Intelligence Officer In Training Intl 500 Week 4 Forum Response: "How Relevant is the Mearsheimer Theory of 'Offensive Realism,' to Contemporary Intelligence Theory and Parctice?"

1-28-2017

Intl 500 Week 4 Response To: Ms. Megan Smith

From: Miss. Bayo Elizabeth Cary, AA, BA, MLIS

Re: How relevant is “Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism,” in its application as theory, to both: intelligence studies, and contemporary practice.

However, hybrid warfare complements Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism (also referred to as ‘great power’.) This theory, according to this week’s lesson, is a covering term for “several theories of international politics and foreign policy that give analytical primacy to the hostile and unforgiving nature of the international system as the cause of conflict.”[1] This theory suggests that anarchy (or the absence of a worldwide government or universal sovereign) offers strong incentives for expansion.[2]

—Megan Smith

            It was necessary for me, to follow up, on the research, by Ms. Megan Smith, in order, to respond, to her statement, concerning theory, and Mearsheimer’s theory of: “offensive realism.” I read the same text, that Ms. M. Smith read, regarding the Mearsheimer theory of “offensive realism,” and, how it could possibly relate, to the current state, of intelligence studies, and the practice of intelligence. It is my opinion-based on the premises, utilized by Mearsheimer, to buttress his arguments, for “offensive realism,” that the premises-are not based on reality (Phythian 2009, 57-58).

            The current state, of most international politics-is not a state of: “anarchy.” Horace Greely, used a: “Go West Young Man,” and a: “Manifest Destiny,” excuse, to conquer America’s lands, that already had-people, organizations, laws/ and order, and, logical governments. Immigrants, to the North American continent, of America, were-able-to: “Divide and Conquer,” America-by pretending, that, nothing existed-at least nothing relevant-not until Columbus landed, in 1492. The same excuses were used with: Rhodesia, when Europeans landed at Pretoria, and decided to re-name Zulu country: “South Africa.”

        The fact, that a culture, has no respect, or understanding, for native peoples-in no way justifies or excuses, taking what belongs to someone else. In fact, there were hundreds of well-organized tribes, of Native Americans, living in America, when Columbus, finally made it. And, South Africa, has never been a barren waste land. Shaka Zulu, and his African warrior ancestors, have a history-in the general area, which in now called: “South Africa,” from what is purportedly-the very beginning of life itself.

         I strongly disagree, with Mearsheimer’s theory of: “offensive realism,” it does in fact-offend, and, is simply an excuse, to take-with impunity, what belongs to someone else-historically, and, for more than a millennia-most often. The main objective, for an intelligence studies, and practice, is to: secure a nations security, and, to predict anything (“positivism-a problem solving theory”): domestic or international-that may be, a future threat, to: integrity, or to function (Phythian 2009, 55). The position, of an intelligence program-for any given nation, according to the historical explanation, for establishing, an intelligence program-is “defensive,” and-not “offensive,” or “pre-emptive.”

Not that Morgenthau and Carr thought the international political system was condemned for all time to revolve around the relentless struggle for power and security. Their main claim was that all efforts to reform the international system which ignored the struggle for power would quickly end in failure. (Burchill et al. 2005, 1)

In my opinion, the above statement, by Burchill and Linklater, regarding the contemporary intersection, between intelligence studies, and international relations-more honestly and accurately states, the current motivations, behind contemporary intelligence study and practice. In pretending, like-all else is “anarchy,” nations have justified an excuse, for freely stealing, what otherwise-already has, a well-established owner. Some nations, have become, soo greedy and dishonest-at their continued grasp, for more control and power internationally-that, the basis for collecting, and practicing, within the field of intelligence studies-is-simply, to expand an empire, and, to increase the size of one’s wallet. 

          America-is right now, at the literal point, where, people matter-for almost nothing at all, and, the only language, that anyone speaks-is financial. How much money is that worth? How much will you pay for that? How much return can I get, if I re-sale that: domestically, or, internationally? In America, right now-money is the only language, and common sense-basic ethics, morals, and concerns, for both: civil, and human rights, human decency, and humanity in general-have gone to the wayside. America, is a sad, and difficult reality to acknowledge-as is, or, to survive in.

References

Burchill, Scott, Devetak, Richard, Donnelly, Jack, Linklater,

Andrew, Paterson, Mathew, Reus-Smit, Christian, and True, Jacqui. 2005. Theories of International Relations: 3rd Ed. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN is the global imprint of Palgrave Macmillan division of St. Martin’s Press, LLC and of Palgrave Macmillan Ltd. Accessed January 28, 2017. https://docs.com/shandy-saputra/4493/scott-burchill-and-andrew-linklater-theories-of

Phythian, Mark. 2009. “Intelligence theories and theories of

international relations.” Shared world or separate world? Accessed January 26, 2017.  file:///C:/Users/Mumbai%20Eliza/Documents/APUS%20Phythian%20(2009)%20Week%204%20Intelligence%20Theory%20and%20Theories%20of%20International%20Relations.pdf