Joshua\'s Goldstein Book 5th Edition

¶ … history of events in the twentieth century, one might surmise that the twenty-first may not be all that different. Why? Because human nature and the pursuit of self-interest has not changed from one century to the next. To explain what drives international relations, Joshua Goldstein provides a brief history of the world, in addition to information about the geographical features and the consequences of different nation's economies. (Goldstein, 2003) The beginning of the twentieth century was marked by relative peace in the world. The Franco-Prussian wars were at least three decades into the past. Nobody would envision that the worst horrors of a global scale wars were in the near future. In as much as Goldstein avers that the First World War was wholly unnecessary and it was, at least in its inception, a macho exercise (p. 37), one can believe that war is part of human nature.

After the two World Wars, one might assume that a state of peace might have existed engineered by those that did not want to ever revisit war. Even smaller skirmishes could be avoided since a lot of nations also became independent at the same time from their colonialist rulers. But towards the middle of the twentieth century, the seeds of the cold war that would last more than 40 years began to be sowed. Fascism and Nazism gave way to Communism. The Korean and Vietnam Wars were about one form of governmental system asserting ascendancy over the other. Goldstein illustrates how for the sake of expansion, the United States and the Soviet Union tried to expand their influences into nations all over the globe all the whole knowing that they might be supporting rogue rulers and despots.

The above two paragraphs help to illustrate human nature. Wars will be fought on different scales in different parts of the World. It comes from an innate sense in humans of trying to protect themselves from someone that might be different from them. In the United States, the specter of racism is always present in society. Mostly dormant, racism does occasionally rear its ugly head. The conflicts of Rwanda among the Hutus and Tutsi's show that even in cases of racial uniformity, people have no qualms about massacring millions of people. Currently, the religion of Islam has come under a lot of fire because of the misdeeds of some of its proponents and believers. But even among the Muslims, the Sunnis and Shiites have always been at war. Opinion mongers have hailed Christianity as the beacon of Peace. Several centuries ago, during the Golden Age of Islam, the Christian crusaders were considered savage marauders and the Muslims had the moral upper hand. In India, once in a while, Hindu-Muslim riots erupt in certain sections of the country.

The events of Northern Ireland between the Catholics and the Protestants indicate that even among Christianity, people (in modern times) will not hesitate to hurt.

The above illustrations were necessary to establish a pattern of human behavior. This behavior should be one of the most considered determinants in charting the future of the world in the twenty first century. The recent events of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, following the events of September 11, 2001, indicate that pre-emption might be the best strategy to stave of major conflicts. This pre-emption would be achieved by increasing the military strength of a nation. Though one would assume that this would not be wise, it is this recourse that has helped stave of the Cold War turning into World War Three. Constant vigilance is also necessary from every country that wants to remain safe from attacks of terrorism.

The twenty first century will see wars. At the present time, the struggle is for the minds and hearts for the Muslim World. If it is to regain its former glory, democracy has to be brought into the Muslims world. Consider the case for statehood for Palestine from Israel. While moral relativism can be argued ad nauseum, the nations that have this moral superiority, whether powerful or not, are ones that espouse democracy. Most of the people of Middle Eastern nations do not enjoy democracy. These citizens are either subjects of monarchies, or subject to the vagaries of tin-pot dictatorships, which, for all intents and purposes, could be considered monarchies. When the President of Syria died, his son who was being groomed for the position took his place. Without U.S. intervention, Saddam Hussein would have continued to win overwhelming majorities in farcical elections. Several years from now, there is no doubt that either Uday or Qusay (or both) would have taken over from him. During the 1990s, Afghanistan was considered the worst nation in the world. Except for the cartels of OPEC, there is no other infrastructure in Middle Eastern nations. Nations without oil import terrorism. Palestinian youth are imbued in the ideals of jihad or Holy War. They are not averse to strapping bombs on their person to achieve what is sold to them as the way to right all wrongs. The Palestinian constitution has in it a clause calling for the destruction of Israel. If one considers the constitutions of democratic nations there are rights akin to the U.S. Bill of Rights. The United States with the United Nations should fortify what the United States has started. Establish pockets of democracy. Imported infrastructure and improving economies would direct people onto the paths that veer away from the current thought. Thomas Friedman in an opinion article in the New York Times echoes this sentiment. He shows how the Indian Muslims, the second largest Muslim population in the world, are largely removed from the Middle Eastern Islamic mindset because they are part of a democracy. (p. 59) He also shows how Bangladesh has female leaders in the ruling and opposition parties (anathema to most Muslim countries) and the lives of the Muslims are on the upswing. In attempting to bring democracy to these regions, the strategy of setting up democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq would be important, because other surrounding nations can become democracies by copying the nations that are philosophically alike (Turkey is democratic) than by having democracy dictated to them by richer nations who are largely ignorant of the modes of thought in these regions. (p. 54)

