This book, a collection of essays by some of the world's leading historians and political scientists gives a reader a glimpse into both the theroetical structure and real life examples of military structure. This is not a textbook on military strategy however, and the examples may not always directly illustrate every given aspect of the theory. But if you want a taste for strategy - it is highly recommended.

Theory of International Politics is truly a five-star book when it comes to academic impact; I give it four stars only because the writing can be obtuse. Nonetheless, and despite criticism from other Amazon reviewers, Waltz's book lays the foundation of the theoretical paradigm that is dominant among international relations scholars. Anyone wishing to understand the current academic debates among international relations scholars should read at least excerpts of Theory of International Politics.

The reason Waltz's book carries such weight, despite flaws, is that Waltz lays out a simple, theoretically "testable" version of a much broader and older theory (Political Realism). Political Realism, as perhaps best laid out by (the German-turned-American) scholar Hans Morganthau, views nations as the unitary actors in international affairs (in much the same way as Marx viewed economic classes as unitary actors in the political sphere): states have "interests" that they will act on, regardless of the interests, ideologies, cultures, religions, etc. of individual state leaders or even of the individuals who make up a state. This interest is "power," understood as control over one's own destiny and (perhaps incidentally) the destiny of others. It is a very broad idea has a certain gut appeal. After all, the Athenians of Thucydides were Realists when they replied to the Melians' "international law" arguments by saying, "The strong do what they will, the weak do what they must."

Despite this appeal, Morganthau's argument has serious theoretical and historical problems. First, power is so broadly defined that the theory is "untestable." Was Hitler power-hungry? Yes, but that's not Morganthau's argument: Germany would have sought to aggrandize its "power" even if it had been led by Gandhi. Second, the idea, while perhaps empirically appealing, is largely assumed: why power? why not wealth? Perhaps countries do not seek power, but the wealth that power brings?

Waltz's "Neorealism" inserts "national security" where Morganthau had "power," and, while this may sound equally broad and vague, it actually is a more theoretically robust (if factually more problematic) concept. Whereas Morganthau had "black-box" (i.e., functionally identical) states pursuing power for reasons of "human nature," Waltz has black-box states pursuing national security for essentially Darwinian reasons. Leaders of states will invariably pursue policies that enhance their nations' security, or else they will be forced out of office (through votes, assassination, etc.) If the state-as-the-collective fails to do this, it risks annihilation (at worst) or subjugation (in one form or another). (Against the criticism by some like Paul Krugman that countries "do not go out of business," I would ask him to first check the opinions of the leaders of the Republic of South Vietnam or pre-WWII France).

Of course, pursuing national security can take many forms--it may mean forming alliances with erstwhile enemies (the U.S. with the Soviet Union in 1941, or China with the U.S. in the 1970s), or it may even mean sucking up (in one form or another) to the biggest potential threat (Finland to Russia during the Cold War, or perhaps Canada to the U.S. today). Consequently, alliances will be fragile and can be disgarded on a moment's notice, regardless of culture, ideology, etc. International trade can also be problematic, because even a "win-win" situation may be a loser if your trading partner/potential adversary wins more than you do and can convert the economic benefits into political or military power.

Neorealism may sound simplistic, but the theory, understood in broad terms, has proven remarkably powerful and, I would argue, is the closest thing political science has to an international relations theory that can actually be predictive. A Realist/Neorealist such as Henry Kissinger could predict that China, despite Communism, would part ways with the USSR and ally with the United States. A Neorealist such as Jim Baker might predict that an Arab-U.S.-Israeli coalition would hold together against Iraq, despite an eternal dream of pan-Arab unity. Looking forward, it predicts that the political differences between the United States and China will grow, and that Europe will continue to use trade as a weapon to undermine America's influence in the rest of the world and, regardless of whoever comes to power, Russia will not return to an adversarial relationship with the United States, but may, in fact, seek it as an ally against China and the EU.

Of course, there have been uncounted objections to Waltz and Neorealism. Yet Waltz's Theory of International Politics stands as an important work because the other powerful theories--Neoliberalism, Institutional Theory, et al.--all begin as an attempt to plug the theoretical gaps allegedly found in Waltz. A book and an idea that all feel compelled to address should not be dismissed so readily.

This is the groundbreaking book that defined the Neorealist concept of International Relations.Some of the propositions set forth by Waltz are indisuputable: The results of anarchy on state behavior and how it limits interstate competition; How the system forces states to behave in certain ways, making the unit-level factors much less important. Also included is why security considerations always outweigh economic ones, and the benefits of internal balancing versus external balancing. Some of his precepts are more subject to critisicm: The benefits of bipolarity of multipolarity. N Nonetheless, this is the book that made the field of IR a real social science rather than a history-like humanities study. Any real student of International Relations needs to start here to understand both the academic discipline, and the real world of interstate relation.

Eric Gartman

Going through the reviews for this book, I can't help but wonder why no one has noticed that much of the criticism in these reviews stems from a lack of understanding of a very simple methodological fact: Waltz is not writing about human nature, nor is he writing about how the state is shaped or organized in any way, because he is writing about the structure of the international system. Why is he doing so? Maybe some of those reviewers should read the other classic by Waltz, "Man, the State and War", in which he discusses the now famous levels of analysis. In it, they would learn that human nature being constant, but human behavior being not, human nature proves everything and its opposite. The advantage of a "third image", the structural level, is that it is of a sufficient abstract level to get rid of that kind of phenomenon. Of course, there is the "second image", the intermediate level. Some think it is now more promising than the structural level, but only the latter allows us to generalize enough to dispense of the idea that a political system can change the world and still observe change (as Alexander Wendt convincingly show in his -constructivist and positivist (sic)- book). Waltz may have got it wrong with his structure, but he was right with the level of analysis. Allow me to make a second point. Some say that Waltz's book is abstract, even dry. I suppose they never read Kant or Hegel. I strongly advise them not to read these writers, for if they find Waltz difficult they have seen nothing yet, as many of you know. Waltz is abstract, but not anymore than any other theorist would, placed in front of the same problem. Furthermore, since when being abstract is wrong? I thought that being abstract was simply a way to explain things that could then be better generalized. Maybe from now on we should all start being concrete, to see what happens. Maybe that would increase our understanding of international relations? Sorry to say that, but if someone finds Waltz too dry or abstract, they should not study international relations. I don't mean to be rude, but so many comments seemed out of this world, I couldn't help but put the record straight. Your comments, and reviews, are welcome.