Essay about Mackinder or Mahan

“For the Common Defense, a military history of the United States from 1607-2012” is a military historic book written by Allan R. Millet, Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis. Millet is a historian and a retired colonel of the Marine Corps. Maslowski is a professor at the University of Nebraska. Feis is a professor at Buena Vista University. This book was published in September 2012. It focuses on chronologically describing the changes of the United States military for over 400 years. Even though that is the main purpose, it does include political information. Although this book does not have an exact thesis, its purpose is to inform readers of the creation and enhancements of the US military. At almost 700 pages, this book educates about

Mahan's article claimed that America must go forth with expansionism, for an “increasing volume of public sentiment demands it”, “the growing production of the country demands it”, and that “the Americans must now look onward” (Doc. C). Mahan's tactics were heavily reliant on naval forces. He believed that “Three things are needful: first, protection of the chief harbors, by fortifications and coast-defense ships...Secondly, naval force, the arm of offensive power, which alone enables a country to extend its influence outward” and “thirdly, no foreign state should henceforth acquire a coaling position within three thousand miles of San Francisco” (Doc. C)

To be sure, a surprise strategic Chinese attack is a valuable worst-case scenario to study, but protracted multi-dimensional U.S.-China competition for Pacific influence—akin to the contemporary era—is arguably more likely and, thus, a more sensible scenario against which to wargame. Also, despite its plausible portrayal of a localized insurgency, the novel stops short of depicting mass civil unrest elsewhere and social stability considerations that would almost certainly accompany a future world war. Nonetheless, Ghost Fleet’s technical narrative provides ample realistic content for today’s security and defense officials to balance and refine tomorrow’s warfare strategies. Singer and Cole’s near-future depiction of U.S. technological vulnerability in warfare should spur those officials to enable American innovation and adaptation in warfighting solutions well before the onset of strategic

In the book 1812: The Navy’s War, Author George C. Daughan gives the reader an inside look into the events that led to the War of 1812 and war itself. Within the book, Mr. Daughan analyzed the conflict between the recently discovered Unites States and Great Brittan. The book gives in detail the short-term consequences of the War, as well as the lingering effects the war brought to the United States. By the end of Mr. Daughan historic text it is abundantly clear that the War of 1812 forever impacted the way the United States military operated. Mr. Daughan gives an outstanding synopsis of the United State’s rise as a military power, specifically the United States Navy. Daughan gives the reader an in-depth look of these gruesome battles, by using letters, journal writing, and other first-hand accounts of those directly involved in the war.

He quotes, “The history of sea power is, largely, though by no means solely, a narrative of contests between nations, of mutual rivalries, of violence frequently culminating in war.” Mahan saw sea power as thoroughly intertwined with war. His argument was that a great navy was essential for national prosperity through military and economic expansion.

“…however wonderful our individual ships are we must face the fact that if we go to war against

Numerous motivating factors contributed to US overseas imperialism, but the fundamental underlying cause was the fact that powerful men within the US government, military and business strata craved power, expansion, wealth, and most of all, world dominance. It began subtly, as prominent businessmen like Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan began to realize that US consumership alone would not sufficiently sustain the growing industries, volume of production and produce generated within the US. In order to achieve the expansion and exponential growth of wealth they aspired to, a larger market was needed; a market capable of absorbing the abundant surplus. The solution, they believed, was expansion into foreign markets around the world.

Mahan also wrote a book that highly influenced how America is today called “The Importance of Sea Power Upon History”. In his book he wrote about the importance of having a strong Navy and the bases to support it. Mahan, contradictory to what is said before, did look at other countries as he determined what it was that made countries strong. He found that Britain had the most powerful Navy and that they had bases close to the coast of the United States. He saw that this created an advantage that the United States did not have. In his other book, “The United States Looking Outward”, he writes what he believes are the three main things that the United States should

Parts five and six bring together the personal and professional relationship between Marines themselves and the American public. These relationships, forged by the millions of men and women who have donned the Marine Corps uniform, are a result of training methods and careful selection. General Krulak gives the reader a taste of why Marines do what they have come to be known as America’s force in readiness. First to Fight has many good traits. The book, while easy to read and addictively interesting, never sugarcoats the intense conflicts between high level officials. General Krulak enhances the “official” record with personal accounts of events and people now legendary. His no-holds-barred approach to his writing makes General Krulak’s book both honest and educational. His explanations of the struggle to keep the Marine Corps alive and the early development of amphibious doctrine make First to Fight a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the modern Marine Corps. In parts of the book, General Krulak provides a mountain of detail. While these facts would be of great historical value for a reader who knows military structure and nomenclature, they tend to bog down the reader at points. The political volleys also tend to get tedious when the General describes the how the Marine Corps had to fight tooth and nail for institutional survival. These

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

So the theory suggests that because democracies externalise their interstate norms, they resolve disputes with other states like them in a peaceful way. Hence domestic inner-state policies influence their foreign policies. However, this proclamation is disputed by C. Layne who argues that the ‘crux’ of this theory is that if the assumption that democracies promote their peaceful inner-state norms and beliefs, then they shouldn’t ever threaten other democracies, especially not in a crisis. I will use the case study of the ‘Trent affair’ to provide evidence of how war was avoided. I will argue that in this case, war was avoided not because of the domestic pacific influence on foreign policy but because of other strategic reasons.

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

History has told us that the Soviet Union and its allies lost the Cold war and that more or less disproves this theory as the Soviet bloc controlled the lands Mackinder outlined. Secondly MAckinder vastly undersells the power of East Asia and the Americas. This highlights the views of Europe at the turn of the 20th century when the power of the world was still firmly centered in Western Europe. In all though this theory of Mackinder’s is insightful and is an excellent snapshot of the mindset of the world in

Nearly all of us wish to have a peaceful world free from wars and struggles for our generation. However, as far as the world is divided into many nations, such as the Middle East, the West, Far East Asia and African origin, the realisation of such a peaceful world seems far from being possible in the near future. Even though the United Nations Organisation was established for the purpose of ending power politics it has not been able to function so well as supposed or intended in its inception. Thus the world has remained just the same as before and we still live in an age of power politics. In the general international relations literature, realism stands out for its central focus on the idea of power. The balance of power endlessly debated and variously defined and it is the core theory of international politics within the realist perspective. In "Politics Among Nations" (1948), Hans Morgenthau, "the father of realism" in international relations, defined international politics as “The aspiration for power is the distinguishing element of international politics. The struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience.”

Realism is considered the most leading school of thought in international relations, as realism is also one of the oldest and most entrenched theories of International Relations (Steans, Pettiford, Diez & El-Anis 2013, p. 53). All realist share a perspective that states are unitary rational actors that are encouraged by the desire for military power and security rather than principles or ethics. Realists view human nature as self-seeking, conflictual and competitive and consider that states are inherently violent as realism values order and does not welcome change. There are several forms of realism such as, structural, neo and classical, however this essay will focus on classical realism, its key theorists, its strength and weakness and how my view on international politics has changed over the course of this unit.