Military
-

This special panel will address the challenges facing Egypt's transition today.

Dr. Maha Abdelrahman will speak on the historical roots of post-Mubarak politics by 
examining two main features of the decade long of protests since 2000.

Dr. Amr Adly will speak on how Egypt's economic crisis interacts with the shaping of the new political sphere, and whether this can be framed as Egypt's failed transition to democracy or transition to failed democracy. He will argue that the country was put on the trajectory of a conservative democratic order which indeed has been instilled but the only problem is that it is quite dysfunctional.

Ahmed Salah will discuss  the position of revolutionary groups toward Morsi's Regime and how and why it devolved.

Prof. Robert Springborg will present on "The Muslim Brotherhood and the Military: The Mongoose and the Cobra Revisited".

Prof. Joel Beinin will present on "Workers, Trade Unions, and Egypt's Political Future".

 

The panel is co-sponsored by the Stanford Humanities Center and the Abbasi Program in Islamic Studies.

Encina Ground Floor Conference Room

Joel Beinin Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History and Professor of Middle East History Speaker Stanford University
Robert Springborg Professor Speaker Naval Postgraduate School
Amr Adly Researcher Speaker Program on Arab Reform and Democracy (ARD), Stanford University
Maha Abdelrahman Lecturer Speaker University of Cambridge
Ahmed Salah Activist Speaker
Panel Discussions
-


--Co-Hosted with the American Academy of Arts and Sciences--

Director Albright will give a CISAC science seminar as part of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Workshop on Dual-Use Technologies within their Global Nuclear Future Initiative.


Penrose C. "Parney" Albright is the 11th Director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and the second president of Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS), LLC. Albright has extensive experience in executive leadership, including policy direction, strategic planning, congressional and executive branch interactions, financial and personnel management of large mission-focused science and technology organizations, and research, development, testing, and evaluation of national security technologies and systems. He has a broad and deep understanding of U.S. military and international security requirements, functions, and processes in the national security arena.

CISAC Conference Room

Penrose C. (Parney) Albright Director, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Speaker
Seminars
-

CISAC Conference Room

Timothy Junio Cybersecurity Fellow Speaker CISAC
0
Affiliate
Diffie_Whit.jpg

Whitfield Diffie is a consulting scholar at CISAC. He was a visiting scholar in 2009-2010 and an affiliate from 2010-2012. He is best known for the discovery of the concept of public key cryptography, in 1975, which he developed along with Stanford University Electrical Engineering Professor Martin Hellman. Public key cryptography, which revolutionized not only cryptography but also the cryptographic community, now underlies the security of internet commerce.

During the 1980s, Diffie served as manager of secure systems research at Northern Telecom. In 1991, he joined Sun Microsystems as distinguished engineer and remained as Sun fellow and chief security officer until the spring of 2009.

Diffie spent the 1990s working to protect the individual and business right to use encryption, for which he argues in the book Privacy on the Line, the Politics of Wiretapping and Encryption, which he wrote jointly with Susan Landau. Diffie is a Marconi fellow and the recipient of a number of awards including the National Computer Systems Security Award (given jointly by NIST and NSA) and the Franklin Institute's Levy Prize.

Whitfield Diffie Affiliate Commentator CISAC
Seminars
-

Why do government policymakers and peace activists often come to radically different conclusions on issues pertaining to peace and security? Drawing on insights from the literature on contentious politics and international relations theory, I argue that the politics of peace extend from different views regarding the nature of existing power relations and the legitimacy and moral purpose of the state. To test my argument, I examine the conflict between state and civil societal actors over the construction of a South Korean naval base and use discourse and content analysis to assess different interpretations regarding peace and security in relation to the naval base. Although the hope is to see David defeat Goliath, my findings are less sanguine: activists are not only physically overpowered by the state, but at the ideological level, their frames and discourse are frequently drowned out by a powerful discursive structure embedded in the logic of realism. This research has implications not only for national security policy in South Korea, but for international relations in Northeast Asia more broadly as middle powers position themselves between Beijing’s rise and Washington’s strategic rebalance to Asia.

