What if Realists were in charge?

CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

I can't tell why the conversation keeps on getting split in two here... Anyway...

CheezePavilion wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

With regard to the earlier comments on the influence of non-state actors such as al Qaeda, let me ask this: what really changed the world more, the actions of al Qaeda or the reactions of Sovereign states?

Isn't that kind of like asking whether the coin landed heads up or tails down?

Sometimes, I think this is the case. With 9/11, the event itself was more important to Americans than the international activities that followed. But this isn't the case for every event. Think of how WWI started with an assassination; ultimately, I think how the states reacted to the event carried a lot more importance than the event itself, especially when you consider how eager those countries were to go to war with each other. Any small event from an individual could have caused that cascade. One wonders if it was a similar case with 9/11. Would a similar attack have given the US an excuse to invade Iraq (I contend that the invasion of Iraq was something that policymakers wanted since the Persian Gulf War)?

I think something to consider when looking at non-state actors impacting world events is how much states have to gain or lose based on the events and then question how much the non-state actor drove the state response or how much state actors used the non-state actor action as an excuse (to appease allies or citizen constituents) to pursue its own goals.

I'd thought of that too, along with a couple of other events in history when responding to this thread. Even if we consider that irrelevant because it was unintentional, the non-state actor in that case did not have the web of European treaties or rail time tables or any of that in mind when he sprinted towards that carriage like a real-life Leeroy Jenkins. bin Laden, on the other hand, most certainly had the impact of his actions in mind when he took them.

The problem is a theory can be modified into triviality. As some point, the more modifications get packed on to IR, the closer it just comes to saying "powerful things are powerful."

I agree with this statement and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Grubber788 wrote:

I can't tell why the conversation keeps on getting split in two here... Anyway...

CheezePavilion wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

With regard to the earlier comments on the influence of non-state actors such as al Qaeda, let me ask this: what really changed the world more, the actions of al Qaeda or the reactions of Sovereign states?

Isn't that kind of like asking whether the coin landed heads up or tails down?

Sometimes, I think this is the case. With 9/11, the event itself was more important to Americans than the international activities that followed. But this isn't the case for every event. Think of how WWI started with an assassination; ultimately, I think how the states reacted to the event carried a lot more importance than the event itself, especially when you consider how eager those countries were to go to war with each other. Any small event from an individual could have caused that cascade. One wonders if it was a similar case with 9/11. Would a similar attack have given the US an excuse to invade Iraq (I contend that the invasion of Iraq was something that policymakers wanted since the Persian Gulf War)?

I think something to consider when looking at non-state actors impacting world events is how much states have to gain or lose based on the events and then question how much the non-state actor drove the state response or how much state actors used the non-state actor action as an excuse (to appease allies or citizen constituents) to pursue its own goals.

I'd thought of that too, along with a couple of other events in history when responding to this thread. Even if we consider that (edit) assassination irrelevant because it was only a spark to an existing powder keg, the non-state actor in that case did not have the web of European treaties or rail time tables or any of that in mind when he sprinted towards that carriage like a real-life Leeroy Jenkins. bin Laden, on the other hand, most certainly had the impact of his actions in mind when he took them.

The problem is a theory can be modified into triviality. As some point, the more modifications get packed on to IR, the closer it just comes to saying "powerful things are powerful."

Paradox games do a good job of converting soft power of the Catholic Church into hard rules, but it's important to remember that the game uses an abstraction in that regard.

Meanwhile: Is the article really proposing that we need to return to Kissinger? It strikes me that a fair amount of nostalgia is required to view that era positively.

Wasn't Starship Troopers about a realist/rationalist/pragmatist/prudentist society? The book, not the movie.

I don't think our economy can support a war against giant bugs right now.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Wasn't Starship Troopers about a realist/rationalist/pragmatist/prudentist society? The book, not the movie.

Starship Troopers was basically just + HALO

CheezePavilion wrote:
Grubber788 wrote:

I can't tell why the conversation keeps on getting split in two here... Anyway...

CheezePavilion wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

With regard to the earlier comments on the influence of non-state actors such as al Qaeda, let me ask this: what really changed the world more, the actions of al Qaeda or the reactions of Sovereign states?

Isn't that kind of like asking whether the coin landed heads up or tails down?

Sometimes, I think this is the case. With 9/11, the event itself was more important to Americans than the international activities that followed. But this isn't the case for every event. Think of how WWI started with an assassination; ultimately, I think how the states reacted to the event carried a lot more importance than the event itself, especially when you consider how eager those countries were to go to war with each other. Any small event from an individual could have caused that cascade. One wonders if it was a similar case with 9/11. Would a similar attack have given the US an excuse to invade Iraq (I contend that the invasion of Iraq was something that policymakers wanted since the Persian Gulf War)?

