Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

To Mearsheimer, great power politics are tragic because the anarchy of the international system requires states to seek dominance at one another's expense, dooming even peaceful nations to a relentless power struggle. Mearsheimer illuminates his theory of offensive realism through a sweeping survey of modern great power struggles and reflects on the bleak prospects for peace in Europe and northeast Asia, arguing that the United States's security competition with a rising China will intensify regardless of "engagement" policies.

Average Customer Rating:

Not seeing the trees for the wood

Customer Rating:

John Mearsheimer's Tragedy of Great Power Politics is a disappointing work and the title itself is somewhat anachronistic. It is easy to indulge in self prophesy and to see the wood (the already verifiable truth that nations understand the language of force) but it is not wise to miss the trees, that is, the recent challenges to realistic theories like globalization, growth of multilateral institutions and regimes, etc. Is it not a futile exercise at a time to rehash great power politics when there is no great power worth the name round the corner. No doubt much of what Dr. Mearsheimer says on offensive realism is as true as the fact that groups and individuals try to dominate others to enhance their powers which has ,paradoxically, a root in the survival issue. His theory is based on a long tried and popular school of thought, 'realism' which has proved right time and again. But one must look beyond. Human civilization has its history as much in force as in cooperation. Neither can one ignore the fact that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. So, self defense and cooperation act as s check on other aspiring powers. Just look at the Chinese 'Himalayan' patience at the sight of the US fleet roaming that region. This is another face of realism, that is, 'defensive realism'. Moreover, history might provide useful data and conclusions but one must remember history is era-specific and written by personalities belonging to a particular era. It is necessary to leave opinionated approaches in erecting theories because time and future constantly unfolds, not always, to the liking or prediction of any human being. That is the beauty and essence of human society and civilization. This is not to say that the era of great power politics is over. It is not. The weight of history is rather very much in favor of this. History has proved that wars are realities and peace illusive. But each time a war is fought the goal is peace. In the post cold war era is it not wise to increase the horizon of peace tools when we are having a long peace since the end of the Second world War? Gautam Maitra Author of 'Tracing the Eagle's Orbit: Illuminating Insights into Major US Foreign Policies since Independence'.

Realistic but mistaken	Customer Rating:
While it is cunningly realistic to contend that trying to make China wealthy and democratic will only make it a stronger rival, it is yet utterly mistaken that a "electoral democratic" China can be strong both economically and politically. Focusing on human nature can easily assume away the true impact of "culture nature".

Interesting insights but wanders

Customer Rating:

Mearshimer makes a cogent definition of his version of realism and a strong argument for its value in explaining international relations. However, in the middle part of the book, he diverges into an excessively detailed discussion of the military aspects of power politics. One question: If the "stopping power of water" is so big a factor, how did tiny Western European countries manage to conquer huge tracts of the world's surface? In an effort to make his points, the author also indulges in a tremendous amount of redundancy.

A rehash of realist power politics theory !

Customer Rating:

