Stephan Van Evera in his article “TheCult of the Offensive and Origins of the World War” talks about the international system before the first World War and how the international system functioned before that and how the war fought, impacted the international system to an extent that it’s safe to assume that we can see the ripple effects till this date. Evera focuses on offensive techniques and lists out five causes of the First World War which were, having aggressive foreign policies, the advantages of and striking first, an increase in vulnerability that led to preventive wars and a greater level of political and military secrecy.
Even though offensive actions is what Evera talks about in his article, and offensive realism is also what Mershimer spoke about in last sessions reading, I like how Evera spoke about the consequences of offensive strategies in the international system. Evera talks about how the 1914 case supports the claims of various theorists who feel that offense dominated world is more dangerous compared to defense dominated. If the world is offense dominated, and since the military might of the super powers keep increasing as time passes by, the world will be put in a very difficult and dangerous situation if a war now erupts. Many claim that if war does erupt now, between any two major states, it will be the third World War and the world might witness the might of the nuclear arms that many states have in their capacities. If states keep following the offensive ideology, they will be more inclined towards striking first which will inevitably lead to war. I feel the focus should now be shifted to eliminate the radical approach towards offensive strategies and replace them with tendencies to go towards a more defensive front when it comes to state carrying out their actions in the international arena.
I agree with your point of view that if one state attacks another, it would lead to another world war. But one can argue that some states (mainly the great power) would still prefer to attack first and cripple a state that it believes is a threat to it and because the state is a great power, it would not lead to a world war (for example Russia attacking Crimea, US attacking Iraq, and so on).
ReplyDeleteyou raised a valid point aahsan aamir. but what if state like Iraq and Crimea had alliance with other countries and these allies got involved in? this is just a hypothetical situation, although this did not happen in the two cases that you mentioned, which means that there is a chance of turning international arena anarchic.
ReplyDeleteGood post and I agree that the defensive perspective is even more important given the advent of nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteAahsan, all of the states you mention are those where one side has way more power than the other. What would be more appropriate to think about in terms of the applicability of the "cult of the offensive" would be if the US attacked China, or the US attacked Russia in order to secure peace. This, of course, appears unlikely.
Mubashir, in terms of alliances, do you really think someone would have come to the aid of these weak states? Alliances often fracture if there is not enough power to back them up.