Analyzing a Kurdish Suicide Bombing Through Theories of Terrorism and Evaluating Modern U.S. Military Responses, Including COIN, RMA, Netwar, and Air-Sea Battle - 26/07/2025 10:10 EDT

Here is what you need to do for Exam #2 in GOVT 1817-02, due Monday, July 28 at 11am. This is an essay-based exam that counts for 20 percent of your final grade. You must answer both Part I and Part II in a single paper, with a maximum length of 8 double-spaced pages. Do not use any outside sources—only draw from the assigned readings and video lectures from July 18 to July 24.

PART I – Terrorism and War (75% of your exam grade)
This part asks you to analyze a specific real-world case of terrorism involving a female Kurdish fighter in Syria. You will use the assigned theoretical frameworks to explain the event and evaluate military responses.

Question 1: Theoretical Interpretation of the Event

Using the article about the bombing in Syria (attached in the exam), explain how each of the following theorists or perspectives would interpret the event:

Strategic theorists from Lemann’s article “What Terrorists Want”
“Pure rage” theorists from the same article
Robert Pape, from the interview “The Logic of Suicide Terrorism”
Thomas Barnett, from “The Pentagon’s New Map”
Tarak Barkawi, from “On the Pedagogy of Small Wars”
If there is not enough information to apply a theory, explain what else you would need to know. Your goal is to show you understand each theory and how it might (or might not) apply to the Kurdish suicide bombing.

Question 2: Evaluating Military Strategies

Based on your understanding of the assigned materials, evaluate which war-fighting strategies would be most effective—or ineffective—in addressing this kind of terrorism.

You must discuss:

RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) from Lemann
COIN (Counterinsurgency) strategies from Lieven, Record, and the film excerpts from Obama’s War
Netwar and Hybrid War from Arquilla, Balasevicius, and Stowell
You should briefly define each strategy, then apply it to the case. Explain what would work and what would not, and why.

PART II – U.S. Military Strategy and Global Conflict (25% of your exam grade)
This section focuses on broader U.S. military strategy, especially in relation to China.

Question 1: The “Third Offset” Strategy

Based on Benjamin Locks’ article “Bad Guys Know What Works”, answer the following:

Why is the “third offset” strategy problematic, according to Locks?
How does Locks’s critique connect to COIN and Hybrid War/Netwar?
Your response should demonstrate an understanding of what the third offset is, and why it may be mismatched with modern threats. Then connect it to COIN and Hybrid War/Netwar frameworks from the readings.

Question 2: Air-Sea Battle and US-China Relations

This question focuses on the concept of Air-Sea Battle, which Locks refers to as “Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons.” Using Van Tol’s article, explain what Air-Sea Battle is and what it aims to achieve.

Then explain:

How would Jacques view the effect of Air-Sea Battle on US-China relations and China's global role?
How would Barnett respond to the strategy?
Would either Jacques or Barnett disagree with the strategy, and if so, why?
You must include perspectives from:

Van Tol (on what ASB is)
Jacques (on global power and China)
Barnett (on global security needs)
Optionally: Lieven, Arquilla, Balasevicius, and Stowell, especially if you want to refer back to COIN and Hybrid War/Netwar concepts
Submission Guidelines
Maximum length: 8 double-spaced pages
Submit via Canvas by Monday, July 28 at 11am
No outside sources—use only the assigned course materials
Papers will be graded on:
Understanding of the readings and theories
Organization, clarity, and logic of your writing
Evidence of effort and thoughtfulness