Before getting this book I, being a professor of I.R., had thought rather highly of Mearsheimer since he's regarded as one of the leading Neo Realists along with Stephen Walt (with whom he recently wrote the Israely-Lobby - a good insightful book). So when I started reading I had rather high expectations that the author would add new insights into his new version of Neo Realist theory which he calls offensive Realism. However, I soon discovered that there would be hardly any new insights to be gained. This starts out, for example, with the authors concept of power, which is arguably one of the most important not only in I.R. but in all social science. So how does Mearsheimer present this important concept. Well, its basically what anyone would know from any undergraduate class in I.R. theory, namely, that power is primarily rooted in military capability or strenght. Yes, he does acknowledge that a nation does need a strong and robust economy as a prerequisite for establishing military power, but does not go beyond that in discussing the economic side of power, which is much more pervasive and interdependent than he wants us to believe. He spends a lot of time explaining that in modern history (with the exception of the Kosovo war 1999) that war are won by armies that fight to take over territory, something that an air force or navy can't do for obivious reasons. I agree with all of this, but the main problem with his analysis is that it is far too limited in focus and outlook and dosen't take a lot of relevant things into consideration. For example, the author doesn't seem to acknowledge even for a minute, the whole liberalist view of I.R. which states that war between democratic nations has virtually never happend (only possible exception being the 1812 Waw between G.B. & USA), furthermore, he dosen't even mention the liberalist contention that war between modern industralized or post-industrialized nations is highly unlikely and hasen't occured since the 2nd World War, since such wars would be totally disruptive to those nations economies and annihilate decades of economic progress. But what's even more important in my view is his utter neglect of Constructivism: A new social science theory that entered I.R. in the 1990s. Constructivism makes the (here somewhat simplified) claim that preceptions between invidual, groups and states is what really counts when it comes to explaining I.R. Hence, it is not so much the materialistic conditions (as also Marxists claim) that drive people, groups and nations to act or react in certain ways, far from this it is their perceptions of events and other people that is a key motivating factor in their behavior. Hence, when perceptions change international politics can also change and usually do change accordingly to the perceptions that leaders or influencial groups in societies or nations have. Simplified, this means when a general change in awareness of people (in high places of governments) occurs then their attitudes and eventually perhaps even belief systems change which then leads them to act or react accordingly with their new awareness. For example, after the 2nd World War the industralized nations learned that disaster struck them twice during the world wars, and so they decided to never again fight wars against each other. And this is precisely what happend afterwards, all the wars that were fought during the Cold War area where either war by 3rd world states or proxy wars that the Super or great powers fought through other "client" states on their behalf or in their interest. So where does this book leave one? Really having read it I sometimes felt like it could have been written in the 1950s, at least theoretically speaking since it hardly brings anythings new. Basically just a rehash of old power politics concepts that scholars like Morgenthau and Kissinger have been writing about for decades. Sure military power is still important in world politics but the world has changed alone through globalization, but this is something that Mearsheimer simply dismisses as missing the point. Fact of the matter, is nonetheless that globalization has made all nations more interdependent on each other. For example, as much as people like Mearsheimer believe that China will be the USA's next challenger and rival in the near future, the USA can't like back in the 1950 afford to attack China, this is not because China is militarily more powerful than the USA (its actually far from that and may never achieve such a position) but rather because without the massive trade that the US does with China it simply couldn't maintain the high living standard that it still enjoys. Since the American people and economy have been living beyond its means for decades now. Furthermore, China has become one of the main financers of US debts along with Japan and the E.U. A war would shatter this important financial dependency to the severe detriment of the USA. Hence, the USA can be virtually as powerful militarily as it wants regarding a nation like China, an attack on it would damage the US economy to such an extent that war would become irrational in economic terms. The same of course holds true for the E.U. or even Japan, which still has considerable economic power. Mearsheimers offensive Realism thus become plainly naive, in a globalized democratized world military power can only be used in a limited way. The last Iraq and Afghanistan wars have shown that (US) military power couldn't even solve the problems of post war occupation of those weak 3rd world states. Moreover, the balance of power concept that the author and all Realists place so much empahsis on is itself not as reliable of a concept as they are led to believe. So we are led to believe that I.R. is all about the balance of power, power politics, and anarchy which leads to the seemingly endless search for security for all states and wind up ultimately in the security dilemma. Once a state feels that it has secured a considerable amount of security its neighbors or rivals automatically feel less secure, and hence strive to reverse that situation (usually by building up their military forces). Like I said, this approach denies the validity and relevancy of more than half a century of theoretical as well as global changes in world politics. It is as if in Physics We were still in the mechanistic world of Newtonian physics and Albert Einstein had never made an impact! This analogy is actually a good one since the Realists believe that by primarily observing the concept of power they can prudently calculate how the balance of power functions to limited war and preserve a rather stable world order, while some of them (Kenneth Waltz) even claim that they can make good predictions about international relations.

Realist theory for the modern world

Customer Rating:

John Mearshieimer presents an excellent theory in the form of offensive realism that stands up to close scrutiny in his book the Tragedy of Great Power Politics. By clearly laying out his definitions of what state goals are and how he measures power he makes a compelling case for regional hegemony and the stopping power of water. By utilizing several case studies to prove his theory the points are well made. His analysis of military power is very interesting and well done. It is hard to find good realist IR theory these days as so many people doubt that such a system is relevant in a post cold war world. Mearshiemer makes one of the better cases for it existing today and for categorizing the state of anarchy that exists in the world. He rightly recognizes that the potential for great power conflict is not likely in Europe and the Russia is to weak to invade there. His characterization of Asia is very strong and the possible conflict between China and the US is clearly analyzed and presented. My only criticisms and they were not enough to drop the book down a star was that Africa and the Middle East was virtually ignored. Resource conflict is a major potential area of violence in the future and much of this focused on technological or military threats leaving out the recent prospects of resource conflict. By looking at a regional system these areas should have been included. Overall though excellent realist theory and a very enjoyable read.