Stephen
Van Evera is a professor of International Relations at M.I.T. In his article,
The Cult of the Offensive, he argues about the 'cult of offensive' that formed
prior to World War One in which states seek to be the aggressors by
accumulating as much hard power as possible in order to mount an indefensible
attack against other nations.
Van
Evera refers to the Cult of the Offensive as being the main reason behind the
bloodshed and chaos of WWI. He posits that the states were terribly mistaken in
choosing to be so aggressive in their foreign policies. Their radical beliefs
led to the rise of this cult which caused WWI. Van Evera highlights five major
dangers which arise from being heavily offensive; more aggressive foreign
policies from others, risk of preemptive war, antagonistic diplomacy, increase
in secrecy and increased susceptibility which would lead to war.
He
talks about how all of these dangers were manifest in the policies of German
expansionism as well as in the response from the rest of Europe. His stance as
a defensive realist is very clear in this article in terms of what he thinks
should have happened; the states should have been happy to be defensive knowing
their own military capabilities but they all preferred to be offensive which
led to WWI.
He
also warns of how damaging a new cult of the offensive would be in a nuclear
world. He says that Mutually Assured Destruction is helping maintain balance
but any departure from it would be catastrophic.
Mutually assured destruction seems to be working to maintain balance in the world. The examples could be that of US-Russia and India-Pakistan as no war has been fought since these states became nuclear capable but that doesn't mean conflicts, overall, haven't occurred between these states.
ReplyDeleteSuccint summary and I agree with both your title and conclusion. That being said, this is one of your less inspiring pieces. It would have been great to see a tad bit more of engagement, though I recognize that papers were also due this week. That being said, you still provided solid - albeit stiff - analysis.
ReplyDelete