Response Paper #1: Mearsheimer p. 29-54

Jessie Latter

GVPT200

23 September 2013

Offensive Realism

          In chapter two of John Mearsheimer’s book, “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power”, the reader is exposed to his main argument defending offensive realism by saying that states pursue relative power because they are in anarchy and are motivated by survival (Mearsheimer 54). After reading the chapter from Mearsheimer’s book, I agree with his argument because I can sympathize with the situation states are in since they are always in fear of what other states might do and that acting aggressively through the building up of their military is just a precaution and necessary for survival.

          Mearsheimer is taking a stance on the debate of what IR relations theory should be used to analyze how states interact or should interact by defending realism and introducing this idea of offensive realism. Realism is a black and white way of explaining international relations, which is why it makes sense that many critics of it say it is to pessimistic, but Mearsheimer defense of realism almost makes the reader reconsider their opinion of it. Realists think states are the most important players and disregard the individual, but this inevitable power struggle that states are stuck in makes the reader begin to sympathize with their situation and see them less as a military body and more as an individual struggling to stay afloat amongst hundreds of other individuals who all fear for their survival. Agreeing with Mearsheimer argument defending realism does not necessarily mean that I agree with realism over other theories like liberalism and constructivism, but he makes several points that, if looked at objectively and unbiased, logically explains the power struggle that states are facing when trying to become hegemons.

          Although I do agree with Mearsheimer’s argument, I still think that realists need to reconsider the idea that states are always in anarchy because from a liberal’s perspective, cooperation between institutions can solve the problem of the power struggle that states face. For the past decade America has been building up its military power because of the war on terror and 9/11. The United States has the largest military in the world now and is intervening in Middle Eastern countries because they are afraid of getting attacked again and there is no governing body stopping them, although people say that is the United Nation’s job. If the United States aligned with other European or Middle Eastern countries and cooperated, instead of using military force to intervene in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, the anarchic system could be solved and states could realize that absolute gains are more important then relative gains.

          I agree with Mearsheimer’s argument defending realism on the basis that states are forced to act aggressively because they are stuck in a state of anarchy and fear for their survival, but I find flaws in the other aspects of realism and therefore still agree with the theory of liberalism over realism.

Work Cited

Mearsheimer, John J. "Anarchy and the Struggle for Power." The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton, 2001. 29-54. Print.