Stephen Van Evera, a professor at MIT who is considered an eminent defensive realist, in his article
"The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War", provides an interesting insight into the thought process of nations that led to the outbreak of world war 1, concentrating on states' accumulation of hard power in order to build a war machine that would be unstoppable.
'The cult of the offensive' is an analysis of the merits (or de-merits) of offensive being a more worthwhile strategy than defensive. He gives a number of reasons to supplant this theory, which includes the adoption of aggressive policies by states, the apparent inherent advantage of being the first striker in case of war, the factor of mobilization of the masses as well as the military and political spheres being shrouded in secrecy. All this led to a structure where the states created and got entangled in a web of offensive actions rooted in an offensive mind set that set off the domino effect that led to the first world war. Evera takes a stance that gives an unbiased view from a neutral stand point, by not assigning the blame of the war to any one particular state but instead focusing on the elements that were general ingredients in the offensive mind set of the time.
Being a defensive realist, Evera highlights that such a cult of the offensive may once again rise if the dictates of defensive realism are not kept in mind by states. Today, what with the increase in high tech weaponry, nuclear armament and strengthening military forces, his words seem more pertinent than ever before.
"The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War", provides an interesting insight into the thought process of nations that led to the outbreak of world war 1, concentrating on states' accumulation of hard power in order to build a war machine that would be unstoppable.
'The cult of the offensive' is an analysis of the merits (or de-merits) of offensive being a more worthwhile strategy than defensive. He gives a number of reasons to supplant this theory, which includes the adoption of aggressive policies by states, the apparent inherent advantage of being the first striker in case of war, the factor of mobilization of the masses as well as the military and political spheres being shrouded in secrecy. All this led to a structure where the states created and got entangled in a web of offensive actions rooted in an offensive mind set that set off the domino effect that led to the first world war. Evera takes a stance that gives an unbiased view from a neutral stand point, by not assigning the blame of the war to any one particular state but instead focusing on the elements that were general ingredients in the offensive mind set of the time.
Being a defensive realist, Evera highlights that such a cult of the offensive may once again rise if the dictates of defensive realism are not kept in mind by states. Today, what with the increase in high tech weaponry, nuclear armament and strengthening military forces, his words seem more pertinent than ever before.
I agree that Van Evera is attempting to spread the blame around, while arguing that a central cause of WWI was the "cult of the offensive". You're absolutely right that Van Evera is encouraging defense over offense in a more contemporary perspective, as he views this as the only way to ensure no more major wars.
ReplyDelete