Is the "security dilemma" a self-fulfilling prophecy?

[Cain]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma

Security dilemma or Spiral model is a term used in international relations and refers to a situation wherein two or more states are drawn into conflict, possibly even war, over security concerns, even though none of the states actually desire conflict. Any attempt a state makes to increase its own security will cause the other to act in kind thereby actually decreasing its security.

Wheeler and Booth, two theorists I have been reading recently both claim that the security dilemma, the uncertainty of intentions of other states, is an unresolvable uncertainty because of the absolute impossibility of knowing the exact intentions of other decision makers, thus creating an unresolvable tension. However, as Stephen Walt points out, this logic clearly does not reflect all state relationships at all times. To what extent is the security dilemma as an absolute institution within international security, if at all? It seems to me, for example, that Canada can trust the intentions of the USA towards its own country, at least militarily. Could it be that in fact the concept of a security dilemma itself is what causes most problems?

For example, much was made last month of Hugo Chavez's extraordinary military spending budget and overtures to the Russians. However, analysis of the internal politics of the country suggests this is being done purely for internal reasons - to encourage inter-departmental fighting and thus stave off a coup attempt. Yet the US, and its regional allies (most notably Colombia) treated this action as threatening and made carefully veiled responses to that effect. Since most US diplomats and strategists are schooled in Realist dogma, is this simply a case of seeing what one wants to in a situation, instead of carrying out more subtle analysis? And to how many other wars or potential trouble spots could this apply?

Thoughts?

[Daruko]

Most people would never condone killing the neighbor down the street just because his dog is a nuisance or his religion is bunk. But the neighbor down the continent? Kill that motherfucker. It's a strange thing.

[DrM]

I must say Cain, i am very impressed. This thing has been on my mind since... FOREVER.

This is a horrible cause for alarm, the united states is always increasing it military spending. Obviously, the us has to address this issue to insure its continued survival. Just think of the cold war, the whole war was caused by this problem! FFS we will probably end up applying this in current unstable relationships (like india and pakistan, which has been undergoing a mini-arms race for some time now. Or the PRC and us.) China will be a daunting juggernaut in our future, and we need to stay wary about this delemas effect on our relationships.
Personally, I think this effect is downplayed and overexxagerated. I think it plays a much larger role in politics than most people can comprehend. Self-fulfilling prophesy? possibly.

Furthermore, there is actually a second security dillema, this one occurs when a state comes into economic decline. The state, feeling insecure because of the economic monoliths around it, will increase its military spending needlessly. Which only serves to create larger debt and weaken the economy further. This problem of Guns over butter played a huge roll in the downfall of British hegemony, and when you think about it, it plays a huge roll in american politics. Just think about 9-11; The security spending skyrocketed, turning a large surpluss garnered in the clinton administration into a huge deficit in the Bush administration. Now look at the economic state we are in... Personally, i think we should learn from the british and downplay security spending.

[Loki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_dilemma



Wheeler and Booth, two theorists I have been reading recently both claim that the security dilemma, the uncertainty of intentions of other states, is an unresolvable uncertainty because of the absolute impossibility of knowing the exact intentions of other decision makers, thus creating an unresolvable tension. However, as Stephen Walt points out, this logic clearly does not reflect all state relationships at all times. To what extent is the security dilemma as an absolute institution within international security, if at all? It seems to me, for example, that Canada can trust the intentions of the USA towards its own country, at least militarily. Could it be that in fact the concept of a security dilemma itself is what causes most problems?

For example, much was made last month of Hugo Chavez's extraordinary military spending budget and overtures to the Russians. However, analysis of the internal politics of the country suggests this is being done purely for internal reasons - to encourage inter-departmental fighting and thus stave off a coup attempt. Yet the US, and its regional allies (most notably Colombia) treated this action as threatening and made carefully veiled responses to that effect. Since most US diplomats and strategists are schooled in Realist dogma, is this simply a case of seeing what one wants to in a situation, instead of carrying out more subtle analysis? And to how many other wars or potential trouble spots could this apply?

Thoughts?
I'd say that is the modern variant on The Logic of Deterrence (Kenny, A '85 (http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5761604)) A political game of poker.

As you said, a self-fulfilling prophesy. An Orwellian nightmare of war with Oceania, war with Eastasia, war with... whoever!

During the cold war we were taught that Russia was the evil one. Now, it's Muslims. Or any person with a vague suntan. Or Liberals, Atheists, Agnostics, the mentally ill (J/K).

Fear is the key - I read a report today on the number of British people (sorry to non-scrotes, I've only seen the Anglo version) signed off work due to anxiety - I'll try to get it to you if I can find it - it's markedly higher than in the '80s.

Sorry if I've not answered the right question but I think it's similar :D

[DrM]

I am gonna agree with loki on here, fear is at the root of the problem.

[tagnostic]

I would postulate that in some situations its internal politics,
ie a military industrial complex does create jobs and tends to
advance technology, which keeps the populace happy, however
to justify this type and level of spending requires some justification
ipso facto one needs an enemy, this also allows the party in power
to use rhetoric to unite the sheeple and give them a sense of unity
facing a common enemy. which is good at first however now youve
got a whole lot of industries that have a mutually symbiotic relationship
with the government, each requiring the other and now its about
retaining profit for one and power for the other, a vicious cycle.
meanwhile your erstwhile strawman enemy is getting a little upset
at all of this, so they do the same thing in the name of detente' which
invariably gets them caught up in the same spiral, and people being
people sooner or later somebody's going to make a mistake and
it all goes to crap. I'm not sure that I would call that a "self fulfilling Prophecy", I would term it unintended consequences of greed for
power and financial gain...

[Al Farabi]

I would postulate that in some situations its internal politics,
ie a military industrial complex does create jobs and tends to
advance technology, which keeps the populace happy, however
to justify this type and level of spending requires some justification
ipso facto one needs an enemy, this also allows the party in power
to use rhetoric to unite the sheeple and give them a sense of unity
facing a common enemy. which is good at first however now youve
got a whole lot of industries that have a mutually symbiotic relationship
with the government, each requiring the other and now its about
retaining profit for one and power for the other, a vicious cycle.
meanwhile your erstwhile strawman enemy is getting a little upset
at all of this, so they do the same thing in the name of detente' which
invariably gets them caught up in the same spiral, and people being
people sooner or later somebody's going to make a mistake and
it all goes to crap. I'm not sure that I would call that a "self fulfilling Prophecy", I would term it unintended consequences of greed for
power and financial gain...

Agreed. The vicious cycle was not started by the security dillemma itself, so it isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy, just an issue.