In the twenty-first century, the United States should continue as a super power because of its policies. Its military might is also rooted in capitalism. Its democratic governance ensures that even people in the lowest strata of this class-based society are involved in its decision-making. Another strategy that the U.S. has adopted, that Western European developed nations should follow, is the fresh infusion of talent from other nations such that its research and development in different domains will be cutting edge. If complacency sets in among those entrenched, the potential competition comes from foreign nations because of the opportunities in education and high-level jobs that the U.S. Markets created. The H1-B visa program sustained the burgeoning technology industry of the last decade of the twentieth century.

Goldstein shows how the rise in China's strength mirrors the rise of Germany in the early to middle parts of the twentieth century. (p. 49) China's increasing military might should be cause for concern in the world. This is because this might is premised from power that rests in the hands of the few. China is a communist country that has atrocious human rights abuses. The cultural revolution of the 1960s showed how socialism and communism could destroy the lives of the weak. More than a million people died of starvation as a result of Mao's cultural revolution. At the Tiananmen Square, in Beijing, hundreds of protesting students were slaughtered. However, because of its rich history of an ancient civilization that created forerunners to a lot of modern technology, China is rich in intellectualism. They also are a cheap source of manufacture of products to be sold in the United States because of a differing wage structure. It is possible that in the very near future, China will become a super power of the likes of the U.S.S.R. And the United States will find itself in another Cold War. Increasing military might should be in the top five priorities for the United States. This will ensure that the United States will always remain ahead in the game. A few days ago, China demonstrated that it had joined the Space Age when it put its first man in orbit. China also has nuclear capabilities.

North Korea has emerged recently increased its belligerence averring that it had gone full steam ahead with improving its nuclear capabilities. All this while its populace starves while the dictator Kim Jong Il does nothing for the lot of his people. This belligerence should not go unnoticed. Goldstein shows how conservative, liberal and revolutionary modes of international relations coexist. It is imperative that both conservative and liberal modes be pursued. The conservative mode of military supremacy and the liberal ideals of economic balance should go hand in hand. The United States has a stake in the region. The protection of South Korea and Japan, both of whom would be drawn into a nuclear conflict, is important. From a strategic standpoint, the U.S. military presence in the region is important because it can keep an eye on the Chinese.

The U.S. press often bandies the India-Pakistan conflict, though because of Afghanistan and Iraq it has not made the news. In the coming future, the region of Indian Kashmir will eventually attain independent statehood. Though it is a political football that will be tossed around for a few more years. The European Union will grow stronger to counter American strength. Though one can safely concur that the EU will be strategic partners. Some of the problems that countries like France and Germany have are due to their historically colonial leanings. Citizens of these colonies (some of them Muslims) form significant portions of French and German populations. They then dictate the international policies of these nations.

Russia is a remarkably resilient country. Though it is a shell of what it used to be. The people have shown instances of bravery that have not been matched. During the Second World War, they fought the Germans defending every street if Moscow until the tide of war began turning. Strong leadership and alliances based on mutually beneficial exchange will help strengthen it. The U.S. should always attempt to remain strategic and amiable partners with Russia. Other nations in Eastern Europe have come out from under the yoke of totalitarianism and communism. As evidenced by the support of the U.S. In the war against Iraq, one can look to these countries to become mainstays and spreaders of Democracy.

