A Criticism of Realist Military Principles

Realism prioritizes military power as a means of survival. A realist lens offers tenets that characterize the nature of the international system and war between states.  I am offering criticism to the way that realist tenets define military power and advantages.  Realism ignores significant aspects of war that are vital to the success of a state. The tenets include:

  1)     A state cannot determine the intentions of another state.

  2)     Politics is separate from morality.

  3)     Military power is defined in measurable relative gains.

  4)     Politics and war are separate from other aspects of the state (e.g. culture).

Realists may claim to have the classical Chinese general Sun Tzu on their side.  Indeed, Sun Tzu was renowned for his ability to strengthen states with military power.  He believed the world was anarchic and military action was a method to prevail.  But this is a surface level connection to Realist theory.  In his work, The Art of War, Sun Tzu outlines principles to achieve military victories.  Careful study of these principles reveals that Realist tenets fall out of line with Sun Tzu’s principles.

Realists believe that it is impossible to know the plans of another state.  This is the basis for amassing military resources and personnel if another state decides to attack.  Sun Tzu rejects this idea.  The Art of War contains an entire chapter detailing the use of spies to anticipate the activity of the enemy.  “Foreknowledge”, as Sun Tzu calls it, is the key to making effective maneuvers against the enemy.  Realists generally distrust the idea of foreknowledge, which leaves them at a strategic disadvantage.  Although they generally claim to have history on their side, realists ignore the benefits that intelligence networks bring to the state.  In World War II, both sides of the war intercepted messages to gain an advantage against each other.  While spies and intelligence networks are hardly quantifiable, they are integral to a successful militaristic state.

Realists believe that politics can be separated from morals.  This sentiment is especially prevalent in Bismarck’s Realpolitik.  However, Sun Tzu differs from Realists.  From the first chapter of The Art of War, Sun Tzu makes clear that morality and war are not separate:  “A moral compass brings people into accord with their ruler so they will follow him in life and in death without fear.”  The military must have an overarching sense of morality that the people can turn to in times of need.  The state also should have morals that tie together its citizens.  Realism ignores this aspect of warfare, but humans are moral creatures.  When following a state morality, we will be more powerful than if we followed no morality at all.

A historical example can be used to provide criticism of the last two tenets.  Consider the Vietnam War.  The United States had amassed nearly every tangible advantage.  From a Realist perspective, Vietnam would be foolish to engage in war with the U.S., a great power and western hegemon.  So why was the U.S. forced to flee the Vietnam after years of fruitless war?  The Vietcong had a few unquantifiable advantages that Realism does not emphasize.  The Vietcong understood military strategy that kept their forces fluid and deceptive.  Their guerilla tactics left the conventional U.S. forces fumbling to make any effective strikes.  Realist theory does not emphasize this important advantage. The U.S. also had a cultural issue within its borders.  Many of the citizens did not support the war after watching footage of combat.  Discontent toward the government eventually led to a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam.  Realists reject the relevancy of culture in international relations, but it is evident from Vietnam that cultural issues are of military importance.  Because of Realist emphasis on tangible advantages, like equipment and manpower, they understate the power of foreknowledge, culture, strategy, and morality.  These intangible advantages allow for a weaker state like Vietnam to defeat a great power like the U.S.  This does not mean that Realism is invalid, just that it ignores an important part of military success.