Relationship Between Neoliberalism and Neorealism

Relationship Between Neoliberalism and Neorealism NEO-LIBERALISM, NEO-REALISM   THE ‘NEO-NEO SYNTHESIS’ Do you agree that neo-realism and neo-liberalism have come so close together so as to form a ‘neo-neo synthesis’? Or is the long-standing confrontation between the two very much alive today? ‘This positivist-realist legacy has, despite slight differences and  dichotomies, persisted in later positivist scholars of international  relations: Robert Gilpin, Stephan Krasner, and Robert Kohane. Whereas  they have a number of differences to debate, namely anarchy, regime,  state cooperation etc., they belong to the Neo-realist research  programme which as been called the ‘‘neo-neo synthesis’’. Despite the  substantive debate between neo-realists and neo-liberal institutionalists,  Neo-institutionalism does not actually challenge but complements neorealism . . . This indicates that neo-realism and neo-liberalism are no  longer incommensurable: they commonly share the rationalist research  programme.’ (Toru Oga, 2000: p.3) This quotation is given at such length because it succinctly and excellently gives the theoretical foundation for the notion of a ‘neo-neo synthesis’, and for the merger and integration of neo-realism and neo-liberalism. For a long part of the twentieth century realism and liberalism, and later neo-realism and neo-liberalism, were bitterly opposed to each other at both theoretical and practical levels: the former espoused a economic and political ideology that viewed the ideal international community as one possessed of lassiz-faire economic policies, of free markets and limited government intervention; the later proposed, to the contrary, that the international community should be a restraint upon nation states, limiting and controlling their political and economic activities, and making them behave according to mutually agreed criteria (Booth, 1995). Considering the antithetical nature of these two positions, it long seemed to supporters of both camps that a synthesis of their positions would be both heretical and impossible. Nonetheless, in the mid 1980’s a convergence of the two schools did indeed begin to emerge as it became clear that their differences were not as great as they has formerly assumed, and as other schools of a more radical nature began to attack neo-liberalism and neo-realism alike (Kratochwil, 2000). As Oga suggests above, the two schools came to see that they were both working according to the ‘rationalist research programme’ and that this joint philosophy might bear better fruit if they co-ordinated their work. This essay however proceeds to argue, using the twin criticisms of John Ruggie’s and Alexander Wendt’s constructivism and Richard Ashley’ and David Campbell’s deconstructivism, that the neo-neo synthesis is but a verbal mirage, a rhetorical convergence of ideas that is not a political reality and whose theoretical foundation is both illogical and unhistorical. It will th erefore be shown that neo-realism’s and neo-liberalism’s long-standing confrontation is as alive today as it has been at any time in its history. ‘Social constructivism’ first emerged as a challenge to the validity of the neo-neo synthesis of neo-realism and neo-liberalism in the work of John Ruggie (1986) and Alexander Wendt (1989). The principal objection raised by these scholars to the neo-neo-neo synthesis was that it failed to sufficiently account for or explain the roles and functions of national interests and national and corporate identities in the domain of international politics. In the words of Oda ‘Firstly, the neo-neo synthesis is unable to explain how territorial states formed particular identities and interests. Secondly, it fails to explain how state identity and state interest are co-instituted. Finally, there increasingly emerges the normative factor in international relations, such as humanitarian intervention, which the synthesis totally ignores’ (Oda, 2000: p.5). The neo-neo synthesis is therefore criticised on three counts: one, it pays too little attention to how national and te rritorial identities are formed, and therefore does not have sufficient knowledge of these identities when needing to make informed decisions on international political and economic policy; secondly, this being a related point, the neo-neo synthesis does not make clear the relationship between how state identities are formed and therefore how states will behave internationally in the protection of their interests; and, thirdly, the neo-neo synthesis in entirely impotent when asked to make decisions regarding one of the most significant developments in recent international politics: the emergence of humanitarianism. Thus Ruggie came to define the opposite to the neo-neo synthesis, i.e., constructivism, with the following statement ‘Social constructivists have sought to understand the full array of roles that ideas play in world politics, rather than specifying a priori roles based on theoretical presuppositions and then testing for those specified roles, as Neo-Utilitarians doà ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Ruggie 1998: p. 867). If this constructivist position is accurate, Ruggie argued, then the neo-neo synthesis cannot also be accurate. ‘On the one hand, the sign of ‘sovereignty’ betokens a rational identity: a  homogeneous and continuous presence that is hierarchically ordered, that has a  unique centre of decision presenting over a coherent ‘self’, and that is  demarcated from, and in opposition to, an external domain of difference and  change that resists assimilation to its identical being. On the other hand, the  sign of ‘anarchy’ betokens this residual external domain: an aleatory domain  characterised by difference and discontinuity, contingency and