Human nature will dictate that the twenty-first century will not be very different from the last. But if by skillful strategizing, being assertive and avoiding complacency, it is possible that major disasters that worldwide conflicts can be averted.

Realism is indeed the dominant theory in the study of international relations. Realism is based on a conservative outlook of the three modes: conservatism, liberalism and revolutionism. Joshua Goldstein proposes one definition: "Realism (or political realism) is a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power." (p. 1) Hence power can be seen as the ascendancy of an individual or a group of individuals, societies, nations, or coalition of nations over another. These entities are collective called "actors" by Goldstein. As the word suggests realism involves a realistic worldview. Realism takes into account the real behavior of people (or actors) and realism policies are about reacting (or adopting a proactive stance) to the realistic behavior of an actor. Political realism can be easily contrasted with political idealism. The contrast is simply between what things are vs. what they are perceived to be or perceived how they should be. Recent (and not so recent) history has shown that political idealism in international relationships can have fatal consequences. One might imagine that World War II might have not come to pass if World War I allies had followed a policy of preemptive deterrence against the rise of Hitler. In following a policy of appeasement, Neville Chamberlain and Franklin Delano Roosevelt paved the way for the events to come. At the same time, Winston Churchill, a relatively junior member in the British Parliament realistically saw the sign of things to come. He waged a lone battle to convince and warn his colleagues of the impending problems faced by Europe. Others saw the wisdom of his predictions a little too late. After the events of September 11, 2001, while the citizens of the United States were bristling with outrage and wanted to wreak vengeance on the perpetrators of this, there were some who adopted an introspective stance, as in "What have we done to deserve this attack." The realistic stance would have been to look for steps to ensure that this might never happen again. In Chapter 2, Goldstein gives an example of the street mugger. (p. 79) Using the same example, consider the following analogy. A person might take to mugging for various reasons. Rebelling against prior abuse, poverty, a purely criminal mindset or simple kleptomania. A realist when mugged would try to extricate himself from this perilous position -- either by a defensive or an aggressive stance. An idealist reaction would be to question the motives or the foibles of the would-be victim that caused the criminal to do what he did. This would almost never happen in real life. Realism declares that it should not be a policy decision in international relations.

The core assumptions of realism are that man is inherently selfish -- as are actors and nations. These players act or are motivated from a need to fulfill their own selfish interests. This pursuit of self-interests is what lends nations their sovereignty. The question then arises: Are the self-interests of nations mutually exclusive? Does one nation's self-interest impinge on another's right to self-determination? Can these matters be solved equitably? The answer to Realism's core assumptions is premised on the concept of Power. Power is what determines whose self-interest is prioritized. Power comes from many forms: military might, economy, geographical location and the availability of natural and human resources. Goldstein avers that though not ideal, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of a nation is the best indicator of power. (p. 74) He illustrates this point from the point-of-view of the Iran-Iraq war and the Iraq War of 1991 (and 2003). In the former case, the GDP of Iran was not significantly higher than that of Iraq. Iran is Caucasian. Iraq is Arab. Iraq also has more oil and it could use it as leverage. Iraq also enlisted the help of other Arab nations who had an emotional investment in Iraq's support. These factors nullified the small advantage that Iran had. Iran was also coming out from political upheavals where the capitalist and liberal Shah was deposed and replaced by the despotic, religious conservative Ayatollah Khomenei. This equity in power ensured that the war lasted for more than ten years. It killed more than a million people. Then just as it has begun, it ended with no clear victor emerging. In the case of the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait by pushing away the Iraqis was fought between the U.S.A. who had a GDP advantage of 100 to 1. This overwhelming superiority ensured that no matter how Iraq strategized, they could not win. The U.S.A. had overwhelming support for that war from the United Nations. The same GDP superiority was enough to depose Saddam Hussein even thought the unconditional support came from select pockets of nations scattered throughout the Globe.