I think something to consider when looking at non-state actors impacting world events is how much states have to gain or lose based on the events and then question how much the non-state actor drove the state response or how much state actors used the non-state actor action as an excuse (to appease allies or citizen constituents) to pursue its own goals.

I'd thought of that too, along with a couple of other events in history when responding to this thread. Even if we consider that (edit) assassination irrelevant because it was only a spark to an existing powder keg, the non-state actor in that case did not have the web of European treaties or rail time tables or any of that in mind when he sprinted towards that carriage like a real-life Leeroy Jenkins. bin Laden, on the other hand, most certainly had the impact of his actions in mind when he took them.

The problem is a theory can be modified into triviality. As some point, the more modifications get packed on to IR, the closer it just comes to saying "powerful things are powerful."

This point is well taken. My question is: did that (edit) assassination or the attacks in September 2001 have to be powder kegs? Is it a given that the states had to react in that manner to the provocation of the non-state actors? Were there other choices that could have been made, if cooler or wiser heads had prevailed? I think this is the question that the article is posing. Many posters here have shown reasonable limitations or problems w/ the realist approach. The counter argument is, I think, that if one considers non-state actors to be capable of less influence, as realism suggests we do, then states are less likely to over react to them and their influence is thus reduced. Realism may lead to tautology, but its prophesies can also be self-fulfilling.

Imagine if the European powers decided not to destroy their continent in response to Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination. Just the previous year, 1913, The American President and the King of Greece were both assassinated. No world wars were started then. If the nations had responded to the same way in 1914, the world would be a better place. Wouldn't the world be a better place if, in response to the attacks of September 2001, Iraq had not been invaded and the War on Terror not been launched? What if the damage done by al Queda was limited to the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and the US Embassies in Africa?

Certainly, Realism isn't a perfect system and its flaws have been documented. However, in retrospect, are these flaws worse than the flaws of the ideology that led to the Iraq War, the War on Terror and subsequent failed attempts at nation building? Given that we don't have any perfect IR theory to use instead, can it at least be said that the consequences of acting according to the tenants of realism would have been less horrific than the consequences of acting according to the prevailing neo-con / liberal interventionism ideologies?

There's some reasonable evidence that Bush was interested in taking down Hussein as a major part of his tenure, even before 9/11. If you find that hard to swallow, just consider that both of the major excuses for it - that Hussein was involved in 9/11, and that he had several major weapons programs ready to go to attack the US - were both just plain wrong, but we went ahead anyway.

It's hard to describe that as Realism in any way.

Robear wrote:

There's some reasonable evidence that Bush was interested in taking down Hussein as a major part of his tenure, even before 9/11. If you find that hard to swallow, just consider that both of the major excuses for it - that Hussein was involved in 9/11, and that he had several major weapons programs ready to go to attack the US - were both just plain wrong, but we went ahead anyway.

It's hard to describe that as Realism in any way.

I am under the impression that no one is describing Bush's IR policy as Realist. Isn't the article positing that we'd be better off if Realists had been in charge instead of Bush and his ideologues or the liberal interventionists who have supported and carried on these policies after he left the White House?

Could be, Oso. I was trying to point out that I don't think that 9/11 particularly changed Bush's focus, and even if he'd had Realists on board, I believe that he'd have simply pursued the same policy under the guise of US self-interest instead of fighting terrorists.

Robear wrote:

Could be, Oso. I was trying to point out that I don't think that 9/11 particularly changed Bush's focus, and even if he'd had Realists on board, I believe that he'd have simply pursued the same policy under the guise of US self-interest instead of fighting terrorists.

It's a much tougher case to make though. When one actually has to articulate compelling sovereign interests, one is subject to the math of cost/benefit. It's a whole lot easier to appeal to ideology, which is precisely why both liberal interventionists and neoconservatives do so. Tell a few stories about atrocities and get some slick talking heads to espouse dreamy visions of the "end of history" and it becomes trivially simple to get Americans to get their limbs blown off in a country they couldn't find on a map.

Robear wrote:

Could be, Oso. I was trying to point out that I don't think that 9/11 particularly changed Bush's focus, and even if he'd had Realists on board, I believe that he'd have simply pursued the same policy under the guise of US self-interest instead of fighting terrorists.

Ah, he'd decided on a course of action and then turned to his advisors to give it a reasonable-ish justification?

That makes some sense. I'm sure his dad and Scowcroft had their voices heard.

But the problem is fundamentally non-state actors, and Realists don't have any good way to deal with them. I think they'd have been at least as likely to make the mistake of using the military as anyone else.