ambiguity, that  can be known only for its lack of the coherent truth and meaning expressed by  a sovereign presence’ (Ashley, 1988: p. 230) A further attack upon the solidity of the neo-neo synthesis has been launched by the deconstructivism school founded by Richard Ashley (1988) and David Campbell (1998) à ¢Ã¢â‚¬ Ã¢â€š ¬ the criticisms of both centring upon failure of the neo-neo synthesis to properly explain the anarchical nature of the international political domain. According to the rationalistic model of the neo-neo synthesis the international economic and political community must be ordered according to absolutely certain and definite economic and political principles that are open to scientific research and investigation. Likewise, it is a belief of the neo-neo synthesis that economists and politicians are able to make predictions about the nature of the international environment by using these scientifically determined laws of economics and politics; the above model cannot allow for capricious economic and political events whose causes lie outside of scientific prediction (Lapid, 1989). Deconstructivism on the other hand, as Ashley shows in the quotation above, argues that the order bestowed upon a nation by its ‘sovereignty’ is not present in the international arena where a lack of sovereignty produces events that defy economic and political laws derived from the economic and political conditions in sovereign states (Ashley, 1988). In different words: the international arena and the sovereign domestic arena are markedly different and behave differently according to different sets of laws. Thus Ashley came to speak of the international arena as place of ‘anarchy problematique’ (Ashley, 1988: p.201): a notion considerably developed by the other founder of deconstructivism, David Campbell. In Writing Security (1988) Campbell considers the domestic and foreign policies of the United States as an example of the dichotomy between sovereign domestic behaviour and anarchical international behaviour. At the domestic level, successive American governments, be they republ ican or democratic, produce prudent and conservative policies designed to operate within a narrow ideological range; such policies are designed to appeal to an average American mind-set that is fond of such conservative policies. American foreign policy however manifests itself in much more radical forms, most recently witnessed in the invasion of Iraq, including many policies that violate the political, moral and economic ideologies expected at home. In Iraq, for instance, American policy is forced to respond to anarchical conditions that require very different policies and practices from those employed the homeland of America; these normal freedoms and rights are suspended because of the changed anarchical conditions over which America presides in Iraq. The explanation for this policy and ideological dichotomy rests upon a difference of identity: American citizens identify themselves at home, due to long tradition and experience of certain rights and freedoms, as possessing these absolutely and do not permit their governments to make major deviations from these; in the international arena however the identity of those making policy is not so strongly tied to cultural or individual identity but is rather an abstract spectre that can as such justifies more anarchical policies. Thus Campbell famously stated that ‘Identity can be understood as the outcome of exclusionary practices in which resistant elements to a secure identity on the ‘‘inside’’ are linked through a discourse of ‘‘danger’’ with threats identified and located on the outside. Foreign policy, being those practices of differentiation implicated in all confrontations between a self and other, embraces both positive and negative valences’ (Campbell, 1998: p.73.). The neo-neo synthesis, according to Ashley, Campbell and others of the deconstructionist school cannot properly exist in the form it pretends to because it does not take suffic ient account of the anarchical element in international politics. In the final analysis, it can be stated with some assurance that the ‘neo-neo synthesis’ is a desperate verbal illusion created by neo-liberals and neo-realists alike when jointly threatened by the strength of the constructivism / deconstructivism critique. The eminent political scientist Francis Fukuyama predicted in his famous National Interest article of 1989 entitled The End of History that differences of economic and political ideologies would soon be a thing of the past as the world, driven by forces of globalization, came together behind the consensus that liberal democracy and capitalism represented the end point of human history and would soon create a homogenous political order (Fukuyama, 1989). Deeply influenced and threatened by the persuasiveness of such ideas, and so by the notion that their own ideological differences might become superfluous; scholars of both schools created the ‘neo-neo synthesis’ as a self-defence mechanism. This mechanism has subsequently been revealed as both illogical and irrational by the criticisms levelled against it by the constructivism and deconstructivism schools. The pretence of ideological unity is falsified by the practical manifestations of both theories, which diverge radically and which show that the long-standing confrontation between the two positions is as alive today as at any other time before. BIBLIOGRAPHY Academic Books, Journals Articles Ashley, R. (1986 [1984]) ‘The Poverty of Neorealism’ in Keohane, R. O. (edt.) Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia U.P.) Booth, K. (1995) ‘Dare not to know: International Relations Theory versus the Future’ in Booth, K. and Smith, S. (edt.) International Relations Theory Today (Oxford: Polity Press). Campbell, D. (1998). Writing Security: United States Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Manchester: Manchester U.P., Revised Edition) Cox, R. (1987) Production, Power, and World Order: Social Forces in the making of History (NY: Columbia U.P.) (1999) ‘Civil Society at the Turn of the Millennium: Prospects for an Alternative World Order’ in Review of International Studies Vol. 25 Fukuyama, F. (1989). National Interest article ‘The End of History’. George, J. (1993) ‘Of Incarceration and Closure: Neo-realism and New/Old World order’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 22 (2). Kratochwil, F. (2000) ‘Constructing a New Orthodoxy? Wendt’s ‘Social Theory of International Politics’ and the Constructivist Challenge’ Millennium: Journal of International Studies 29 (1) Laclau, E. and Mouffe, C. (1985) Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards A Radical Democratic Politics (London: Verso) Lapid, Y. (1989) ‘The Third Debate: on the prospects of International Theory in a Post-Positivist Era’ International Studies Quarterly Vol. 33. Oga, T. (2000). From Constructivism to Deconstructivism: Theorising the Construction and Culmination of Identities. PhD Thesis. Department of Government. University of Essex. Ruggie, J. G. (1986) ‘Continuity and Transformation in the World Polity: Toward a Neorealist Synthesis’ in Keohane, R. O. (edt.) Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia U.P.) Waltz, K. (1979) Theory of International Politics (New York: Random House) Wendt, A. and Duval, R. (1989) ‘Institutions and International Order’ in Czempiel, E. O. and Rosenau, J. N. (edt.) Global Changes and Theoretical Challenges: Approaches to World Politics for the 1990s (Massachusetts: Lexington Books)

Domestic Violence and Social Class Essay

Domestic violence is something that happens every day around the world. Young, old, rich or poor, this is an issue that we must look at to better ourselves as a country. One of the things that we look at is how domestic violence relates to the different social classes of the country, this being upper, middle, and lower. Some would thing that it would be more common in lower classes, but the reality of it is domestic violence is a problem across all social classes. In this paper I will discuss different articles about domestic violence and its relation to social class. It is clear to see that any of the articles on this topic focus around women as victims and men get put into a category of the only ones committing violence. From different articles you can see that social class has a relation and an effect on domestic violence. To begin with we need to understand what domestic violence is. The National Domestic Violence Hotline describes domestic violence as pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner. Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate, hurt, humiliate, blame, injure or wound someone. Domestic violence can happen to anyone of any race, age, sexual orientation, religion or gender. It can happen to couples who are married, living together or who are dating. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels (The National Domestic Hotline). This is one of the best definitions you will find. It’s important to realize that Domestic Violence can happen to anyone. The focus on economic background is important; there is not one ocial class that domestic violence does not occur in. It is key that we keep this in mind, otherwise we begin to label and fit certain social groups into categories. And as we will find out this is not the case at all. In Gender, Status, and Domestic Violence, by Kristin L. Anderson she discusses many issues related to domestic violence. In her article she talks about social economic status and how it can affect domestic violence. The section on social class begins with how gender and social class play very big roles with each other, or how each social class helps determine the resources available to men for the construction f masculinity (Anderson, 1995). Anderson begins with the working and lower class and how their position they hold at work lacks power and authority. This can lead to violence in the home because they search for positions of power in other aspects of their life. And many times the search for power and masculinity starts in their home life. This could be one explanation for the cause of domestic violence among low income social class. It is very clear that society even thought changing for the better over the years, still puts the man as the breadwinner of his family. And if a man annot produce for their family I agree with her that that will look for other places to find there masculinity and in some cases this is accomplished with violence against their partner. Next Anderson discusses middle and upper class together. She states with reference from another article that â€Å"Middle and upper class notions of masculinity focus on ambition, responsibility, and professional employment (Segal, society. The research done in this article shows that men or women with low income jobs and less resources are more likely to be violent in their home as a means to gain the lack of power in their life. Men who have fewer resources then there female partners will be more likely to commit domestic assault than the men with resources equal or greater than their female partners (Anderson, 1995). We can see for the research done by Anderson that she focuses on the reporting of violence. I would have like to have seen some numbers on education and or employment in ration to domestic violence. But it is clear and can be understood that men base their masculinity on their economic social status, and if that status is low they begin to search for other ways to gain power, and often that is in the means of domestic iolence against their