The doctrine of using the GDP in this manner could in a sense be called the Powell doctrine named after Colin Powell who was the Chief of Staff during the Gulf War. His doctrine involved the use of overwhelming force to rout the enemy as soon as possible; this was to be followed by a quick exit strategy. In speaking of Doctrines, the new Bush doctrine was proposed by President George W. Bush and engineered by Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The doctrine promotes the idea of spreading of democracy by preemptive deterrence followed by economic aid to cement the newfound independence. One would suspect that the doctrine might also do well to identify cultural and national mores as part of the thought process.

Realism works well. It has been shown to work well. The quick victories in Afghanistan and Iraq are testament to this. The escalation of arms by Ronald Reagan while forcing the Soviets to collapse in an attempt to keep up is also realism in action. The escalation of arms that would be anathema to most idealists did end the cold war and gave independence to many of the former Soviet republics that only took orders from Moscow. It also reunified Germany. There is nothing wrong in the premise of idealism. But it comes back to the core assumptions of realism. That man is by nature selfish. Realism recognizes man for what he is and policies are tailored with this in mind. Imagine how different American history would have been if the Powell doctrine had been applied during the Vietnam War. The U.S.'s approach was idealistic. The mistake was in sending what the policy makers considered were just enough resources to win the war. They did not realize that environmental and climatic factors of the tropics would play a major role. They also did not account for the levels of support that the North Vietnamese got from the Russians and the Chinese. What also did not help the cause of the war because of the counter-cultural thought that was sweeping the United States. If one carefully looks at the tenets of the counter culture of the sixties and seventies, one can see that they closely resemble the core assumptions of Idealism.

Another core assumption of Realism is Anarchy. Anarchy should not be confused with total and utter chaos that the word has colloquially come to be symbolized. Anarchy in the context of realism means that there is no controlling central authority. Nations must seek their own self-interests in different ways. The next part in answering this question will involve the different aspects of power and how to use it as listed by Goldstein. We already know that in estimating one's power is an important necessity before going into conflict. The Powell doctrine is based on this assumption. One can refer back to the contrasting dynamics of the Iran-Iraq war vs. The two U.S.-Iraq wars. Bargaining and leverage are also important considerations. A nation bargains for its self-interest by bringing to the table factors that it considers are to its advantage. In diplomatic terms, this is often called negotiations. Israel and Palestine have been involved in a conflict for a long time now. This conflict is just short of a full-scale war. Israel, in the past, has fought and won wars against Egypt and Syria. Israel (aided by support from the U.S.) continues to fight a proxy war against most Arab nations in that region. The former President Clinton got Yasser Arafat and Shimon Peres to the bargaining table at Camp David. Peres agreed to yield some Israeli control in exchange for a de-escalation of Palestinian suicide (homicide) attacks on Israeli civilians. With this accord and the subsequent Oslo accord (between Ehud Barak and Arafat) the threat of violence was an important bargaining chip. Both accords failed because the mindset of the Muslim world against the Jews will not be assuaged by a few concessions. Recently, the current Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon has threatened Arafat with expulsion or worse.

In playing for power strategizing becomes very important. One contemporary example is between China and Taiwan. The strategizing is a cat and mouse game between the threat of violence and subtle diplomatic overtures. China has missiles aimed towards Taiwan. China considers Taiwan to be a part of China. Taiwan, ultimately wants independence. Therefore, it uses diplomacy and aid to smaller poorer nations so that it might influence world opinion in favor of its move towards independence. Most nations are sympathetic towards Taiwan even if they do not mention is overtly as their policy. China also known for its human rights abuse has the advantage of being a trading partner with the United States who cannot castigate it beyond a few negative platitudes because many U.S. businesses have interests in China and are strong lobbies. And so it goes on.

