The one great and frustrating thing about the study of international politics is the constant debates that ensue within it. My previous post talked about Mearsheimer’s offensive realism that states can only guarantee their security by actively pursuing offensive tactics. However, according to Stephen Van Evera the writer of The Cult of the offensive and the Origins of the First World War, that this was not true and that states could guarantee their security better if they focused on defense. He attributes the ideas propagated by offensive realist thinkers to be the fundamental reason behind the first world war, one of the bloodiest great power wars in history.
For S. V Evera, the idea of ‘preemptive war’ that stems from the cult of the offensive was one of the driving forces behind the decisions taken by the Central Powers and the Entente. If a more defensive realist approach was taken the Austrio-Serbia conflict could have been easily contained. One of the ideas that struck out in this paper was the idea that “Mind would prevail over matter, morale would triumph over machine guns” This morale was associated with the offense. This reminds me of Field Marshall Haig also known as the ‘Butcher of the Somme.’ Clearly, this cult of the offensive had disastrous effects if it permeated all ranks and led to such violent ends. On the other hand, defensive realism proposes to accept the status quo of the international system, according to Mearsheimer however who would want to remain in a system where there is constant fear?
Better post than your previous one and I think you're right to highlight the inherent contradiction between the offensive and defensive approaches to security. While a defensive approach would have worked best in WWI because of the preponderant capabilities of defense, if offensive capabilities were stronger, wouldn't that encourage states to behave in a way to maximize their interests? After all, isn't that what all the war planners thought before WWI?
ReplyDelete