The Fog Of War Analysis

Constructivism can best be understood as a focus on the social context and landscape in which international relations occur. As a lens of understanding, constructivism emphasizes issues of identity and belief. This lens is especially helpful in understanding relations between America and Cuba. America is a state that stands strongly for democracy and its goal in many

In the Fog of War, Former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara recounted his experiences when serving for both the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Throughout the film he shared eleven lessons that he learned as a result of the war and politics. The lessons range from empathizing with one 's enemy to the fact we cannot change human nature. This essay will discuss some of McNamara’s lessons and how they illustrated institutions, bargaining, cooperation, power and sovereignty.

Memories are what make us who we are and storytelling is how we seek to share who we are with others. This has long been the tradition of mankind, passing on our experiences and lessons to others as a means to not only enlighten and endow our listeners with what we have learned about life, but also how those lessons have served to shaped who we are. When sharing our stories and memories, we are able to better resonate with our audience by connecting with them on an emotional level. Such is the manner in which the personal experiences of war are shared in the pieces The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara and The Things They Carried. Although McNamara and O’Brien’s experiences of war were vastly different, their personal recollections and the separate examinations of the manner in which they each experienced the war can serve to provide insight into the true nature of warfare. Both accounts prove that human memories are important in helping us to understand our own histories and that personal experiences often color the manner and method in which that history is told, whether our role is as a decision maker or the one being affected by the decisions of others. The depiction of the memory process for each piece will be examined in order to better understand each figure’s recollection of historical events in regards to their role, where McNamara served as one of the “planners” and O’Brien’s characters as the “participants.”

Another principal attribute that disqualifies realism in debunking the Afghanistan War is the fact that America made concerted efforts to gain support from the United Nations (UN) before commencing the invasion. This contravenes the assertion put forth by the realist theory that, a nation does not take the international system or organization into consideration when taking actions directed towards safeguarding its survival. The autonomous action stipulated in realism is particularly essential when a state is threatened and cannot afford to trust other nations. In

For realists the international system is anarchical, war is an ever present threat and the survival of a state is never guaranteed. This is why security is the main focus of most realists. States are forever seeking greater amounts of security, in a never ending search.

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

Realism is a theory which believes that sovereign states are the primary actors in the international system. It also believes that the international system has always been anarchic due to the nature of states not trusting each other and each state seeking to gain or maximize its own power capability. The Realist approach to the Cold War was also that of an “anarchical constitutive” and had seen the Cold War as something that was not out of the ordinary. The realists believed that states are always competing to maximize their own power, “the basic premise of its understanding is that the Cold War was not historically unique. the Cold War rather reflected in general terms the ongoing logic of inter-state conflict derived from the anarchical constitutive nature of the international system, and the ‘power maximization’ policies of states” R.Saull (2001:7).

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

In his masterpiece ON WAR, the military strategist Carl Von Clausewitz talks about the fog and friction of war, and their impact on the battlefield. (Clausewitz, 119-121) Whereby everything in war might be thought of as being simple in nature, it [friction] turns seemingly simple things into trying, sometimes insurmountable tasks to such the degree that their accomplishment “…is inconceivable unless one has experienced war.” (Clausewitz, 119) The early morning of 27 May 1905 was little different. There was fog (in the literal sense of the weather) which the Russian fleet, having now been dubbed the Second Pacific Squadron, attempted to use to their advantage as they proceeded through the strait of Tsushima. Where they attempted to use it their

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

The Fog of War Eleven Lessons by Robert S. McNamara was in so much as a great representation of the life of Robert S. McNamara. It showed his life to be dramatic and traumatic in many different ways. The lessons he learned and shared during the documentary movie were truly astounding to me. I personally thought the movie was a tad bit on the boring side, but it was a documentary after all. The Fog of War was a very informative piece of work.

When discussing whether or not a nation-state should enter a war and when to do so, three beliefs on foreign policy and war exist. The three different diplomatic stances are that of pacifism, just war theory, and political realism. Political realism, or realpolitik as it is often referred to, is the belief war should only occur when it is in the national interest of the particular nation-state. Henry Kissinger, a political realist, in his book Diplomacy argues that realism is the only logical answer. Just war theorists, along with pacifists, on the other hand oppose these arguments and therefore critique of this form of diplomatic action. To construct a valid understanding of the realist perspective the arguments Kissinger puts forth in

Social constructivism emerged in the mid-1990s, after the end of Cold War. Although it has been seen as a 'young ' theory in International Relations, it has challenged the two dominant theories – realism and liberalism. It also provided new theoretical openings to understand the International Relations. Social constructivists tried to establish a “middle ground” between rationalism and poststructuralism. Unlike realism, social constructivism claims that material capabilities of states, such as military power, is not the only essential factor in International Relations. It also concentrates on other non-material factors, including identity, culture, ideas, norms, institutions and interests. Moreover, it believes that the interaction of structures and agency is a key in explaining the international politics. However, not every social constructivists agree with the same themes of the theory. There is contestation. According to Ted Hopf (1998), social constructivism can be divided into two categories. The first type is the conventional constructivism, in other words, the 'weak ' constructivism. The second type is the critical constructivism, which is also called poststructuralism. In this essay, I am going to discuss the limitations of the weak form of social constructivism from the perspectives of other approaches, such as the critical constructivism and rationalism. The other approaches can indicate the deficiency of the weak form of social constructivism.

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.