The Book; Gowan, P. (2020). A calculus of power: Grand strategy in the twenty-first century. Verso Books. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=k1qcEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT17&dq=In+USA+analyzing+theory+and+grand+strategy+books+&ots=TeFEOFdZzN&sig=L6qlj-HaVcIhFnsiyurzsNfLpCI
Abstract
This research paper delves into Peter Gowan’s book, “A Calculus of Power: 2020, Grand Strategy in the Twenty-First Century. This paper presents a summary of Gowan’s argument and its logicality. Indeed, he acknowledges the changing forms of power relations in the modern world, recognizing that ideology, culture, and also technology are factors to be reckoned with alongside traditional means of determining powers. Although Gowan’s analysis allows for understanding the intricacies of modern grand strategy, his approach has flaws. Lastly, it provides the criticism that demonstrates the limitations of Gowan’s argument.
Introduction
In “A Calculus of Power: Peter Gowan takes a sweeping look at grand strategy in “Grand Strategy in the Twenty-First Century.” His primary focus is on the United States, as seen through its modern geographical prism. Gowen notes that to formulate and implement effective grand strategies in the 21st century, it is necessary to have a comprehensive power dynamic understanding, including material and ideational elements (Gowan, 2020). Despite external changes, he maintains the importance of grand strategy in defining a nation’s policy towards foreign countries. Gowan’s analysis of power relationships and the state’s role in formulating grand strategies promotes a more holistic understanding.
Defense of the Argument:
Gowan’s argument is accountable for several valid reasons. First, he sees the changing world of power and its constant addition of non-material indicators such as ideology, culture, or technology alongside traditional measures. This recognition reflects a mature interpretation of the subtlety embedded in today’s contemporary international relations. Further, Gowan’s focus on the importance of adaptation and adaptability in the grand strategy reflects well-known dynamics of global politics marked by fluidity where unexpected events and fast changes require rethinking strategic goals (Gowan, 2020). Additionally, Gowan’s interdisciplinary approach, which involves many insights from political theory, history, and international relations, boosts his analysis, hence adding more credibility to it.
Critique:
Even though Gowan’s analysis provides many meaningful insights into the intricacies of modern grand strategy, it could be better. A relevant issue is that there must be clear boundaries between the descriptive analysis and normative prescriptions. Gowan does an excellent job of demonstrating the diverse characteristics of power. However, he must present clear guidelines or policy strategies that policymakers can use while managing such intricate dimensions (Boulton, 2022). Besides, the book’s emphasis on conceptual abstraction may make it more difficult to discern what practical means can be deduced from its arguments for readers who seek actionable policy recommendations.
Similarly, Gowan’s approach is also inclined to align with great power politics while disregarding the voices of smaller states and other non-state actors whose contributions are crucial in determining global dynamics (Boulton, 2022). However, there are many instances where the Eurocentric bias of this book becomes apparent with negligent consideration of nonwestern points of view and historical backgrounds, and the question arises as to whether its claims apply universally or only they are suited for a small segmented area (Solingen, 2021). Also, although Gowan concedes the importance of history setting, his analysis sometimes may interpret complex historical events in a too simple way.
In conclusion, Gowan’s article “A Calculus of Power” provides an engaging analysis of the modern grand strategy. However, it is marred with practical uncertainties and conceptual gaps. Tackling these limitations would improve the book’s significance to policymakers alike because then greater insights about dealing with the global complexity of the twentieth-century world order would be reflected. In addition, Gowan’s critical study of grand strategy focusing on the state perspective might overlook the subordinate or suppressed interests in and out of nations. Additionally, the cross-cultural and also political validity of arguments by Gowan should be investigated further.
Essay: Analyzing Institutions and Processes
Option 1;
Introduction
In their controversial article “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy,” John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt state that international lobbies, especially the Israel lobby, have undue influence on American foreign policy against its interest. It appeared in 2006 and caused much-heated discussion among scientists and policymakers, who praised and criticized the author. Mearsheimer, a political scientist, and Walt (an international relations scholar) argue that the Israel lobby has real power in its lobbying activities, campaign contributions, and control over media discourses (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). It is impacting U.S. policies and weakening America’s national interests there.