Professor Andrew Yeo’s broad research interests lie at the intersection of international relations and comparative politics. His first book, Activists, Alliances, and Anti-U.S. Base Protests (Cambridge University Press, 2011) explores the politics of overseas military bases, focusing on the impact of security alliances on social movements and state response to domestic anti-base pressure. His other works have appeared in Comparative Politics, International Studies Quarterly, and Journal of East Asian Studies. His research and teaching interests include international relations theory, international security, overseas U.S. military presence, social movements and transnational politics, East Asia, and North Korea. He received his Ph.D. from Cornell University in 2008.

Philippines Conference Room

Dr. Andrew Yeo Assistant Professor, Department of Politics Speaker Catholic University of America
Seminars
Paragraphs

The Ninth Korea-U.S. West Coast Strategic Forum was held at the Lotte Hotel in Seoul on November 13, 2012, hosted by the Sejong Institute. The Ninth Forum’s three sessions focused on the implications of major leadership changes in the United States, South and North Korea, and China. Established in 2006 by Stanford University’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC) and now convening semi-annually alternating between Stanford and Seoul, the Forum brings together distinguished South Korean (Republic of Korea, or ROK) and American scholars, experts, and former military and civilian officials to discuss North Korea, the U.S.-ROK alliance, and regional dynamics in Northeast Asia. Operating as a closed workshop under the Chatham House Rule of individual confidentiality, the Forum allows participants to engage in candid, in-depth discussion of current issues of vital national interest to both countries.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Shorenstein APARC
Paragraphs

The eighth session of the Korea-U.S. West Coast Strategic Forum was held at Stanford University on June 1, 2012. Established in 2006 and now convening semiannually alternately in Stanford and Seoul, the Forum brings together a distinguished group of South Korean (Republic of Korea, or ROK) and American scholars, experts, and former military and
government officials to discuss North Korea, the U.S.-ROK alliance, and regional dynamics in Northeast Asia. Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center is co-organizer of the Forum in association with its partner, the Sejong Institute of Korea. The Forum operates as a closed workshop under the Chatham House Rule of individual confidentiality, allowing participants to engage in frank, in-depth discussion of current and emerging issues of importance and interest to both countries.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Shorenstein APARC
Paragraphs

The Sejong Institute of Korea hosted the seventh session of the Korea-U.S. West Coast Strategic Forum at the Lotte Hotel in Seoul on December 13, 2011. Established in 2006 by Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (Shorenstein APARC), the Forum brings together distinguished South Korean (Republic of Korea, or ROK) and American scholars, experts, and former military and civilian officials to discuss North Korea, the U.S.-ROK alliance, and regional dynamics in Northeast Asia.

Since the third session, the Sejong Institute has been Shorenstein APARC’s Korean counterpart in organizing and hosting the Forum. Meetings are held semi-annually, alternating between Stanford University and Seoul. Operating as a closed workshop under the Chatham House Rule of individual confidentiality, the Forum allows participants to engage in candid, in-depth discussion of current issues of vital national interest to both countries.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Policy Briefs
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Shorenstein APARC
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

Overlooking the golden prairie beneath the big Montana sky, a young man turned to address his followers, cocking his head and squinting into the sun.  

“For those of you who haven’t already heard of me with great admiration, yeah, I’m the real deal: the greatest, biggest, baddest Indian fighter in the West. But for you, well, you can call me General George Armstrong Custer. I fully believe the battle that we will have here today will be the biggest, best, crowning achievement of my life.” 

Or not. 

One hundred and thirty-six years later, the Battle of Little Bighorn remains one of the most contentious in American history, and Custer’s so-called “last stand” has become the stuff of legend and debate. Did Custer’s oversized ego lead his men to a certain death? Or did cowardly 7th Cavalry comrades abandon him to die? 

Those are among the dozens of questions recently posed and played out by a group of Stanford sophomores along the banks of the Little Bighorn River about an hour outside Billings. Jeffrey Abidor played the first of four Custers as they walked the famous battlefield points: Medicine Tail Coulee, Weir Ridge, Reno’s Retreat and Last Stand Hill, where simple white grave markers still pepper the prairie where Custer, his younger brother Tom, other cavalry comrades and Native American opponents fell. 

