First of all, your teaching style is truly remarkable and material is very organized. More power to you Sir! If you could help me in clearing some confusion, it would be really appreciated: 1) Why wouldn't the neo-realists, primarily offensive realists, support the US use of force under the pretext of increasing its dominance? 2) As you highlighted the neoliberals support for the use of force in certain situations, why the neoliberals didn't resort to diplomatic means (sanctions etc) for achieving their motives? 3) Can we question a theory on the basis of the practices of its apparent adherents, it might be possible that the imperfect adherents may not resort to the tenets of theory fundamentally?
Thanks for the questions, and for watching! Perhaps I should have been clearer around the question of the use of force. The point I was trying to emphasize is only that we cannot assume realists will always support the use of force and liberals will oppose it. I find that students often think that because realists are focused primarily on conflict and security, they are more likely to support the use of force than liberals, who tend to emphasize trade and cooperation. My point is only that we cannot make that direct connection, and often liberals will support the use of force where realists may not. That said, offensive realists may indeed support the use of force to increase the relative position of a country. Similarly, neoliberals will sometimes support the use of sanctions (particularly through collective organizations) to achieve their goals. And I think the point you're making with your third question is that there is often a difference between the theoretical models and their implementation (or between theory and practice). And on this I agree. Thanks for watching!
Kind of similar question. Is it possible that, in same cases, neoliberal "narratives" were just used as an excuse to action? I mean, having a wider justification, cannot neoliberism be used as a narrative more easily than neorealism?
@@hank7v I realize your question was a long time ago, and I should say that I am just an undergrad and new to IR, but I think it's definitely true that neoliberal justifications can be used as an excuse to go to war. I think in this particular case that is obvious, especially when you consider the role of the Carlyle Group, Halliburton, and various PMC's like Blackwater etc when it came to the decision making behind and execution of the war. Looking at the Iraq war through a Neorealist lens for these reasons makes a lot of sense to me. It's clear that the US invaded out of self-interest and to increase their relative gains. They had no evidence of WMD's (or collaboration with terrorist groups AFAIK), and they clearly didn't give a damn about the Kurds.
@@jackbonobo To copy your first sentence, I realize your question was a long time ago, and I should say that I am relatively new to IR, but looking through a Neorealist lens for the Iraq war makes no sense to me, what exactly should the US have gained out of it IF the whole operation had actually succeeded? Oil? Is sending hundreds of thousands of men and paying billions worth a little bit of extra oil that you could just get through trade anyway? The US already controls the seas so access to oil isn't a problem nor would the seizure of it if the Saudis or whoever goes rogue. You mentioned a bunch of companies, well imo corruption and private interests explains that much better than any IR theory anyway. As to the no evidence part, I recommend "Fiasco - the american military adventure in Iraq" written by Thomas Ricks in 2006, The first few chapters give a really good overview of the political climate in Washington at the time, a lot of historical context of what happend between Desert Storm and the Iraq war and some of the reasonings and behaviors of certain actors before the invasion, through the lenses of pentagon and state officials. After reading it I came to the conclusion that the idiom of "Never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity" holds true for the Iraq war as well.
This was so helpful, thank you!! Do you have any other examples other than Operation Iraqi Freedom that exemplify the differences between neorealism and neoliberalism?
Thank you very much for this playlist, I've got an exam in a few hours and really needed a summary to help me remember some points. Keep up the good work!
sir, will you please share me few basic points related to : Economic liberalism is neo imperialism; Convergence and divergence in neo realistic and constructivist approach.
I have a number of videos addressing those topics. The videos in my playlist on mainstream theories (ru-vid.com/group/PLuKbvcvtOasp_e21f__McDhiJNSblkKRi) and critical theories (ru-vid.com/group/PLuKbvcvtOasomChawAXzEwtwqc1A4X0oR) of international relations might be helpful, as I deal with many of these topics there. Hope that helps! Good luck in your studies!
I have a video on nuclear weapons (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-7X1jKlu9yuo.html) that addresses some of those questions, as well as a video on the security dilemma (ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ph18V8mM9KE.html) which gets at arms races. But I'll see if I can do something more directly on armament and disarmament soon. Thanks for watching!
