Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
The problem with this theory is that it doesn't take into account resource monopolies. The Saudis have effectively been running US foreign policy for the last couple of decades. Iraq was as much about keeping oil in the ground and oil prices high - and also settling a few personal scores - as it was about a naked resource grab by the US.

US policy is also seems to be strongly influenced by the Israeli lobby - which might seem paradoxical, but when the interests of Israel coincide with the interests of the Saudis, war-like things often seem to happen.

I'd be tempted to consider Organski a cold-war artifact. I'd guess he's suggesting that war with the USSR is likely in his near future, which was very much the establishment dogma of the day.

Today we don't just have nukes, we also have multinationals. Overt war is far less likely than economic war - which China has already won, because it could bankrupt the US tomorrow if it decided it was in its best interests.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Apr 28th, 2008 at 04:52:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
WWII was finished in 1945 ... a little late for a hegemonic war, but the US dragged its feet on pushing the structure of the international political order after WWI ... Organski  wrote in the 1950's, so regarding ...

I'd guess he's suggesting that war with the USSR is likely in his near future ...

... the clear implication of his argument would be that war with the USSR was unlikely in his near future. No guessing required. In any of the long cycle theories, great powers do not start a new hegemonic war so soon after the previous one has finally concluded.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Apr 28th, 2008 at 05:25:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]