partners. Social class plays a key role in everyday life of millions around the world. So it is clear that social class would play a role in domestic violence. Knowing that domestic violence knows no boundaries it is correct to say that wealth does not protect against violence. In the article Economic stress and Domestic Violence by Claire M. Renzetti from the National Online Resource Center on Violence against Women, they bring social class and domestic violence into clear view. One discussion in the article which we have to take into account when looking at social class and domestic violence is ell put when she stats â€Å"the data we have about domestic violence comes from samples to which researchers have greatest access, such as individuals who use social services and these individuals are more likely to have low incomes† (Renzetti, 2009). With this in mind it is clear to see why there are so many articles on low income violence. As she states from a study done by Benson and Fox (2003) from analyzing data from the National Survey of Household and Families, the family income increases the likelihood of domestic violence decrease. It is becoming clearer hat even though we know that domestic violence knows no social class, The National Crime Victimization Survey reports the chance of violence in a low income household is five times great then the households with the highest incomes (Renzetti, 2009). As stated earlier it seems that the relation to domestic violence and employment takes a big part of the problem with violence among the social classes. In the article by Anderson early discuss she makes it clear that the feeling of power is directly related to the males economic standing. Renzetti state that sever studies have documented hey deliberate sabotage to their partners efforts to maintain paid employment (2009). We can tie that back to how males base their masculinity and power on their economic status. Women have reported that their attempts to obtain paid employment outside their homes only aggravated their partners. It is becoming clear that men see power in being the main provider in the house and to lose some of that power is demining in some ways, and can result in violence against their partners. She references an article by Bush (2003) say that paid employment if a female intimate partner is threatening for some men, especially men who are unemployed r in low paying Jobs. Renzitti states that some researchers have argued that social class has a greater influence on domestic violence risk than race/ethnicity, and that even the social class of your neighborhood plays into account. Disadvantaged neighborhoods domestic violence rates are significantly higher in neighborhoods By now it is clear that there is a relation between social class and domestic violence. In domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking by Walby & Allen (2004) they discuss how it could be the domestic violence that is causing the low economical status. This is a little broader thinking then our other authors but still Walby & Allen tie mans need for masculinity and power into the equation. But first to look how they discuss domestic violence as the cause for low social status, the lack of economic resources is clearly associated with domestic violence against women. But it is how we see one leading to the other that they discuss. Walby & Allen purpose that maybe it is the other way around. For example that poverty and low social status are the consequences of domestic violence. Women who leave behind their homes and partners in order to escape violence will be much more ikely to be poorer as a consequence of the loss of their home and of their partner’s income (Walby &Allen, 2004). This is a new concept to think about but can easily be seen as possible. From what we have learned low income family are more prone to domestic violence, it is clear to see if the victim does get out of this relationship they have no means of economic support. In return this Just keeps them in poverty and most likely sinks them deeper down the status pool of the world. As Walby & Allen (2004) report that â€Å"eventually making their way back into the abusive elationship because they have no economic support. It seems that the affect that social class and domestic violence have on each other is a never ending cycle. As we found in the research social class plays a big part in domestic violence and in some cases domestic violence plays a big part in social class. Whichever way that you look at it one constant held true across all of the articles, this being that men have been socially constructed by society to have to have the need for power in relationships. And when that power is l acking and they feel there masculinity is in eopardy we see domestic violence. Now a lot of the focus of the articles was on the lower class, showing that the economic stress had a direct relation to man and the need for power. We need to understand that the lower social status groups are not the only ones with a domestic violence problem. Like I said earlier domestic violence can happen across any social class, rich or poor. Most of the research that is done focuses on women in poverty because that is where the easy samples are. We know that there is a problem there, we need to move on to research that examines women ofa higher social standing. When we open up to who is we look at then we will begin to get a real grasp on the social class and domestic violence issue. Now I know that that depends on if they are willing to report, but that is a whole different topic for a different day. We have to be careful not to stereotype individuals into this field Just because of the economic standing, but it is clear that social class and domestic violence show a clear and direct relation with each other.

