I was reading about the theory of offensive realism the other day. That's the kind of thing you can say when you're in grad school. In The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, John Mearsheimer argues that despite our idealism, world peace is impossible. States will continue to seek power in order to ensure their survival. This will continue forever, hence the tragedy. Mearsheimer juxtaposes his argument to the thinking at the end of the Cold War, thinking that prompted descriptions of the times as "the end of history." It was thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a shift so great it would usher in a stable, multipolar reign of peace. Mearsheimer argues this was not the case.
Just yesterday I was thinking simultaneously that history is repeating itself and that what is unfolding now has never been. Let me explain. If you would like to read the front page news in terms of great power - realist theory you can. President Obama wants to counter the rise of China by stationing more troops in the region. Emphasis will be placed on naval capability to ensure dominance over resources in the South China sea. Reading this it is hard to pinpoint the century, let alone year we are discussing.
Conversely, I also read a very telling piece regarding Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's plans to cut the U.S. defense budget. His projections would have realists quaking in their boots. There will be cuts in military benefits, personnel and weapons spending. Instead investment will be made in targeted war necessities (Navy SEAL teams, drones etc.) and cyber war capabilities. These cuts indicate a notable shift in policy, historically speaking, from conventional, numerical might to leaner, albeit meaner strategy.
So which is it? Is history on a 100 year track, repeating itself like an eternal record? Will great powers face off for ever more power, living cyclically in the security dilemma? Or are the situations we face today unprecedented? And if so, doesn't that imply that progress can be made if history is in fact changing?
Realists will call me "utopian" and "optimistic," but if I have to choose to see the world in terms of an eternal power struggle or on a path towards something better, I choose the latter.
Just yesterday I was thinking simultaneously that history is repeating itself and that what is unfolding now has never been. Let me explain. If you would like to read the front page news in terms of great power - realist theory you can. President Obama wants to counter the rise of China by stationing more troops in the region. Emphasis will be placed on naval capability to ensure dominance over resources in the South China sea. Reading this it is hard to pinpoint the century, let alone year we are discussing.
Conversely, I also read a very telling piece regarding Defense Secretary Leon Panetta's plans to cut the U.S. defense budget. His projections would have realists quaking in their boots. There will be cuts in military benefits, personnel and weapons spending. Instead investment will be made in targeted war necessities (Navy SEAL teams, drones etc.) and cyber war capabilities. These cuts indicate a notable shift in policy, historically speaking, from conventional, numerical might to leaner, albeit meaner strategy.
So which is it? Is history on a 100 year track, repeating itself like an eternal record? Will great powers face off for ever more power, living cyclically in the security dilemma? Or are the situations we face today unprecedented? And if so, doesn't that imply that progress can be made if history is in fact changing?
Realists will call me "utopian" and "optimistic," but if I have to choose to see the world in terms of an eternal power struggle or on a path towards something better, I choose the latter.
No comments:
Post a Comment