Countries form coalition for mutual protection. NATO was created to counter Soviet influence. The Warsaw Pact created a counter coalition of Eastern (Soviet) Bloc nations. In 1991, the Pact disbanded. Many Balkan and Baltic states are stated to be a part of NATO in the near future. India and Yugoslavia spearheaded the Non-Aligned Movement that was supposed to be independent of NATO or the Soviet Bloc. But the entries of countries like Cuba, which are blatantly pro-Soviet, have undermined the cause of the NAM. The European Union was created complete with freedom to move about Europe and a currency that matches (and sometimes exceeds) the power of the dollar to counter American hegemony in the face of its achieving hyper-power status. Goldstein opines that countries like France and Russia might spearhead the formation of a new coalition to counter America. The commonwealth of Independent States is also one such coalition. The ideas of building coalitions are to form unions between countries whose self-interests are either alike or nations that can help each other achieve self-interests.

Goldstein also introduces game theory as a means to predict what would happen in any instance of international relations. Game theory has been in use for a few decades now in predicting the favored outcomes (achieving self-interests) for different countries based on the moves they make in international relations.

3. In terms of equity, women have a come a long way, especially in European society. Considering that it was just after the First World War that they acquired the right to vote. Women, justifiably find themselves in the mainstream. They have acquitted themselves very well in all endeavors. Women are now CEOs of organization. Women are at the forefront of policy decisions in International Relations. Consider the current political climate. The National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice has been touted for future higher office. Hillary Clinton, who has not made any waves (positive or negative) as Senator from New York, has been touted as the automatic Democratic frontrunner in future Presidential Elections. In Mrs. Clinton's case however, one wonders if she would have risen to prominence if not for her husband. Elizabeth Dole, the senator from North Carolina, once had presidential aspirations. It is not out of the realm of possibility that she might not try again in 2008. Jeanne Kirkpatrick has been the United States representative. In the previous Presidential cabinet, Madeleine Albright was the Secretary of State. Geraldine Ferraro was the running mate to Walter Mondale, though Reagan's overwhelming popularity might have put paid to those ambitions. The former governor of New Jersey, Christine Todd Whitman was once touted as a possible running mate to President George W. Bush.

On the International Front, Margaret Thatcher was possibly the most powerful British Prime Minister whose popularity and clout was matched only by that of Winston Churchill. Surprisingly, Asian countries that are criticized for having abysmal women-rights records have had female leaders. The more prominent among them are: Indhira Gandhi of India, Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan, Sirimao Bhandarinaike and Chandrika Kumaratunga of Sri Lanka, Sheikh Hassina Wajed of Bangladesh, Sukarnoputri of Indonesia, Golda Meier of Israel and Corazon Aquino of the Philippines. Women have also served in the opposition parties in Bangladesh. Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, currently persecuted by the despotic rule (about which not much has been reported) may some day assume leadership of Myanmar.

The question then is: Would women make good leaders? The answer is a resounding No. This is not an indictment of the abilities of women. Women would not make good leaders as much as men would not make good leaders merely by virtue of being men. A person (man or woman) with good leadership abilities makes a good leader. The women mentioned above have adequately demonstrated this. These women have struggled with their countries problems as any man would. They have prosecuted wars (Indhira Gandhi in Pakistan, Golda Meier against Egypt and Syria), Sukarnoputri and Kumaratunga have had to deal with internal wars. The point is that feminine perspective takes a back seat to leadership perspective. Ideally, society would be well served to be gender-blind. This means that anybody (man or woman) who was intellectually, physically, mentally and emotionally capable should have a chance at doing whatever he or she wishes to do.

Historically, suffragettes were the first feminists. Their struggles were for self-determination for women took the form of the fight for the right to vote. During the middle of the twentieth century and in the decades that followed the feminist movement made great strides. Greater instances of equity are seen everywhere today, though the achievement of equality is not complete. For instance, in the Presidential debates before the last elections, both George W. Bush and Al Gore hemmed and hawed when asked a question about equality of salaries for the same job done. Common sense dictates that salaries be equal. But they aren't. Despite the leaps and bounds, recent feminist movements seem more politically aligned than for women. The following instances undermine the credibility of women's movements like NOW (National Organization for Women). These are fighting for women's rights to be firemen despite the fact that they did not have the physical skills for the job. They also were hypocritical in supporting Bill Clinton's philandering but did not give the opposition party the same benefit of the doubt.

