Sir Michael Howard traces the pattern in the attitudes of liberal-minded men and women in the face of war, from Erasmus to the Americans after Vietnam, and concludes that peacemaking is a task which has to be tackled afresh every day of our lives.
Liberal democracies very rarely fight wars against each other, even though they go to war just as often as other types of states do. John M. Owen IV attributes this peculiar restraint to a synergy between liberal ideology and the institutions that exist within these states. Liberal elites identify their interests with those of their counterparts in foreign states, Owen contends. Free discussion and regular competitive elections allow the agitations of the elites in liberal democracies to shape foreign policy, especially during crises, by influencing governmental decision makers. Several previous analysts have offered theories to explain liberal peace, but they have not examined the state. This book explores the chain of events linking peace with democracies. Owen emphasizes that peace is constructed by democratic ideas, and should be understood as a strong tendency built upon historically contingent perceptions and institutions. He tests his theory against ten cases drawn from over a century of U.S. diplomatic history, beginning with the Jay Treaty in 1794 and ending with the Spanish-American War in 1898. A world full of liberal democracies would not necessarily be peaceful. Were illiberal states to disappear, Owen asserts, liberal states would have difficulty identifying one another, and would have less reason to remain at peace.
This book addresses the relationship between the 'liberal' values of Anglo-Saxon cultures and the way that they conduct themselves when they are fighting - or preparing to fight - wars. The United States and the United Kingdom are characterised by a consensus that their social and political arrangements are, in a very broad sense, ‘liberal’. Liberalism is not pacifism; nor are liberals necessarily respectful of traditional prohibitions that have set out to moderate excessive violence. But liberals do seek to understand their violent actions as part of a wider project of defending or expanding liberal freedoms. The perceived alternative is to undermine the will to keep on fighting. Sustaining a liberal picture of what is going on is an indispensable part of a liberal strategy. Contributors with disciplinary backgrounds in history, international relations, and strategic studies discuss what ‘liberalism’ means in this particular context and how it might relate to ‘strategy’, both in the recent past and in the future. The chapters consider how liberal states understand the wars they fight, the constraints liberal values place on these states, the role of public opinion and the appropriate strategies for modern liberal states. Topics addressed include civilian bombing, the nature of US military culture, the British ‘Iraq inquiries’, the effects of the erosion of Westphalian sovereignty and the rise of new ideas about ‘globalization’, and the decline in popular involvement. This book will be of much interest to students of strategic studies, political philosophy, foreign policy, security studies and IR in general.
The Portuguese Civil War of 1828-1834, commonly known in Anglo-Saxon sources as the War of the Two Brothers, was until recently a forgotten conflict, even in Portuguese Military History. This book shows their uniforms, weapons, equipment, and tells the story of the armies involved.
This book is the first full-length study of a key security issue confronting the West in the 21st century: urban military operations, as undertaken by US and UK forces in Iraq. It relates operations in cities to the wider study of conflict and
This book critically examines the significance of gender, race and sexuality to wars waged by liberal states. Drawing on original field-research with British soldiers, it offers insights into how their everyday experiences are shaped by, and shape, a politics of gender, race and sexuality that not only underpins power relations in the military, but the geopolitics of wars waged by liberal states. Linking the politics of daily life to the international is an intervention into international relations (IR) and security studies because instead of overlooking the politics of the everyday, this book insists that it is vital to explore how geopolitical events and practices are co-constituted, reinforced and contested by it. By utilising insights from Michel Foucault, the book explores how shared and collectively mediated knowledge on gender, race and sexuality facilitates certain claims about the nature of governing in liberal states and about why and how such states wage war against ‘illiberal’ ones in pursuit of global peace and security. The book also develops post-structural work in international relations by urging scholars interested in the linguistic construction of geopolitics to consider the ways in which bodies, objects and architectures also reinforce particular ideas about war, identity and statehood.
This landmark interdisciplinary volume brings together distinguished historians, sociologists, and political scientists to examine the impact of war on democracy.
The tea parties, the guns at town hall meetings, the protests against health care reform, and the general unrest in America today have taken many people by surprise. Some interpret it in terms of economic hard times, but Lee Harris offers a different explanation. Today's populist revolt is only the latest installment of an ongoing cultural war that began long before the current economic crisis. It is a rebellion against a self-appointed intellectual elite whose attitude to the average American is "Don't worry, we know what is best for you." For Harris, the stakes in the current struggle are high: Will America be ruled by ivory tower liberals, or will it remain the land in which ordinary men and women are free to make their own choices and control their own destinies? Throughout our history, Americans have always challenged the definition of liberty, and this has allowed us to progress as a society. Harris argues that this debate is good and necessary, and that we must take this new populist uprising seriously if we are to defend our founding principles. A masterly and visionary work that weaves current events with philosophical investigation, The Next American Civil War rethinks Americans' most elemental ideas of freedom in order to enable the people of the United States to face the challenges of our times.
In an age of demagogues, hostile great powers and trade wars, foreign policy traditionalists dream of restoring liberal international order. This order, they claim, ushered in seventy years of peace and prosperity and saw post-war America domesticate the world to its values. The False Promise of Liberal Order exposes the flaws in this nostalgic vision. The world shaped by America came about as a result of coercion and, sometimes brutal, compromise. Liberal projects – to spread capitalist democracy – led inadvertently to illiberal results. To make peace, America made bargains with authoritarian forces. Even in the Pax Americana, the gentlest order yet, ordering was rough work. As its power grew, Washington came to believe that its order was exceptional and even permanent – a mentality that has led to spiralling deficits, permanent war and Trump. Romanticizing the liberal order makes it harder to adjust to today’s global disorder. Only by confronting the false promise of liberal order and adapting to current realities can the United States survive as a constitutional republic in a plural world.