I think states generally do a pretty decent job with non-state actors. Examples in the past include the Bader-Meinhoff gang, Pancho Villa, and Geronimo. In the end, without the resources of a state, they generally lack the staying power to remain relevant. They flash for a moment and appear alarmists as some kind of existential threat (and serve as tools to manipulate the frightened into financing profiteers), but in the end wither and die or get brutally crushed when states bring their resources to bear.

That's WW2 thinking, Paleo. Doesn't work anymore.

Malor wrote:

That's WW2 thinking, Paleo. Doesn't work anymore.

I'm not sure we can say that so definitively. Remember, after we took out the state that was providing shelter and supplies for the branch of Al-Qaeda, their ability to strike back at us was so weakened that they couldn't even make retaliatory attacks. If we hadn't found a way to convince a generation of non-white/non-English speakers that we are the source of their problems, I think the brand name Al-Qaeda would have been essentially worthless. Obviously, that doesn't mean that we (or anyone) is 100% safe from bad actors, but I think a measured response to an attack shows that there will be consequences, making state involvement (and state resources) far less likely to be present.

their ability to strike back at us was so weakened that they couldn't even make retaliatory attacks

Hah! Tell that to the 6,000 dead and 30,000 wounded soldiers.

And there's about a trillion dead Presidents all chorusing that you're wrong.

People have been predicting the death of the nation state ever since the concept of nation began. Whether it is Keniichi Omae's prediction that corporations would make nations obsolete to Liberal Interventionists saying that international institutions would do it for us to anarcho-libertarians saying that non-state terrorist groups would do it, the result has consistently been the same: nationalism is incredibly durable. And more to the point, no organization or group of organizations can consistently deliver the combination of will and resources that a nation state can.

Mark my words. In 20 years time, Al Qaeda will be remembered as little more than the Muslim version of the Red Army Faction or Easter Rising.

It doesn't matter, Paleo. What does matter is that these tiny, often one-man organizations can demonstrably, demonstrably make the big ones eat themselves.

Again, who's had more impact on history... Obama, the putative Leader of the Free World, or Julian Assange, a guy who runs a website? I'd argue, strongly, that Assange has caused much larger changes in the world.

And I'd argue that corporations are making nations obsolete. Ours is already largely controlled by corporations, and you can see governments all over the world falling over themselves to make tax rates attractive to get them to home there. They're becoming more powerful than governments... only the biggest of the First World countries can take on the largest corporations and win.

Old-school concentrations of military force are becoming less and less important, and that's all that a nation really does.

...and yet we have people terrified of police states.

The evidence you're providing for the downfall of states as the ultimate sources of power in the international arena is unconvincing. I don't see much that has changed since Wikileaks and Assange himself is running for a spot in the Australian Senate, because he believes he can accomplish more through the state apparatus.

Non-state actors can certainly rock the boat, but those actors have to sleep at night. They may only do so because states allow them to. If Assange were a citizen of China or Russia, he would be dead right now.

If you honestly believe that all a nation really does is maintain a large military force, then the conversation is over; there's literally nothing more to discuss. Frankly, I think you're getting hung up on the word "realism," thinking it's an arrogant expression, rather than a purely academic one.

The corporation issue is interesting, but is once again, not entirely convincing. Corporations exist within a framework of laws; without these laws, they would be vulnerable since they require the government to regulate the system in which they operate. Take away state primacy, and corporations now lack the ability to defend trademarks, prevent fraud, or do any other things corporations do on a day to day basis, even the international ones that rival the scale of small governments. If you really want to jump off the deep end and say that corporations will go the route of Deus Ex and Sydnicate, and maintain their own private miltias (or some other means of enforcing their demands), then I would say that it is fair to start calling those corporations states.

Malor wrote:
their ability to strike back at us was so weakened that they couldn't even make retaliatory attacks

Hah! Tell that to the 6,000 dead and 30,000 wounded soldiers.

I apologize for how callous my wording sounded with regard to the nearly 40,000 American casualties, but those are not what I meant by "retaliatory attacks". Those were soldiers that we sent into harm's way, and engaging people in combat is not, by anyone's definition, terrorism. Maybe the people who killed/wounded those Americans would have been busy working on the next 9/11 attack, but we have seen no real evidence of that kind of capability in 10.5 years.

Malor wrote:

And there's about a trillion dead Presidents all chorusing that you're wrong.

And don't be a fool: the monetary cost we dumped into this fight was folly, not arranging to pay for it was doubly so. That hardly means Al-Qaeda still has the means to hurt us like they did before, it just means we over-spent on our misguided dual-response, and you know that.