Is realism still the definitive theory of International Relations after the Cold War?

Answer 1

Was it Disraeli or Palmerston who said "nations don't have friends, they have interests"? IMO that is THE fundamental truth about international relations.

Nowadays, most countries want to get on with each other most of the time. The no 1 interest of any elected government is that its economy should prosper, so it gets re-elected. Spreading propaganda and influence for your culture in the homelands of other cultures is nice, but done more for show back home than for real impact abroad. (Examples: US; Iran.)

War is good for testing the new weapons technology and keeping the military-industrial complex going, provided that it's a long way from home and not many of your own people are killed. The lessons of Vietnam as perceived in the Pentagon are (1) if you are going to invade somewhere, do so with overwhelming force so you win fast. Don't think about what to do afterwards until that is done. (2) We (the Pentagon) can win a war in the desert or the mountains, but for Chrissake keep out of the jungle. Don't intervene therefore in Congo (Zaire) however tempting!!!

So war in Afghan and Iraq is OK, but war in former Yugoslavia was kept short and the place put back on its feet ASAP. Note the difference between imposing 'regime change' in Iraq and letting it happen in its own good time in Serbia.

Answer 2

swept under the carpet

Answer 3

Not really! Ha Ha!

Answer 4

Oh, yes.