Goldstein talks about the feminism and their roles in international relations by identifying different types of feminism. The first type is difference feminism. Members of this thought process celebrate the differences between women and men. They believe that women can provide a different perspective to world affairs. They believe that women are naturally nurturing. In which case, they will not rush to war. They believe that women would find themselves looking for consensual and amicable solutions to conflicts. This line of thinking arises from observation of gender behavior from childhood. Girls have been known to back away from conflicts and seek other means of recourse. Boys participate fully and aggressively in conflicts. The women's worldview from a difference feminist perspective is more aligned towards an idealist standpoint on problem solving. Since men are predominantly the major gender in international relations, the belief is that testosterone fueled aggression is what gives realism greater play in world affairs.

Another school of feminine thought is liberal feminism. This group believes that there are no essential differences between men and women. Therefore every woman should have the same opportunities in conflicts. Not content to have women play support positions in wars. They aver that women should be in trenches fighting along side the men. In this matter, there are differences of opinion. A few years ago Newt Gingrich, the then Speaker of the House, raised eyebrows and caused an uproar by saying that women would be less effective in combat situations because of problems with feminine hygiene. Another point raised is that if women were captured rape would surely accompany physical torture and this would be a more difficult blow to bear. (p. 128) Women have proved themselves equally well in combat. The recent case of Private Jessica Lynch involved in combat comes to mind. In asserting the lack of differences between men and women, liberal feminists choose to ignore perspective and opinions that are uniquely feminine. "Liberal feminist argue (according to Goldstein) that women can be as realist as men." (p. 136) third group of feminists is critical of both difference feminism and liberal feminism. They oppose the glorification of feminine uniqueness. They decry the generalization and categorization of women by lumping them with men. They believe that no matter what their roles, women can and ought to play them to the best of their abilities. If women are in a support role, it is incumbent that they do that well. They believe that in praising diplomats, the wives should also be praised. They also go so far as to say that in talking about troop morale, they should not ignore the prostitutes at military bases that provide much needed relief and diversions. This view is called post-modernist and is the nearest to reality. (p. 139)

Gender matters in international relations because of the unique perspectives that different people can bring to the table. But this opinion does not have to come from a woman because of her sexuality. The opinion can come from a woman because of her background, training, culture, education and life's experiences. Consider how culture may play a role. Tacitus, the world's earliest anthropologist in his treatise Germania talks about the Germans as a warring culture. The culture was so suffused with war that women encouraged men to fight. (Tacitus and Birley, 1999) They were the cheerleaders. They showed no respect to those that deserted. Women exhorted the men to fight even when wounded because they could not fathom being taken prisoners by men of the opposing armies. In contrast is the play Lysistrata in early Greek (p. 132) civilization when women withheld sex from their husbands and lovers until they gave up war. The Lysistrata theory was bandied about before the beginning of the recent Iraq conflict. European women and those in the American colonies had to fight to have the right to divorce. Whereas even in pre-colonial America, Native American women had equal rights to divorce as men. While white women were given no economic independence in so called civilized households, African families were "matrifocal" in nature, even when hey were overrun with the specter of slavery. All decisions were made through the older women in the family. Men were merely titular heads. This is to illustrate that feminism cannot be straitjacketed into specific modes of thought. Other parameters should also be considered.

History has shown that the world would not be different had women been in charge. No matter what the feminine perspective of a woman leader, the leadership responsibilities come to the fore. In this women acquit themselves as well as men. Historically, there is no instance of women providing any specific feminine perspective that solved a problem in international relations differently. Even Joan of Arc led her French against the British in the name of God and country. She would be classified as a leadership. In the current anti-terrorist stance by the United States, Condoleezza Rice come across as a realist, whose aggressive stance is matched only by Donald Rumsfeld. Colin Powell, on the other hand, has come out more on the side of tolerance and pacifism. One can clearly see that the two stands taken by respected and capable leaders have nothing to do with their genders. But they have different opinions on how international relations should be considered. Categorizing Powell and Rice by correlating their opinions by their genders is akin to saying that this is how African-Americans think.