Historic American Wars through the Ages

In this research paper, the various wars that America has taken part in are discussed and dissected to identify the root causes for the wars, the actual incidents which transpired and the final consequences in the aftermath of the said wars. Evolution of the Militia System in the Colonial Times The militia is recognized as the local able-bodied force which the British created in order to protect its vested interests in the colonized regions when its own military was insufficient to contain the military responsibilities (Telzrow, 2006).The responsibility of the militia in the case of the United States was to basically supress the native population and safeguard the British interests in the geographical region. The militia was basically equipped and trained along the regular army lines and were to act as the front runners in any altercation. Evolution The movement of the English into the region previously dominated by the Indians was seen as an act against the locals as they were maltr eated and they began to become increasingly hostile.Aside from the local threat, the British were paranoid due to the presence of the Spanish, French and Dutch who were located all around the United States. The requirement for the militia units were that the person should be able-bodied and lie within the age of 15-60 (Telzrow, 2006). The leadership was often bestowed to wealthy families and people who were politically strong. These armies comprised of locals of the surrounding areas and rarely went into battles in distant places as there primary objective was providing security to their own locality.The militia was also restricted due to labor demands since most were common villagers who had some military training. So when the harvesting season was upon them, the militia was understaffed. Eventually the volunteer militia was created which consisted of militia members who voluntarily made the militia and were responsible in procuring their own equipment and weapons. This militia had a more military and social background then the regular militia. ImportanceThe population of the army in the United States was not sufficient enough to provide internal security as well as address the problems with the expanding Dutch, Spanish and French empires (Cooper, 1997). The local militia provided the British with a constant supply of soldiers and they would handle the internal conflicts and handle security issues. The militia provided villages and towns a means of defending themselves against neighboring areas and it was the militia which provided the Civil war with able-bodied men to defend their rights.British View of the Militia The British viewed the militia as a reserve unit for their disposal. Even though the militia was trained under the army, they were rarely taken for any expeditions far from their localities. Since most of the militia members were farmers and villagers they weren’t taken far from their responsibilities. It was this short-sight which eventual ly cost the British, as the militia was the fundamental force behind the Battle for Independence in which the British lost against the united Americans.The militia was led by a trained contingent of professionally trained soldiers and the concept of a dual army was born which existed in the War of Independence. The War of 1812 The War of 1812 was fought between the United States of America and Great Britain. The war lasted from 1812 to 1815. Causes The causes for the war could be traced to the United States frustration towards the British navy and its actions conducted in the sea.During this era, the British were searching for men who they could use as seamen and for this purpose they would stop and search for deserted sailors on ships headed towards the United States and departing from it. The British did not hesitate in hassling Americans in the process (Galafilm). The British were also pressing for the United States to quit trading with France, since France was at war with Britai n. This was during the Napoleonic era. These strict regulations and haughty attitude eventually frustrated the United States to such an extent that they took notice of these acts in the United States Congress.The United States felt that their rights on the seas had been violated. The United States felt that if it tried some economic approaches then under the pressure the British would fold but their attempts at constraining the economic activities across the sea routes proved ineffective and they eventually declared war against Great Britain on June 18, 1812. Conduct of the War Responding to the call for war, the United States decided to win over the Canadian region occupied by the British. The United States launched a three pronged attack in 1812 which failed.During the year however the Americans were able to win a series of single-ship engagements and were able to harry British shipping. In response to these actions the British tightened the coastlines and created blockades. The o utcome of this was that the American trade suffered, and their finances were weakened, and the entire coastline was exposed to attacks from the British. In 1813 the Americans attempted to take over Canada again. Yet similar to past expeditions, this attempt failed at once. 1814 however proved to be the decisive year, as the British had won over