Analysis
The weaknesses of Mearsheimer and Walt’s article include that it is based on a contradictory thesis throwing away traditional narratives relating to U.S.U.S. foreign policy. The authors thoroughly analyze how the Israel lobby obtains its influence, providing instances such as congressional resolutions, media coverage, and political appointments testify to this power (Mearsheimer & Walt, 2007). Besides, the critical discourse on how interested groups influence foreign policy prompts scholars and policymakers to reassess the connection between domestic politics and international affairs.
However, the article also has some very significant weaknesses. The critics hold that Mearsheimer and Walt disregard other factors influencing foreign policy decisions, such as strategic alliances, geopolitical considerations, and common democratic values. In addition, other scholars raise concerns about the authors’ methodology because of their selective evidence and cherry-picking examples to confirm what they already assumed. Furthermore, the article has been marred by claims of anti-Semitism from critics who argue that it continues to promulgate conspiracy theories surrounding Jewish control over politics.
Counterarguments against Mearsheimer and Walt’s argument provide diverse views on the impact of international lobbies in the U.S.U.S. foreign policy. For example, Alan Dershowitz points out that authors portrayed the Israel lobby as a monolith when there were diverse views and interests within the Jewish-American advocacy groups. Some people, such as David Gergen, claim that interest groups have much influence but do not possess unlimited power over policymakers guided by national interests in their decision-making processes (Waxman & Pressman, 2021). On top of this, authors such as Daniel Drezner stress the need for a clear distinction between legitimate lobbying practices and undue influence – warning against confusing them in debates about foreign policy creation.
Assessment in the Modern Context
Within the modern arena, Mearsheimer and Walt’s statements remain relevant for discussions of international lobbies that can influence the U.S.U.S. foreign policy. The evolution of social media and digital activism has widened the channels for lobbying, thus making interest groups louder and more potent in leveraging public opinion. However, the increased attention to foreign influence campaigns, especially following allegations of interfering with elections, created an impetus for enhanced regulation and a measure of transparency in lobbying. Furthermore, the changes in the international system, including a normalization of relations between Israel and some Arab states, have undone traditional alignments and imbalanced U.S.U.S. policy negotiations in the Middle East (Sharbaf, 2021). As a result, the Israel lobby could be subject to new geopolitics trends that would affect its influence over American foreign policy and thus require further study.
In conclusion, although the Mearsheimer and Walt article provides helpful perspectives on international lobbyism dynamics as well as its implications for U. S foreign policy, it is also open to scrutiny, which might be critical at all times. Through interacting with the rebuttals and taking a broader view of the context within which, their arguments are placed, scholars as well as policymakers will have a lot more developed perceptions of domestic politics-international relations dynamics.
References
Boulton, E. G. (2022). PLAN E: A grand strategy for the twenty-first-century era of entangled security and cyber threats. Journal of Advanced Military Studies, 13(1), 92–128. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/419/article/857233/summary
Gowan, P. (2020). A calculus of power: Grand strategy in the twenty-first century. Verso Books. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=k1qcEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT17&dq=In+USA+analyzing+theory+and+grand+strategy+books+&ots=TeFEOFdZzN&sig=L6qlj-HaVcIhFnsiyurzsNfLpCI
Mearsheimer, J. J., & Walt, S. M. (2007). The Israel lobby and U.S.U.S. foreign policy. Macmillan. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=891198
Sharbaf, J. (2021). Israeli lobbies and their influence on the E.U.E.U. Foreign policy. Journal of Contemporary Research on Islamic Revolution, 3(9), 117–149. https://jcrir.ut.ac.ir/jufile?issue_pdf=10895#page=121
Solingen, E. (2021). Regional orders at century’s dawn: Global and domestic influences on grand strategy. https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5576512&publisher=FZO137
Waxman, D., & Pressman, J. (2021). The Rocky Future of the US-Israeli Special Relationship. The Washington Quarterly, 44(2), 75–93. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0163660X.2021.1934999
write