“No matter how many times you read about it, you have to be here,” said Abidor, who also played Custer’s Crow scout, Curley. “To see it and to see the land they had to fight on and visualize where they were, what they had to face – that makes all the difference.”

As I led my warriors into battle, I said, `Come on, die with me. It’s a good day to die; cowards to the rear!” -- Jacob Winkelman as Crazy Horse.

 

The Face of Battle class is part of the university’s Sophomore College, designed to take a small group of incoming sophomores and throw them together for three weeks before the academic year begins. They live together and travel together, digging deep into an issue such as the important American battles, U.S. foreign policy, Darwin and the Galapagos or hip hop as a universal language. They get to know their professors well and bond with one another in ways they hope will make them lifelong friends. 

“I think the best part is that we all found people who have similar interests,” said Katie Jarve, who portrayed Native American Bloody Knife and Capt. Thomas Weir on the staff ride in September. “There are people going into public policy and political science and it will be really nice to have that connection with them by taking the same class.”

The Face of Battle focused on Gettysburg and Little Bighorn, as well as the Korengal Valley campaign in Afghanistan. The college was co-taught by CISAC’s senior fellow Scott D. Sagan and senior research scholar Joseph Felter.

The students visited Pentagon officials in Washington before heading out to the battlefields, and then back at Stanford attended seminars on the ethics of war in historical and contemporary conflicts, such as in Afghanistan. 

“The battle of the Little Bighorn is particularly valuable to study for insights into counter-insurgency doctrine, in which combat often takes place in villages rather than on isolated battlefields,” said Sagan, an international security expert whose distant relative, Maj. Gen. George E. Pickett, led the final Confederate charge at Gettysburg. 

“I think the best part is that we all found people who have similar interests,” said Katie Jarve, who portrayed Native American Bloody Knife and Capt. Thomas Weir on the staff ride in September. “There are people going into public policy and political science and it will be really nice to have that connection with them by taking the same class.”

The Face of Battle focused on Gettysburg and Little Bighorn, as well as the Korengal Valley campaign in Afghanistan. The college was co-taught by CISAC’s senior fellow Scott D. Sagan and senior research scholar Joseph Felter.

The students visited Pentagon officials in Washington before heading out to the battlefields, and then back at Stanford attended seminars on the ethics of war in historical and contemporary conflicts, such as in Afghanistan. 

“The battle of the Little Bighorn is particularly valuable to study for insights into counter-insurgency doctrine, in which combat often takes place in villages rather than on isolated battlefields,” said Sagan, an international security expert whose distant relative, Maj. Gen. George E. Pickett, led the final Confederate charge at Gettysburg. 

Sophomore College students from the Face of Battle class gather at the national monument to the Battle of Little Bighorn.
Photo Credit: David Grubbs

The 16 Face of Battle sophomores – some of whom aspire to be CISAC honors students their senior year – were required to investigate the battlefield characters they would portray and be prepared to defend their actions on that day in 1876. The students, wearing Stanford garb and sunglasses, had five minutes to make their characters come to life on the same land where they had once fought for their lives. 

“Walking this terrain and recounting the many individual decisions and actions the led to Custer's famous defeat – on the very ground they occurred – provides unique context for the students,” said Felter, a counterinsurgency specialist and recently retired U.S. Army Special Forces officer who had combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

“The challenges faced by the members of General Custer's 7th Cavalry are in many ways similar to those faced by modern counterinsurgency forces, including those in Afghanistan today,” he said. “The difference between overwhelming success and utter defeat in this type of conflict can turn on seemingly small and trivial decisions and actions, not only by senior leaders but down to the very lowest levels of command.” 

In 1876, Lakota Chief Sitting Bull had called thousands of Lakota Sioux and Northern Cheyenne off their reservations to a large encampment on the banks of the Little Bighorn. He had hoped to create an alliance to deal with the white gold miners encroaching on the Black Hills, which had been given to the Sioux by the U.S. government. 

