Allison and Halperin's probe into the simplified deconstruction of foreign policy aims and national interests is a move away from the traditional explanation of government behavior and it pertains to a very longstanding matter of national security. Embedded in this paper is the idea that there is dissension between theory and practical application of IR theories and therefore in order to provide a more organic and comprehensive model to understand the actions, decisions, outcomes and policies of governments, Allison and Halperin have employed the "Bureaucratic Politics Paradigm".
The "Thucydides Trap", coined by Graham T. Allison, states that war-making and national security of one country has a discernible impact on the security of other nations. The basic underlying claims of this theory can be applied to the Bureaucratic Political Paradigm where the interests of players and decision games are conditioned by the perception and "construction of the other". In more layman terms, as far as national security is concerned, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" - this concisely defines the causality of the Cold War.
Furthermore, what is most interesting is that while the article never overtly states that bureaucratic politics are based on a game theoretical model, the article does identify its basic features where each player has bargaining advantages, skill and will, making national security a political phenomenon - an idea contradictory to what the authors state in the introduction. The authors state that national security "must be 'above' politics: to accuse someone of playing politics with national security is a most serious charge", however, it is naive and impractical to suggest that national security interests can or should be devoid of politics because the security of one country is contingent on weakening the security of potential enemies which essentially necessitates politically inclined behavior.
While the article accurately assays the behavioral patterns of nations and governments by analyzing historical narratives predominantly from the Cold War period, the article provides more of a 'what is or what was' as opposed to 'what ideally should be' bureaucratic political paradigm so certain questions still stand; Who exactly should be in charge of national security since it is considered to be "too important to be settled by political games" and how far can the distinction between political games and military decision making be defined in terms of national security? Ultimately, those who have political clout, bargaining power and skill, regardless of seniority, will be influential in the implementation of policies within the political paradigm.
The "Thucydides Trap", coined by Graham T. Allison, states that war-making and national security of one country has a discernible impact on the security of other nations. The basic underlying claims of this theory can be applied to the Bureaucratic Political Paradigm where the interests of players and decision games are conditioned by the perception and "construction of the other". In more layman terms, as far as national security is concerned, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" - this concisely defines the causality of the Cold War.
Furthermore, what is most interesting is that while the article never overtly states that bureaucratic politics are based on a game theoretical model, the article does identify its basic features where each player has bargaining advantages, skill and will, making national security a political phenomenon - an idea contradictory to what the authors state in the introduction. The authors state that national security "must be 'above' politics: to accuse someone of playing politics with national security is a most serious charge", however, it is naive and impractical to suggest that national security interests can or should be devoid of politics because the security of one country is contingent on weakening the security of potential enemies which essentially necessitates politically inclined behavior.
While the article accurately assays the behavioral patterns of nations and governments by analyzing historical narratives predominantly from the Cold War period, the article provides more of a 'what is or what was' as opposed to 'what ideally should be' bureaucratic political paradigm so certain questions still stand; Who exactly should be in charge of national security since it is considered to be "too important to be settled by political games" and how far can the distinction between political games and military decision making be defined in terms of national security? Ultimately, those who have political clout, bargaining power and skill, regardless of seniority, will be influential in the implementation of policies within the political paradigm.
Excellent post. I really liked this comment: "...it is naive and impractical to suggest that national security interests can or should be devoid of politics because the security of one country is contingent on weakening the security of potential enemies which essentially necessitates politically inclined behavior." National security is tied to the international environment in what appears to be a zero-sum game. Thus, national security is not above playing politics.
ReplyDelete