World War 1 claimed the lives of 9 million soldiers, amongst countless others. Stephen Van Evera, writes about this tragedy, and highlights that one of the causes of this cruel outbreak was the offensive mindset of states. This way of thinking led to the formation of what he calls the 'cult of offensive'.
Van Evera, being a defensive realist, is quick to point out the consequences of such an approach. He argues that when states adhere to attacking first, they are doing so with the assumption that this will lessen/destroy the chances of retaliation as war by its very nature is supposed to be definitive. As states are only bothered by their own self-interest, their aim is to eradicate all threats to their survival, and if offensive measures become a necessity, war becomes all the more likely. Germany's example is the most glaring one in Evera's article; the threat from other countries and the "need for survival" was used as a successful propaganda tool to rally support for the war. The reason why this was successful was because it created a sense of urgency and necessitated the need to rely on the military. In the end though, the war hurt those who supported it.
Furthermore, one should also realize that states are wary of other states' intentions, and this worry about the chances of another state attacking first, gives nations more to be concerned about and makes them consider the option of them landing the first blow. All of this, in turn, lessens the chances of us achieving a more peaceful world, if not a world with no conflict at all.
One of the causes of the war that he highlights, which is military secrecy, still categorizes the world we live in. The military in many parts of the world, has performed covert operations, which of course the average man could do little to predict. Since the military enjoys a great deal of independence thanks to this secrecy, and due to the absence of accountability in many cases, the considerations that lie against offensive actions become blunt.
Van Evera, being a defensive realist, is quick to point out the consequences of such an approach. He argues that when states adhere to attacking first, they are doing so with the assumption that this will lessen/destroy the chances of retaliation as war by its very nature is supposed to be definitive. As states are only bothered by their own self-interest, their aim is to eradicate all threats to their survival, and if offensive measures become a necessity, war becomes all the more likely. Germany's example is the most glaring one in Evera's article; the threat from other countries and the "need for survival" was used as a successful propaganda tool to rally support for the war. The reason why this was successful was because it created a sense of urgency and necessitated the need to rely on the military. In the end though, the war hurt those who supported it.
Furthermore, one should also realize that states are wary of other states' intentions, and this worry about the chances of another state attacking first, gives nations more to be concerned about and makes them consider the option of them landing the first blow. All of this, in turn, lessens the chances of us achieving a more peaceful world, if not a world with no conflict at all.
One of the causes of the war that he highlights, which is military secrecy, still categorizes the world we live in. The military in many parts of the world, has performed covert operations, which of course the average man could do little to predict. Since the military enjoys a great deal of independence thanks to this secrecy, and due to the absence of accountability in many cases, the considerations that lie against offensive actions become blunt.
The author is correct in assuming that states are wary of the intentions of other states and the evil that other states may cause to them, but I think that one should acknowledge the fact that in the recent past the states have not engaged themselves into any real conflict that turned into global wars. Hence, one may argue that "the cult of offensive" has not remained a reality anymore.
ReplyDeleteBecause states can never be sure of other states' intentions, this contributes to an offensive military mindset. Hence why the "cult of the offensive" remains powerful today.
ReplyDeleteI really like that you brought up the example of military secrecy. Look at the case of Pakistan. We know very little about the current operation, Zarb e Azab, because of the military's information blackout. Does this allow the military to take more aggressive policies? How can we the people know?
And Ali, just because no major wars have been fought in recent memory doesn't mean there hasn't been war. Think about the Gulf War. Couldn't Iraq's actions in Kuwait be viewed from a "cult of the offensive" perspective?