I’m the real deal: the greatest, biggest, baddest Indian fighter in the West. But for you, well, you can call me General George Armstrong Custer. I fully believe the battle that we will have here today will be the biggest, best, crowning achievement of my life.” -- Jeffrey Abidor as Custer

President Ulysses S. Grant had sent Custer and the 7th Cavalry out West to force Native Americans back onto their reservations. Grant despised Custer, as the Civil War hero had testified against his administration about alleged corruption in the Indian affairs office. 

“Our tribe, the Lakota, were at the very height of power,” said Uttara Sivaram, playing Lakota war chief Crazy Horse. “We interacted with the white man rarely; they fought among themselves. They seem to naturally assume that we were weak and this put them at a fatal disadvantage. As long as these men would continue to think this way, my strategy and timing would always catch them off guard – which would lead them to their greatest defeat against the Indians at the Battle of Little Bighorn.” 

On June 25, 1876, Custer and his battalion of some 260 men charged against Sitting Bull’s encampment along the river. 

Jacob Winkelman, another student playing Crazy Horse, spoke about the warrior’s confidence and patience going into battle. He fastened a hawk feather in his hair and prepared his Winchester carbine and war clubs. He raised his hands to the sun and called on the Lakota’s great spirit, Wakan Tanka, to protect him in battle. 

“My own patience in the face of attack allowed me to outmaneuver General Custer, whose rash decisions led to the demise of him and his followers,” Winkelman’s Crazy Horse said. “I told my soldiers: Do your best and let us kill them all off today, that they may not trouble us anymore. As I led my warriors into battle, I said, `Come on, die with me. It’s a good day to die; cowards to the rear!” 

Custer had been ordered to wait for reinforcements at the mouth of the Little Bighorn. But when he saw the size of the Native American encampment, he immediately planned an attack from three sides. What he didn’t know was that Sitting Bull had already forced the 7th’s Capt. Frederick Benteen and Maj. Marcus Reno into retreat. Custer and his men were eventually surrounded, outmanned and killed. 

Face of Battle students walking the trails through the national Little Bighorn battlefield. 
Photo Credit: David Grubbs

The defeat led to national debate about whether Custer had died a tragic military hero or an arrogant hothead. Reno – who hated Custer and survived the battle – demanded a military court of inquiry to clear his name of allegations of dereliction of duties and Benteen fought charges that he neglected Custer’s plea for more ammunition packs. 

“Not two years after joining Custer’s 7th, I saw what made him truly despicable,” said Allen Xu said, playing Benteen. “But as they say – karma turned out to be a harsher mistress than Libby Custer.” 

Chase Basich, who portrayed Reno and Crazy Horse, said it was chilling to walk the trails the soldiers took, to see the rocks they hid behind and where they finally fell. 

“By thoroughly researching our assigned persons, we became intimate with them,” Basich said. “It really drove home one of the main focuses of the class: looking through battle from the eyes of individuals, to see that battle was not something simply to be viewed from the point of view of generals and policy makers, and was not colored dots moving around a map. The battle was a collection of individuals making their own choices and decisions, each exerting their own influence on the outcome of the battle. 

Reed Jobs, a junior who was a course assistant, played the final Custer by posthumously defending his decisions of that day. 

“I regret that I could not have testified against that drunken lollard Marcus Reno,” Jobs said as Custer. “For it was his retreat which was out of cowardice, not out of strategy, which cost us valuable time. But it was Benteen who I would have liked to seen hanged for cowardice that day. I knew that even as we were being shot at and the bullets were raining down on us, as we stood trying to hold our position in futility, that I was still – and Tom was still – more man than Benteen could ever be. 

“Soon I felt a bullet lodge deep in my left shoulder, near my heart,” he continued. “I knew I had only a few moments before I perished here on this hill. Had we had more time, had Benteen shown up, I believe we would have … finally ended this Indian scourge on our great nation.” 

Though the Native Americans won the battle, the deaths of Custer and his men reinforced the U.S. government efforts to subdue the indigenous tribes. Within five years, nearly all the Sioux and Cheyenne would be confined to reservations. 

Face of Battle course assistant Reed Jobs acts out the role of General Custer with the Little Bighorn national monument reflected in his sunglasses.
Photo Credit: David Grubbs

 

Hero Image
lbh custers grave
All News button
1
Subscribe to Military