According to Google, the word ‘cult’ can have several meanings,
one of them being, ‘a person or thing that is popular or fashionable among a
particular group or section of society.’ The main objective of the author in
this session’s assigned reading is to show how the root cause of WWI can be
found in what he calls ‘cult of the offensive.’ Stephen Van Evera expounds on
the phenomenon ‘cult of the offensive’ which gained popularity in the years
leading up to the First World War. He describes cult of the offensive as the
lionization by the military of offensive military strategies and the belief
amongst the non-military members of society that offensive strategies were most
effective in ensuring security.
The author has organized his article well and he begins his work
by tracing the rise of cult of offensive in the years leading up to WWI and
then he talks about the consequences of its growth. In the end, he writes the
implications which the phenomenon might have on existing American politics.
The article contained a lot of material; for example it stated
that European nations such as Germany, Britain, France, Belgium and Russia, all
believed- some more strongly than others- in the merits of having an offensive
strategy. He mentions that they followed ‘attack is the best defense’ strategy.
He also talks about five strategies which most of these states adopted because
of their belief in this strategy and how these policies exacerbated the growing
threat of war.
As I read the article, however, I couldn't help but draw parallels
between this reading and the one by John Mearsheimer in which he talks about
offensive realism. Mearsheimer talks about the importance of being the one to
attack first in a threatening situation, and he is a proponent of the notion
that survival mandates aggressive behavior. Moreover, he also spoke of the
uncertainty that exists as far as the intentions of other actors in the
international system are concerned. In addition, he highlighted the importance
of possessing military power. All of these notions find support in this piece
as well. Evera provides the rationale behind a preemptive strike based on the
ambiguity which surrounds the intentions of the other states. Furthermore, he
also states that the reason why Germany wanted to expand their power is because
they believed that expansionism- that is, a larger territory- would ensure
their security; thus bringing in Mearsheimer’s notion of being aggressive in
order to survive.
I found this article interesting, particularly because of the
links which could be drawn between this article and the previous one. Though I must
say that as far as writing styles go, Mearsheimer’s work was a much easy and
thus more enjoyable read.
I like how you have drawn the connection between both authors. They are both structural realists but differ on the notion of how states should achieve its main interest of survival and security. Mearsheimer being an offensive realist believes that to survive, states have to maximize power because there is no other way to survive. Evera on the other hand is a defensive realist who argues that the best way to survive is to ensure a certain level of power and maintain balance of power. Evera uses history to prove in this essay that the notion that offense has the upper hand is misleading and it leads to more costs than benefits as evident by the case of Germany, how in its expansionist policy and hubris of its offensive power, it lost both the world wars by being the aggressive party. Also how the agressiveness of all European states actually caused the wars, which might have been avoided otherwise.
ReplyDeleteGreat connection between the two and Van Evera really is going after the 'cult of the offensive'. And what is interesting is that Mearsheimer's piece was published almost twenty-years after Van Evera's piece. Good job!
ReplyDeleteAnd great comment Rida! You succinctly summarize the main points and differences between the two articles, which demonstrates a clear understanding of their work.