the French.They began concentrating their attention towards the United States front and began harrying troops along to the States in order to suppress the American revolt. They concentrated on attacking on 3 major fronts; New York, New Orleans and Chesapeake (Berton, 1988). The British were able to gain victory in all 3 places and the Americans were barely able to resist the forces. Consequence In 1815 the Battle of New Orleans took place in which the British’s superior forces were unable to overpower the lesser American force.Using strategic miscalculations on the part of the British, the Americans were able to defeat them in the hist oric battle. The end of the war was marked by the Treaty of the Ghent, in which none of the problems were resolved. Winners or Losers The War of 1812 did not provide any conclusive winners or losers as both sides suffered many losses economically and with respect to lives. The period from 1812-1815 marked an economical decline for America and it did not help the United States as such. The Mexican War of 1846The Mexican War was fought between the United States and Mexico from 1846 to 1848. Causes After the annexation of Texas, Mexico appeared claiming Texas as part of its own geographic boundaries (Son of the South, 2003). This came as a surprise to the Americans as Mexico was already a recognized state with its own geographic borders clearly identified by the United States of America, England, France and other governments. The Mexicans were also causing trouble since the Republican government had succeeded in their country and they were a constant thorn in the side of the United Sta tes.The state of Mexico would replenish its treasury and gather funding by plundering United States vessels in the Gulf of Mexico. Upon the United States complain, the governments formulated treaties yet they were never acted upon and the plundering continued to transpire unabated. The War In 1845, President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to occupy a position near the Rio Grande, as a precautionary measure since both sides were becoming increasingly hostile towards each other.During the expedition moving closer to Rio Grande, General Zachary began the construction of Fort Brown, which was later targeted by the Mexicans as a point to be recognized and neutralized. The first battle was at Palo Alto, after the Mexicans began gathering around the Fort Brown and it appeared as if it would fall. In this battle the United States won against the gathered Mexican forces. In the month of May 1846, both sides openly declared war and urged their states to take the neighbor as a recognized threat.What followed later were a number of expeditions across Texas into the state of Mexico, with the generals defeating the local forces and extending the United States controlled territory. Matamoras, Monterrey, Veracruz, Cerro Gordo, etc. were majorly all successful campaigns conducted by the U. S. generals. During this war California also gained independence as the locals declared the said independence after the Mexican forces were repelled from the state. The northward expedition by General Scott of the United States forces was undeterred and in September 13, the city of Mexico had fallen to the U.S. government and the Mexicans were ultimately defeated. A reason which could be attributed to the constant defeat by the Mexicans against the Americans could be that the Mexicans at the time were locked in internal conflicts as well, which resulted in their inability to unite against the foreign threat (Soto, 2006). Consequences of the Mexican War After the Mexicans were defeated i n battle, in February 1848 the Mexican Congress agreed to establish a treaty of peace with the United States generals at Guadalupe Hidalgo. Both sides ratified to it on July 4 of the same year.The stipulation of the treaty was that Mexico would be evacuated of American troop’s presence in 3 months and payments worth $3,000,000 in hand and $12,000,000 by the United States to Mexico over a period of 4 installments would be paid for the development of New Mexico and California which had become U. S. territories. A major consequence of the war was the distinguishing of the boundary dividing Mexico and the United States. When the treaty was ratified in 1854, the treaty of 1848 was revised and the boundaries were fixed and the United States agreed to pay $7,000,000 to $10,000,000 as a consideration to Mexico.The conditions set under the peace treaty were all complied with and peaceful relations have existed between the two nations since then. The Spanish American War The Spanish Am erican War was a brief yet conclusive battle which lasted from April 1898 to July 1898, during which time the Spanish Empire was destroyed and offering the United States with several new possessions in the Caribbean and the Pacific (Department Of The Navy — Naval Historical Center, 1998). Causes What basically marked the beginning of the war between the Spanish navy and the United States navy was the attack on the battleship Maine.This was an unprecedented attack on U. S. property and it incited the United States to go to war. Even though it has yet to be proven that the attack on the battleship was Spanish inspired (Buscheni, 2000), the U. S. newspapers used their influential position to paint a grim picture regarding