Recension to John Mearsheimer’s article “Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism”
Recension to John Mearsheimer’s article
“Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism”
The article primarily focuses on research of political conceptions of realism and neo-conservatism. The content of the article is kind of specific: it represents to readers a comparative analysis of these two directions of political thought. In the article John Mearsheimer tried to find an answer to the question “What position would Hans Morgenthau would choose in case of the Iraq war?” But why the opinion of Morgenthau is so important? To reveal the reasons I’d like to give a brief summary of Hans Morgenthau personality.
Hans Morgenthau was one of the most influential American thinkers of the 20th century. He is considered as one of the greatest representatives of realism in the United States and as the founder of the American political realism. To understand the main ideas and principles of realism and neo-conservatism the author defined the positions of these two conceptions in particular historic situations – the Vietnam war and Iraq war. Considering the parallel between these two conflicts with regard to the fact that realists (except for Kissinger) opposed the war in Vietnam, the author concluded that realists, including Morgenthau, would take the same position in case of Iraq.
At first Mearsheimer describes the basic ideas. Neo-conservative theory, which supports Bush doctrine (these terms can be considered even as equal), may be described as Wilsonialism with teeth. It means that neo-conservatism has two main aspects: an idealist strand and a power strand. Neo-conservatives firmly believe in extremely powerful military of the United States. They think that the USA can use its military in order to reshape the world according to its national interests. They prefer to use the big-stick policy, rather than diplomacy, and consider this principle as absolutely justified. One of the specific features of the neo-conservative theory is unilateralism,
“Hans Morgenthau and the Iraq war: realism versus neo-conservatism”
The article primarily focuses on research of political conceptions of realism and neo-conservatism. The content of the article is kind of specific: it represents to readers a comparative analysis of these two directions of political thought. In the article John Mearsheimer tried to find an answer to the question “What position would Hans Morgenthau would choose in case of the Iraq war?” But why the opinion of Morgenthau is so important? To reveal the reasons I’d like to give a brief summary of Hans Morgenthau personality.
Hans Morgenthau was one of the most influential American thinkers of the 20th century. He is considered as one of the greatest representatives of realism in the United States and as the founder of the American political realism. To understand the main ideas and principles of realism and neo-conservatism the author defined the positions of these two conceptions in particular historic situations – the Vietnam war and Iraq war. Considering the parallel between these two conflicts with regard to the fact that realists (except for Kissinger) opposed the war in Vietnam, the author concluded that realists, including Morgenthau, would take the same position in case of Iraq.
At first Mearsheimer describes the basic ideas. Neo-conservative theory, which supports Bush doctrine (these terms can be considered even as equal), may be described as Wilsonialism with teeth. It means that neo-conservatism has two main aspects: an idealist strand and a power strand. Neo-conservatives firmly believe in extremely powerful military of the United States. They think that the USA can use its military in order to reshape the world according to its national interests. They prefer to use the big-stick policy, rather than diplomacy, and consider this principle as absolutely justified. One of the specific features of the neo-conservative theory is unilateralism,