Defensive versus Offensive Realism - Research Paper Example

Defensive versus Offensive Realism: Differences and Strengths Ferguson described that Frederick the Great is a better ruler than Machiavellian leaders because the former supports preventive war that can better ensure the former’s powerful status in international political systems, while the latter will lose in an anarchic international political system by only waging wars as defense strategies. A preventive war maintains the balance of power through averting the rise to authority of other nations, which could, in the long run, weaken powerful states (Ferguson, 2011). The concept of preventive war fits offensive realism’s assumption of a state’s insatiable appetite for power and security (Ferguson, 2011). The paper outlines the differences between offensive realism and defensive realism, explains the realism that fits U.S. foreign policy in the aftermath of the Cold War, and the strengths of these realisms. Offensive and defensive realism vary in how they see power and the state’s demand for power; offensive realism fits U.S. foreign policy in the aftermath of the Cold War; and these realisms have strengths regarding predicting international political policies and conflicts and possibly attaining global peace and security. The main differences between offensive and defensive realism are based on variations on how they see power and how much power is enough. Defensive realism sees power as a means of attaining stability or security, while offensive realism sees power as both means and ends for political stability. Defensive realism says that states only engage in war to defend the security and stability of their power, while offensive realism asserts that states want more power per se because a state ultimately desires to be the hegemon in the system. Furthermore, offensive realism advocates offensive strategies, instead of restraint that defensive realism recommends, because only the strongest state can be secure. In addition, defensive realism asserts that, though the international system offers incentives for increasing power, strong nations should not pursue hegemony. Instead, Kenneth Waltz stressed that states should only strive for an “appropriate amount of power.” States can also do balancing of power to preserve security, such as increasing military resources in reaction to another state that does the same. Despite balancing actions, defensive realism insists that states should only desire sufficient power for its security and stability. Offensive realism argues that balancing power is not efficient in gaining or preserving power; states should start or engage in wars to balance power proactively. John Mearsheimer further asserted that states could aspire for regional hegemony and not global hegemony. Offensive realism and defensive realism may both agree that anarchy is innate to the political system, but they differ in how they see power and how much power a state should pursue. Given these differences between defensive and offensive realism, the realism that fits U.S. foreign policy the most, particularly from 1989 to 2006, is offensive realism because of its use of war strategies that prevent the development of challenges to U.S. hegemony and that generate an international political and economic system that serves its political, economic, and ideological interests. During this time, U.S. presidents decided to go to wars that benefitted its economic, ideological, and political interests. The U.S. did not necessarily expand geographically in a physical sense, but it ensured and protected its regional hegemony in the oil-rich Arab world. The first example is the Gulf War in 1991. On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S. led coalition efforts in fighting Iraq, which retreated on February 28, 1991. The U.S. intervened in this war because of its oil interests in Kuwait. In other words, it prevented Iraq from being a strong power through squashing its early war efforts in the region. The U.S. does not allow any state to challenge its interests in the international political system. The second example is the Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) from 2003 to 2011. The U.S. led the war because it believed that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. It aimed to disarm Iraq and guarantee peace and security in the Middle East. The third example is the War against Afghanistan. The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaeda forces in it and to remove the Taliban government. It attacked a country that challenged the U.S. hegemony through the September 11 attacks on American soil. These wars are examples of preventative wars, where the U.S. engaged in them to uphold its hegemonic power by defeating challengers and promoting and protecting its political and economic interests in the Arab world. The strengths of these realisms are in their ability to predict and prevent international conflicts. Offensive realism has been more successful in predicting international conflicts than defensive realism. Offensive realism shows how states lack satisfaction when it comes to power; strong states would want more power, while weak ones would soon rise to access more power. These powers can clash in the future because of fear of each other’s military capabilities. Offensive realism shows how the U.S. managed its international relationships through its desire for hegemony. The U.S. pursue foreign policies and engaged in wars that promoted its political, economic, and ideological interests. Defensive realism, on the contrary, is more useful in preserving peace, when all states agree that they should not pursue offensive military strategies anymore because they do not want global hegemony. If they would think that global hegemony is inefficient and ineffective because of the social and economic costs involved, then peace could be attained. In other words, if states pursue only appropriate levels of power, they would not be too fearful of one another that their relationships become tense enough to be ripe for war. In essence, if states applied defensive realism in their foreign policies, this may help attain world peace and security. Frederick the Great could have very well been an American president from 1989 to 2006 because of his promotion of offensive realism. He thought that his state would benefit from engaging in wars that promoted its political, economic, and ideological interests. Though offensive realism is more predictive of current foreign policies and conflicts than defensive realism, the latter may be a better norm for promoting world peace and security. Rejecting the need for hegemony can stop the arms race and inspire states to work together through international and regional economic and political policies. Defensive realism with international and regional agreements may be needed to reduce fear and hostility over each state’s military and political capabilities. Reference Ferguson, N. (2011). Civilization: The West and the rest. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Books. Read More