the Spanish. Appeals placed in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines all made it appear as the regions were under Spanish oppressive rule and helped precipitating the war and providing tender to the flames.The newspapers in the United States were seeing a boom as they were the major source of information for the populace. Using their position, newspapers began writing pieces by which there sales would be maximized disregarding the truth and how events had really transpired (Buscheni, 2000). Incidents After the sinking of the battleship Maine in 15 February 1898, the Americans launched an attack in May of the same year in Manila. The battle of Manila Bay was between the Spanish fleet positioned there against the United States Navy.The battle was one sided as the Spanish fleet comprised of large wooden ships whereas the U. S. Navy consisted of smaller steel vessels. After the firing from the U. S. Navy, led by Admiral George Dewey, the Spanish fleet situated in Manila was completely destroyed. This was one of the most successful campaigns undertaken by the United States as the only casualty during this campaign resulted from sunstroke and not actual combat (Independence Hall Association). Another expedition was launched in Cuba under the c ommand of General William Shafter, who led a force which was vastly outnumbered 7 to 1.The true glory of the Cuban expedition is accredited to a group of fighters referred to as the Rough Riders, who comprised of cowboys, adventurous college students and ex-convicts who had volunteered for the cause. The Rough Riders, Shafter’s forces and 2 African American regiments all collaborated in charging up San Juan Hill and bottling the Spanish in the Santiago Harbor. The Spanish lost this war when the Spanish fleet was destroyed by the American forces. ConsequencesThe United States received the Philippines, Guam and Puerto Rico after the Treaty of Paris was signed which basically awarded the victors. Cuba attained independence after this war and Spain was given $20 Million to recover its losses from these battles. Yet however, the key consequence of the Spanish American War was the proof of the strength of journalism in the United States. The effectiveness of the newspapers to influ ence the populace into thinking about right and wrong and coming up with conclusions based on what they wished to happen was evident in this war.Another consequence of this war could be the realization of the expanding American empire, as the desire to â€Å"free† Cuba from oppressive Spanish rule was replaced by the occupation of Puerto Rico and the Philippines by the United States. The U. S. sentiment supported the expansions and it is evident to this day of the urge of United States to occupy other countries to provide â€Å"peace† and â€Å"freedom†. Jomini and Clausewitz Fundamental Principles of War Swiss wrier Antoine- Henri Jomini and Prussian Carl von Clausewitz were military theorists who became popular during the era of the French Revolution and Napolean.Both have been highly influential in framing military thinking. The theories presented by both Jomini and Clausewitz are seen as either exact opposites of each other or as identical in most respects. The reason behind such a conflicting view is due to the similar background shared by the two theorists. Both had a common historic interest in the campaigns led by Frederick the Great, both shared long personal experience in the Napoleonic wars (even though both were on different sides), and both read each other’s books.After taking into account the mentioned reasons it comes as no surprise as both theorists saw war in the same light, just from different angles (Bassford, 1993). Fundamental Differences between the two theorists In its most basic form, both theorists were on opposing sides of each other during the French Napoleonic era. Jomini acted as an interpreter and general for the French forces, while Clausewitz had fought numerous times against the French being in the Prussian army. Both held a differing perspective regarding the concepts related to the history and role of the military.Clausewitz book, On War, clearly indicated that history was a dynamic process and it should not be looked upon with a static world view as values, standards and situations differ with respect to the context of the times. His theories bring to light a concept which states that war can vary its form depending on the circumstances in which it is being fought, hence the nature of the policy and the society within it is waged is crucial to take into account and should not be overlooked as a constant. On the other hand, Jomini’s views regarding war were simplistic in nature and were static.He recognized war as a battle of superior minds, in the form of military generals and heroes, and reflected that war was beyond normal people’s comprehension. He referred to war as a â€Å"drama† with differences in wars arising due to differing technologies, political motivations and people involved. His work was thus more appealing to military educators as its purpose was to teach practical lessons to officers of a superior grade. Even though the philosophies of b oth theorists differed, both discussed the same materials in their works which were practically applicable to scenarios which may arise during wars.Similarities and Sharing