fog of war

1454 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Criticisms of realism in international relations

IBRAHIM FURKAN KAYA FOG OF WAR DEFINATION OF THE REALISM Realism is a tradition of international theory centered upon four propositions. 1. The international system is anarchic. • There is no actor above states capable of regulating their interactions; states must arrive at relations with other states on their own, rather than it being dictated to them by some higher controlling entity. • The international system exists in a state of constant antagonism (see international anarchy). 2. States are the most important actors. 3. All states within the system are unitary, rational actors • States tend to pursue self-interest. • Groups strive to attain as many resources as possible (see relative gain). 4. The primary concern of all states is survival. States build up military to survive, which may lead to a security dilemma. According to realist view ordering principle of the international system is based on anarchy. There is no higher authority other than the states themselves to check and balance their actions. Consequently, nation-states are the main players in this system. In other words, sovereignty inheres in states, because there is not a higher ruling body in the international system. This is known as state centrism. Survival is an obligation continuing to be sovereign. On the other hand, sovereignty is the characteristic feature of states and its meaning is strongly tied to use of force. According to the most of the realist variants, states are “black boxes”; the determinative factor is states’ observable behavior, not their leaders’ characteristics, their decision making processes or their government systems. Basically, realism depends on these assumptions: In the absence of a domi... ... middle of paper ... ...vent this war, men must choose the option of surrendering to a Leviathan, who then will have an absolute control over them and their lives. According to Machiavelli, his understanding of human nature was a complete contradiction of what humanists believed and taught. To sum up, when we think about a war, we should think Mr. McNamara‟s perspective. Thanks to this movie, we can understand that all these aspects or lessons are related with the war in terms of realism in the international system. He generally emphasizes on the decision-making mechanism and rationality. According to Mr. McNamara, the main idea is the fog of war. For him, War is too complicated to understand because of the variables that go beyond human intelligence which possesses ability of deciding. Our understanding will never be good enough to see why we kill people unnecessarily.

Show More
Related

  • Night and Fog

    583 Words  | 2 Pages

    I must say that this film is very traumatizing. There are some images in this film that will be burned and scarred into my mind for as long as I live. I have seen many holocaust films, but no one was as near as dramatic and depicting as Night and Fog. However I did like the theme of this movie. It is very sad but yet realistic. Our minds are murky and dull. We tend to only remember the important situation in our lives. Yet we don’t remember the importance of our own history. I say OUR history be cause we all are human beings on this earth. Whether we believe in Allah, Jesus, Jehovah, or whatever higher power, we are all one race, and that the human race. It is very sad to know that human beings were treated and slaughtered just because of an ideology of superiority complex. Al though the Jewish people were massacred I learned that we must always keep a sense of hope in order to assure our own survival. When I saw in the movie the moments where there were journals that read about favorite foods and important dates, my heart was filled with sadness. Not because these victims didn’t have this to eat but because of the false illusions that they had to dream in order to stay sane.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of The Fog Of War

    855 Words  | 2 Pages

    In his view of the fog of war, he explains that war is so complex that the human mind cannot comprehend all the complexities that define this war. Further, he states that although human beings are rational, the rationality of the human mind is limited and may not be possible to end war anytime soon. He thinks that the actions of one party way be understood by the other and often result in an unpredictable outcome. For example, he cites his silence during the war as an example that could have been misunderstood to cause an inflammatory reaction. In the view of the theories of global politics, this resonates well with realist theories of peace and war. Human aggression may be viewed from a different perspective which may result in international anarchy. Despite the ability of human mind to rationally decide, it is possible to be interpreted to mean aggressiveness which may lead to international tension and arms race like was the case of the U.S. and the weapons supremacy

    Read More

  • The Obama Doctrine: Article Analysis

    1016 Words  | 3 Pages

    Realism can be described as a theoretical approach used to analyze all international relations as the relation of states engaged in power (Baylis, Owens, Smith, 100). Although realism cannot accommodate non-state actors within its analysis. There are three types of realism which include classical (human

    Read More

  • Realism and the Significance of the Human Rights Norm

    4577 Words  | 10 Pages

    Realism is not only the pervasive approach in international relations literature but is accurate in describing and anticipating state actions. Constructivists need a genuine response to realism and, in order to do that, norms need to enter into the process of rational decision-making. This could take several forms including increasing costs of norm violation, introducing hegemonic power into the system, or redefining interests in terms other than material. Discussions in the literature analyze the impact of norms, regimes, ideas, or principles on international relations, but do not often take a critical enough look at what is at stake. Realist politics hinder progressive, humanitarian initiatives because of its marriage to power and material capabilitie...

    Read More

  • Realism

    1239 Words  | 3 Pages

    Realism functions under the assumption that states are the only actors on the political stage, also known as statism (includes individualism). Additionally, the states work in a system of anarchy. By this it is meant that in the absence of a higher, trans-governmental and universally recognizable authority, as it is in the world, no rules exist or are followed in the international arena. The other assumption is that politics are driven by aspects of human behavior – numerous motivations such as the drive for power, will to dominate, self-interest and ambition (Lisinski).

