Neoclassical realism

Neoclassical realism, according to Sterling-Folker, argues that relative power distribution and perceptions of this relative power profoundly impact, if not define, foreign policy. She applies neoclassical realism to the situation in Kosovo during the Clinton Administration, and also (briefly) to the Iraq war.

Neoclassical realism appears to me to be the most realistic (no pun intended) theory of foreign policy that we have studied so far. (I am in the process of taking World Politics now, and thus haven't heard of, well, any of these theories until this semester.) It strikes me as particularly realistic because it incorporates the human reaction to perceived power, rather than dealing with absolute power only. What a policymaker thinks about a situation has more influence on policy than what is actually going on, since his opinion will delineate his policies regardless of whether or not his opinion is valid. By arguing that policy is ultimately dependent on elite perceptions, neoclassical realism allows for the fact that these perceptions may be wrong.

For example, as Sterling-Folker points out, "fear of potential relative power loss and challenges to US prestige appeared to drive the administration's strategy" in Iraq (51); whether the actual impact on perceived US power would have been great enough to merit our investment in this war is debatable, but policymakers made the value judgment and involvement was necessary to prevent the US from being perceived as weak.

Although I believe that more factors are involved with such a tremendous decision as going to war, neoclassical realism appears to provide a solid base for examining foreign policy decisions. Power perceptions are vital to security -- after all, countries are less likely to attack a nation that appears more powerful than themselves.