Once again I have received a comment on my post about the peace assignment that imho surpasses the original post. I like to think that the more I write, the better I will get but it reminds me of learning to ski. I would just start to think that I was getting good and someone would zip past me weaving through the slower skiers as if they were minor obstacles and make me feel as if I was a babe crawling on the rug dreaming of learning to run. On the other hand, I did eventually get good enough to make newer skiers feel the same way I had previously felt so ya never know.
The "Problems of War and Peace" class was again very interesting – our assignment was Bertolt Brecht’s play Mother Courage and Her Children, a tale set in the Thirty Years war and acting as a commentary on war and those who would profit by it. During the course of attempting to make a profit off of the war by dragging her cart of goods along with the army and taking advantage of the constant need of the soldiers for goods. At the same time she attempts to preserve her 2 sons and "dumb" daughter from the ravages of the war. Mother Courage ends up failing at both, sacrificing her children to the war in an attempt to put profit first and yet still ends up impoverished and alone at the end. Even her name appears unearned – she ran through fire to deliver bread not because she was worried about the soldiers but because "the bread was going moldy, what could I do?" Reviewing this piece of literature was informative but a little depressing and things got worse.
We were then treated to the theme of International Relations – the US’s answer to the Diplomacy of the old world. IR (for short) borrows from the great thinkers of history from Sun Tzu to Miachiavelli and Von Clausewitz on the subjects of warfare and the survival of the state. A basic premise is that states are rational actors who act in their own self interest who pursue power in order to secure themselves and insure survival. This limitsinterstate cooperation to a strictly subordinate role with the added complication that states do not gain from cooperation if the other party also gains since it can then grow stronger and become more of a risk. The claim is made that given any situation of states that IR can accurately predict peace or war. In multipolar (many powerful states) such as Europe prior to WWI, war can be expected. In a bipolar situation (US and Soviet Union in cold war) will circle each other but no main war – just the peripheries (Vietnam and Afghanistan). In a unipolar world (us now – US only superpower) there should be peace – of course we instead have lots of little wars so whats going on? This viewpont, by the way, is known as "Realist" which of course implies other viewpoint would be…
Altogether I do not like this theory – it does seem to accurately describe some things but there is the unipolar problem. In addition, it seems to imply that mankind will never be able to look beyond self-interest and learn to cooperate even when both benefit – at least on the macro scale.
The "Problems of War and Peace" class was again very interesting – our assignment was Bertolt Brecht’s play Mother Courage and Her Children, a tale set in the Thirty Years war and acting as a commentary on war and those who would profit by it. During the course of attempting to make a profit off of the war by dragging her cart of goods along with the army and taking advantage of the constant need of the soldiers for goods. At the same time she attempts to preserve her 2 sons and "dumb" daughter from the ravages of the war. Mother Courage ends up failing at both, sacrificing her children to the war in an attempt to put profit first and yet still ends up impoverished and alone at the end. Even her name appears unearned – she ran through fire to deliver bread not because she was worried about the soldiers but because "the bread was going moldy, what could I do?" Reviewing this piece of literature was informative but a little depressing and things got worse.
We were then treated to the theme of International Relations – the US’s answer to the Diplomacy of the old world. IR (for short) borrows from the great thinkers of history from Sun Tzu to Miachiavelli and Von Clausewitz on the subjects of warfare and the survival of the state. A basic premise is that states are rational actors who act in their own self interest who pursue power in order to secure themselves and insure survival. This limitsinterstate cooperation to a strictly subordinate role with the added complication that states do not gain from cooperation if the other party also gains since it can then grow stronger and become more of a risk. The claim is made that given any situation of states that IR can accurately predict peace or war. In multipolar (many powerful states) such as Europe prior to WWI, war can be expected. In a bipolar situation (US and Soviet Union in cold war) will circle each other but no main war – just the peripheries (Vietnam and Afghanistan). In a unipolar world (us now – US only superpower) there should be peace – of course we instead have lots of little wars so whats going on? This viewpont, by the way, is known as "Realist" which of course implies other viewpoint would be…
Altogether I do not like this theory – it does seem to accurately describe some things but there is the unipolar problem. In addition, it seems to imply that mankind will never be able to look beyond self-interest and learn to cooperate even when both benefit – at least on the macro scale.
Mike's View 