    Read More

  • Theories Explaining International Relations Dynamics

    1448 Words  | 3 Pages

    I say this because it is very evident that there is no single ruler of the world and that there is not one institution that enforces laws throughout the entire international system. Neorealism acknowledges the struggle for power between states, but not in an animalistic manner as realism views. I do not believe that human nature is innately evil and for which that is the reason why all states act rationally by trying to overpower the other. I believe that the realm of anarchy creates an environment that promotes conflict over conflicting values or laws. Each state has their own set of laws that may or may not agree with the laws and culture of another state. Anarchy in the international system forces the theory of realism to concentrate on absolute gains from conflict and how necessary it is to engage in conflict with another state (34 Walt). Neorealism provides a basic, all-including analysis that encompasses many aspects of the international system without excluding

    Read More

  • Structural Realism after the Cold War

    984 Words  | 2 Pages

    From the realist point of view, the international political system is considered as anarchic. There is a lack of external authority among states that ensures peace, stability and balance of power. In the analyzed document, the author's main thesis states that changes of the system would alter the international political system. However, changes within the system will maintain its anarchism. In order to support his thesis, the author replies to liberal critics, who consider the neorealism as obsolete taking into account three important arguments against the neorealism.

    Read More

  • Neo-Realism and Liberalism: Comparing These Two Different Frameworks Used in International Relations

    1232 Words  | 3 Pages

    Neo-realism and Liberalism both provide adequate theories in explaining the causes of war, yet Neo-realist ideals on the structural level and states being unitary actors in order to build security, conclude that Neo-realist states act on behalf of their own self interest. The lack of collaboration with other states and balance of power among them presents a reasonable explanation on the causes of war.

    Read More

  • Causes of War: Systemic vs. Domestic

    1789 Words  | 4 Pages

    The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

    Read More

  • Realism And Liberalism Research Paper

    1108 Words  | 3 Pages

    In International Relations it is commonly accepted that there is a wide range of different theoretical approaches which attempt to provide an explanation for the different dynamics of the global political system. Realism and Liberalism are well known theories which are considered to be two of the most important theories in international relations. They are two contrasting ideas when it comes to explaining how two states relate to each other in the absence of a world government. Both theories agree that the world is in anarchy and therefore it is helpful to start with a definition of anarchy and what it implies. This essay aims to discuss the contrasts between Liberalism and Realism as well as how these two theories agree that the world is anarchy.

    Read More

  • Understanding International Relations

    1517 Words  | 4 Pages

    To understand the international relations of contemporary society and how and why historically states has acted in such a way in regarding international relations, the scholars developed numerous theories. Among these numerous theories, the two theories that are considered as mainstream are liberalism and realism because the most actors in stage of international relations are favouring either theories as a framework and these theories explains why the most actors are taking such actions regarding foreign politics. The realism was theorized in earlier writings by numerous historical figures, however it didn't become main approach to understand international relations until it replaced idealist approach following the Great Debate and the outbreak of Second World War. Not all realists agrees on the issues and ways to interpret international relations and realism is divided into several types. As realism became the dominant theory, idealistic approach to understand international relations quickly sparked out with failure of the League of Nation, however idealism helped draw another theory to understand international relations. The liberalism is the historical alternative to the realism and like realism, liberalism has numerous branches of thoughts such as neo-liberalism and institutional liberalism. This essay will compare and contrast the two major international relations theories known as realism and liberalism and its branches of thoughts and argue in favour for one of the two theories.

    Read More

  • Realism and Constructivism

    1481 Words  | 3 Pages

    The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.

    Read More

  • International Relations

    2631 Words  | 6 Pages

    The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).

    Read More

  • Realism During the 1994 Rwanda Genocide

    1226 Words  | 3 Pages

    In realism, states are seen as rational, unitary actors. Realists assume that the actions of a state are representative of the entire state’s population, disregarding political parties, individuals, or domestic conflict within the state (Goldstein & Pevehouse, 2010). Any action a state takes is in an effort to pursue national interest. National interest is “the interest of a state overall (as opposed to particular political parties or factions within the state)” (qtd. in Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2010, p. 355). If a state is rational, they are capable of performing cost-benefit analysis by weighing the cost against the benefit of each action. This assumes that all states have complete information when making choices (Goldstein & Pe...

    Read More

  • The Realist Analysis Of The Anarchical Society By Hedley Bull

    772 Words  | 2 Pages

    However, Hedley Bull, in his most famous analysis ‘The Anarchical Society’, rebuts these realist criticisms, writing about the primacy of International Law and insists that it is a ‘negligible factor in the actual conduct of international relations’ alongside the fact that states ‘so often judge it in their interests to conform to it’. This directly opposes the idea that realists put forward, as it suggests that states are actually inclined to adhere to international law, and it is crucial to the success of it. Although there is an element of truth in realists’ analyses, it is not to the extent of which realists contend and it should be noted that they fail to acknowledge the fact that the favourable conditions order would bring serves an incentive for states to cooperate within the realms of an international society. Furthermore, realist critiques do not actually deny the existence of an international society, but there critiques revolve around an evaluation of its effectiveness. Opposing the popular conception of neo-realists that the current political climate consists of an anarchical system with all else following from this by chance, therefore assuming that it is a contingent, is Brown’s emphasis on there being ‘a reason we have and need an international society’: to achieve a good amongst all states. This is shown by international organisations such as the European Union and United Nations, the latter of which has the ability to impose sanctions and other punishments on states if it does not adhere to international laws. The United Nations mandate explains how it seeks to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’, as it was initially born out of the League of Nations which was set up after the end of World Wa...

    Read More

More about fog of war

Open Document