of Opinions Initially Jomini appeared to be a role model for Clausewitz, as in Clausewitz first book â€Å"Principles of War†, we can see the references and acknowledgements Clausewitz aimed towards Jomini (Handel). Both also shared a lot of similar concepts and terminologies which reflected on their acceptance of the others opinion. The fundamental Jomini theory related to warfare which lies in accordance with the theory proposed by Clausewitz was the concept of the centre of gravity.Both theorists shared the opinion that all armies have a central point where if they were attacked then the outcome would turn in favor of the attacker. Yet in due time Clausewitz began to think otherwise. His argument was that Jomini did not take into account the external variables which could not be calculated such as the m orals of the soldiers, the level of motivation, and other psychological factors. These arguments were however unjust as Jomini identified morale of the soldiers and other such concepts in his work the â€Å"Summary of the Art of War†.Yet this was published after Clausewitz’ death and were after Jomini had read â€Å"On War†. Relevance to Today’s World In truth the theories discussed by Jomini are more popularly enforced in today’s world rather than the works of Clausewitz which is in one way a disadvantage as war has become overly simplistic in nature not taking into account values and other humanistic factors. Becoming purely mathematical and artistic in nature has cost us humanity’s values. In today’s volatile environment we find coexistence between the two approaches.We can find instances where the Clausewitz approach is applied where wars are fought along the grounds of being righteous and to further humanistic elements (such as t he Afghan war and Iraq invasion), whereas other times we find the human element entirely lacking (the Turks and Kurd war). Both the theories are applicable as taking into account the Clausewitz belief that wars should be taken in context to the situation and not as a point in time, the theories adapted by leading strategists fall into a category which is a mixture of both the theorists views.References Bassford, C. (1993). Jomini And Clausewitz: Their Interaction. 23rd Meeting of the Consortium on Revolutionary Europe . Georgia State University . Berton, P. (1988). Flames across the Border . Buscheni, J. (2000). Remember the Maine. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from The Spanish American War: http://www. smplanet. com/imperialism/remember. html Cooper, J. (1997). The Rise of the National Guard: The Evolution of the American Militia, 1865-1920. Nebraska Press. Department Of The Navy — Naval Historical Center. (1998, October 16).EVENTS — Spanish-American War. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from Naval Historical Center: http://www. history. navy. mil/photos/events/spanam/eve-pge. htm Galafilm. (n. d. ). The War of 1812: Introduction. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from Galafilm. com: http://www. galafilm. com/1812/e/intro/index. html Handel, M. I. Masters of War. Routledge. Independence Hall Association. (n. d. ). The Spanish American War and its Consequences. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from U. S. History: http://www. ushistory. org/us/44d. asp Son of the South. (2003). The Mexican War.Retrieved March 22, 2009, from SonoftheSouth. com: http://www. sonofthesouth. net/mexican-war/war. htm Soto, M. (2006, March). The Aftermath of War: A Legacy of the US-Mexican War. Retrieved March 22, 2009, from The U. S. -Mexican War: http://www. pbs. org/kera/usmexicanwar/aftermath/legacy. html Telzrow, M. E. (2006, May 1). Citizen Soldiers: the militia: the story of America's citizen soldiers shows that the militia and the second amendment are not obsolete. The populace at large w ill always fulfill essential militia functions. The New American .

Companies That Built Success on Business Data Free Essay Example, 1250 words

The big floods of data in corporations have made evaluating and analyzing easy which has led to the advancements and has given an upper hand in various business strategies. Using an analytical way of decision making minimizes risk which leads to more profit generation (McCafferty). The market of big data is advancing and progressing as faster than ever which has led to both challenges to counter unstructured and structured one while giving numerous opportunities to make advancements like never before. It has given the opportunity to advance at corporate levels where information technology is used as a viable tool to progress and make amends in the present strategies. Data mining is a big question when it comes to it because seeking the right type of information and manipulating it accordingly is necessary. Agreeing with the point that mixing new data with old data and then utilizing it for analytical purposes will lead to far better progress at the institutional level but this can a lso have a negative impact if misused or not properly used to gain results that are incorrect. Incorrect results lead to wrong decision making which then has an impact on the organization overall and its reputation can deteriorate heavily. We will write a custom essay sample on Companies That Built Success on Business Data or any topic specifically for you Only $17.96 $11.86/page