RATIONALITY AND VIOLENCE

In much of the analysis of international conflict, particularly that which looks at it as the rational pursuit of goals, violence is viewed as a means to achieve particular ends: it is regarded purely instrumentally. Proponents of Realpolitik argue that international politics is (and in some versions, should be) the pursuit of power by states where the final arbiter of power is physical violence. Perhaps the clearest statement of this point of view is Clausewitz's On War, written with the experience of the Napoleonic Wars in mind (in which Clausewitz fought both with the Russian and the Prussian armies, though himself a Prussian). This is still much read and admired, particularly in military academies. The use of violence is considered a cost, but one which might reasonably be borne in order to attain particular ends. In working out policies where violence might be relevant, politicians weigh up the benefits and costs (including violence) of a particular action and perform those actions for which the benefits outweigh the costs, in much the same manner as one might when planning the route of a new railway. Much of the classical theory of international relations is implicitly or explicitly based on this view. There are qualifications to it. There are moral issues involved in violence, though hard-liners consider these exaggerated.