In the matter of international relations, women who bring the required abilities to the table: realism or idealism, or a mix of the two, diplomacy, leverage and bargaining power with the threat of violence of the incentive of rewards will always be most successful. This has nothing to do with gender. History has borne this out.

4. Consider recent history. Recent history would be the last thirteen years starting in 1990 to the present date. A brief enumeration of the conflicts, major and minor will reveal conflicts that occurred for different reasons. These conflicts will not reveal all the reasons for conflicts. Indeed, most scholars and researchers in international relations can agree on the causes of war. The Gulf War of 1991 had a Coalition of forces led by the United States liberated Kuwait by defeating the Iraqis. Throughout most of the nineties, the Former Yugoslavia was in constant turmoil. The end result was the establishment of the independent states of Kosovo, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. Pakistani backed insurgents made brief inroads into a place in Indian occupied Kashmir called Kargill. In Russia, the Chechens tried unsuccessfully to form their own independent state. The Middle Eastern conflict between the Palestine and Israel goes on unabated and probably will for some time to come, despite the best efforts of several organizations and nations. The ethnic cleansing that killed over a million members of the Hutu and Tutsi tribes dragged several African nations into war. The Colombian Drug cartels are in a constant war with Colombian Government forces supported and trained by the United States. On September 11, 2001 terrorists committed the first act of War on American Soil (the contiguous United States, not including the Pearl Harbor incident). Soon after United States in going after the Al Qaeda removed the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan and deposed Saddam Hussein in a very short time.

Goldstein indicates that there are some who are satisfied by superficial reasons. For instance, the murder of Archduke Ferdinand as the cause of the First World War is in all textbooks. But the underlying causes that were merely catalyzed into war by the assassination need to be addressed too. In identifying the causes of war, one must revisit the basic premise of realism in international relations. Man is driven by self-interest. It is the preservation of self-interest that prompts every action -- even War. Several theories have been put forward as to where the ideas of war originate. One of the concepts of international relations is the establishment of rationalism in thought and action. At an individual level, War might be irrational behavior on the part of the individual. The 1971 war between India and Pakistan was really about Bangladesh. Bangladesh or East Pakistan was bitter that they were not part of the decision-making process for Pakistan. They sought independence. In order to divert attention from internal problems in the nation, Yahya Khan the Prime Minister of Pakistan declared war on India. Another cause can be identified as war originating at the domestic level. Goldstein shows how the Soviet Bloc countries blamed capitalist greed as seeking greater dominion. The West European nations and the United State blamed the socio-communist ideals as seeking expansion. Between nations, wars may be started as a restructuring of the power bases. The war between Iran and Iraq is a good example of this. At a global level, theories of war indicate that warring might be cyclic. This idea is presented in conjunction with a power restructuring. The economic downturns are often causes of war -- Kondratieff cycles (p. 187); and, these upheavals are cyclic in nature. This is perhaps, not the right example but the possible associations are important. In 1929, under Herbert Hoover the United States underwent the worst depression in history. It changed the economic and financial face of the nation. In a gruesome sense, it was fortuitous that the war came along because it kick started the U.S. economy like no other event could have. Other cycles are based on "hegemon" (p. 187), which involves the upturn in the strengths of the countries. One period of hegemony that can be easily identified is during colonial expansion. Britain, France, the Dutch, Spanish and the Portuguese were on a quest for global dominion. Around the latter part of the seventeenth century and through most of the eighteenth century the Industrial Revolution rocked the "civilized" world. The British were the major benefactors from this. They parlayed their strengths to increase their dominion and became the major force of imperialism. They ran roughshod over the colonies and competing colonialists. Now Britain still remains dominant in world policy. But is strength has been seriously undermined.