that followers will support them. In the second case, however, the person with power would be wasting it in terms of having legitimacy and not using it. A bad leader would not be able to effectively utilize their power.
As for our debate group, it was very interesting for us all to be interacting in this leadership class with as much difficulty as we had. It kind of reminded me of the marshmallow challenge because we did not have one leader assigned, which led to us all attempting to do it in our own styles and that definitely did not work. I think it was difficult for us because we were all on equal levels and did not know who should have more authority than others or why. It was also difficult when we tried to determine who would do what role since everyone had different preferences and it was hard to accommodate them all. Overall, as long as we utilize social media and communicate effectively, I'm sure our debate will go well on Wednesday.

Reflection #1 From Class Lecture

I would like to talk about the concept of American leadership and how policymakers have to make choices about where and how to lead. It is very interesting that both Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger believe in having a grand strategy for the United States in international relations overall, but very understandable as both former Secretaries of State have been in the position where they held the power.
In my paper, I analyzed the role of the United States in the United Nations because I believe that to be a good example of its leadership in the international realm. This position of authority, which is earned from the amount of money we contribute and our role as a superpower, allows us to make reforms that the current administration holds most important. For example, the Obama administration focused on the economy, accountability, integrity, and effectiveness involved in the United Nations. Since they are a part of the Security Council and have veto power, they already demonstrate legitimacy in this worldwide organization.
For these reasons, I argue that American foreign policymakers should always take the United Nations into consideration when making their decisions about international leadership. Albright most likely did since she was the United States Ambassador to the United Nations prior to her role as Secretary of State. Kissinger's previous position was National Security Advisor. That would be an interesting topic for further research: what effects did their previous positions have on how they handled their Secretary of State roles?

Albright, Kissinger, and Me

My personal views align more with Kissinger’s world view and disagree with Albright. I recognize the importance of soft power and the use of diplomacy to attract allies, but the idea that with all the different cultures in this world a universal set of morals can exist seems optimistic. Despite my opinions, after reviewing my paper, I found my paper utilized Albright’s logic more so than Kissinger’s. I hinted at some of Kissinger’s ideas in my early drafts noting the downfall of American leadership could be attributed to economic and diplomatic failings brought by US involvement in the Middle East. By the time I arrived at my final draft, many of those ideas had been stripped away and the core of my paper focused not on the conflict itself, but the handling of it so that the blame for weakened US leadership was now on the mismanagement of US power. This mismanagement reflected poorly on the US resulting in the loss of legitimacy which I stated was the basis of US leadership; I believe Albright would agree.

Albright and Kissinger

Albright and Kissinger agree on many points regarding a grand strategy for the US, where they differ is on how to achieve their goals. Both note the importance of national security and prosperity. They also recognize the far reaching extent of the US’ hard power; hard power being the US’ military and economic dominance as well as its strategic location geographically. They differ on soft power due to their different methods of achieving their national interest. Albright believes the US derives its power from its universally attractive, moral views while Kissinger believes the US derives its power from balancing the international order, respecting the rights of sovereignty, and accepting different beliefs. Albright adopts a homogeneous world view with a in group and an out group; Kissinger allows for heterogeneity to exist as long as the world is balanced. To achieve their goals, Albright recommends the use of diplomacy to gain allies and the use of hard power (economic sanctions, military action) to regulate those rogue states. At the crux of Albright’s philosophy is a moral belief which Kissinger believes is resented by other states. Indeed, he advises against moralizing so as to avoid antagonizing other states and states moral adventures are usually “open-ended” and “draining.” Rather, the US should use economic relations and alliances to prevent the emergence of a hegemon and maintain a balanced system.