The Tragedy of Great Power Politics

War is an inevitable part of our world. Since the dawn of civilization, men have taken up arms to advance their tribe, king, religion, and nation. Not even the advent of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction could stop the urge to fight¹. But why is that so? Why must each generation experience the universal truth that war is hell²?

These questions are probably the most important questions of all time. And understanding the fundamental reasons for war is critical to the very survival of civilization. History ebbs and flows with the movement of armies. Nations rise and fall because of war. With the spoils of war, winners gain land, resources, prestige, and remarkably, they even determine the genetic make-up of subsequent generations³.

John Mearsheimer

To help understand these questions, John Mearsheimer gave us the book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Mearsheimer is probably the best known thinker of the Realist school of thought⁴. More specifically, he has greatly advanced the Offensive Realism school of thought with his extensive writings. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics is his definitive guide to understand why countries go to war.

His theory is simple but the insights are profound. First, because there is no higher authority, countries interact with one another in the state of anarchy. This means that conflicts between countries can only be resolved bilaterally. In other words, countries have no authority higher than themselves for resolving conflicts. Of course, because every country seeks to advance its own security, this creates a zero-sum environment where they gain power at the expense of one another.

What about Liberalism?

An interesting point that Mearsheimer focuses on is that states in an anarchic world behave in their self-interests regardless of their type of government. He helps to dispel the myth that liberalism is somehow above the fray of war or the brutal conflicts of the past⁵. In fact, his theories completely ignore the style of government. This means a liberal democracy should act in its own interests just like a dictatorship would.

The book sites numerous examples and strongly makes its case. However, if you really want to know more about liberalism and international relations, I suggest reading his other book: The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities. It is sufficient to say that anybody who believes liberalism trumps power politics is either misinformed or ideologically blinded. For me, this is the greatest flaw of libertarianism. Most libertarians hate war and the state so much that it blinds them from the realities of great power politics (see Concordia below).

Geography

His next insight is that regional hegemony is the most stable distribution of power. The United States became a regional hegemon by the late 19th century and is a perfect example of stability. There isn’t another country in the Western hemisphere with a remote chance of challenging the US. Further, because consolidating regional power is so rewarding, countries will do everything in their power to knockout their peers. In other words, if a country has a large enough economy / military, it will eventually attempt to dominate its region.

Sadly, this means war. Mearsheimer sights numerous examples, like the French in the 19th century, the Germans in both world wars, and Japan in WWII. He examines each case in great detail, including the relative economic and military strength of every combatant. Using historical examples, he builds a strong case for Offensive Realism. And looking towards the future, the book concludes with a chapter on the rise of China. I’ll spare you the details for your enjoyment.

Defense

Along with the offensive behavior of states, Mearsheimer goes over various strategies for defending against potential hegemons. He discusses balancing, bait and bleed, buck-passing, appeasement, bandwagoning, and blackmail. He lists the pros and cons of each tactic, including numerous historical examples.

Finally, the book covers various regional configurations. Hegemony (one dominant major power) is the most stability. Bi-polar (or two major powers) is the next most stability. Multi-polar (3 or more roughly equal powers) is the least stable. This is especially true when a country in a multi-polar region attempts to obtain hegemony. Anybody familiar with history will appreciate his analysis of various wars and why they were inevitable, according to offensive realism. He even describes how the Third Reich acted rationally, at least in the sense of power politics (obviously he doesn’t endorse genocides or their racial policies).

Conclusion

I loved this book. I’ve studied history and international affairs my entire life (including as a child). Without knowing it, I’ve always been an offensive realist. This book aligned with my worldview and reinforced my beliefs on internal politics. As a student of history, I absolutely loved his deep dives into various historical examples. If you enjoy history, you too will benefit from his research and analysis.

Mearsheimer doesn’t claim that war is inevitable, but it’s the only conclusion that aligns with offensive realism. I learned a lot from reading his 410 page book. Despite its length, I breezed through it. Normally, I can’t stand academic works. Even though it is a little academic, he writes for the masses. I believe anybody that wants to better understand internal affairs would benefit from reading this excellent book.

Concordia

I’ve always had a deep mistrust of government. And I’ve always had deep sympathies for libertarian thought. However, foreign policy is one place where most libertarians fail miserably. It’s not because they are unprincipled. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The libertarians that I follow have exceptionally strong principles, especially with regards to being anti-war.

I am also anti-war, but not to that extreme. I believe it is more important to follow Offensive Realism than libertarianism, at least on foreign policy. Any state that wishes to survive must follow these principles or suffer the inevitable fate of failing to a more powerful foe.

Because of this, I believe a pure libertarian state is impossible. However, freedom and liberty are important principles worth fighting for. To help bridge this gap, I wrote the book Concordia, There Must be a Better Way. To read an excellent novel that addresses both schools of thought, check out the book and let me know what you think.