Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nathan_debate

Military Deterrence, Hegemony, and Rationality

Recommended Posts

Can we deter irrational leaders? Can we predict the actions of irrational leaders?

I'm curious how affs and negs will deal with "x country leader is rational/irrational claims" And can deterrence work for "irrational" and rational leaders? (assuming those are viable categories/identifications/labels)

 

Or is this even the question? Is it more a question of what the leaders goals are and what they are willing to risk to achieve those goals? And can they achieve them within the organizational constraints of the leadership? How does deterrence work if the leader is crazy to begin with?

 

Does irrationality even mean anything:

Is it more strategic for the aff/neg to be making these claims of irrationality? Is it strategic to make those claims in the 1ac? My personal guess is more affs will be making these claims, but not necessarily.

 

So..in the case of North Korea....if Kim Jong Ill is "irrational" how should that change our policy toward him and his country? And if he's irrational...how is he predictably so? In other words, I'm not sure how knowing he's irrational (if he is so) helps us deal with him any better.

 

Liberal internationalism vs. realism

And I know this varies on a case by case basis...but won't most affs (unless they claim hege/power) be liberal internatinonalism or wilsonian rather than realism? (I wonder kind of thinker Layne classifies himself as...)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liberal internationalism vs. realism

And I know this varies on a case by case basis...but won't most affs (unless they claim hege/power) be liberal internatinonalism or wilsonian rather than realism? (I wonder kind of thinker Layne classifies himself as...)

 

A great majority of affirmatives will be the antithesis of Wilsonian ideals. For example, presence in Iraq was justified by the claim that we were "spreading democracy", a textbook liberal Wilsonian ideal. Wilsonianism would advocate going out into the world and making our presence known in order to spread liberal values. Realists, on the other hand, use the predictive power and analytical capacity of their theory to disprove many tenets of Wilsonianism including what they call "bandwagonning" logic. Most realists would support removing presence because realism predicts that our presence will lead to security dillemas and other such undesirable things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack,

 

Thanks--I see your point. I think it all gets back to your particular justifications for the 1ac (perhaps versus those the negative decides to pick out and justify).

 

It seems to me in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq that it was a dual justification:

1) Security threats (Terrorism/WMD)

2) Stopping tyranny and/or spreading democracy

 

In addition, the affirmative can be said to be standing with wilsonian principles by:

1) Stopping a pre-emptive war that perhaps violates international law & sov. principles (along with rule of law)

2) Perhaps altering the guns and butter trade-off. (standing against militarism)

3) Perhaps grassroots democracy vs. militarized version of "democracy" (standing against imperialism)

4) Soft power/democracy promotion style arguments (including human rights violations on or near bases as a result of our military forces). This along with human rights "norm" creation style arguments. [arguably this is 2 or 3 different sub-sets of argument types]

5) Treaty credibility/Human rights credibility (external to just softpower)

6) Consistency with key US alliances.

7) Free trade/Globalization Good/Protectionism bad (???)

 

I think the soft power/democracy, alliance, and free trade/globalization debates (bases key to alliance or bases harm X other alliance) could be owned by either team.

 

Unfortunately, wikipedia doesn't offer a very good definition of wilsonianism or liberal institutionalism. (except to claim that both Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye are institutionalists--incidently I would add Ikenberry to that list)

 

Update: admittedly, I may have conflated a couple of terms under the banner of liberal internationalism, which does contain the possible element of intervention. Perhaps, institutional liberalism is a little closer--but still I think under-inclusive.

 

Thoughts? Thoughts about the rational/irrational distinction?

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal internationalism vs. realism

And I know this varies on a case by case basis...but won't most affs (unless they claim hege/power) be liberal internatinonalism or wilsonian rather than realism? (I wonder kind of thinker Layne classifies himself as...)

 

Layne = super realist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...