Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tk27
lrd,
While there are much more informed minds on this board then myself, I would like to take a crack at it.
1. Barnett sources violence in the international security environment to 3 separate perspectives:
- System – think Cold War turning hot, Warsaw Pact v. NATO. Or simpler flags v. flags
- States – Iraq invading Kuwait in ’90. Or simpler flag v. flag
- Individuals – Milosevic’s ethnic cleansing in Serbia during the 90’s.
He includes transnational terrorism in “Individuals”, b/c it is violence that does not occur between states but inside them. This is because “all terrorism is local”. Ultimately all terrorist acts have to happen in a State (think flag) and typically the acts involve specific grievances with the State (think policy done under the flag). But the acts are committed by actors of neither a system (flags) nor a State (flag) but by individuals (no flag).
2. I believe you have misread. The "not to conquer a state for particularistic gain” sentence is in relation to the U.S.-led coalition representing the system liberating Kuwait from Iraq in ’91. Gain was a motive for Iraq, but the system spearheaded by the U.S. did not invade Kuwait for its own gain but rather to return Kuwait to the system.
|
Thanks for the post. I have comments re: this, but I just got in from a trip.
I'll get back to you.