Realists are said to paint a bleak, pessimistic view of the world. Their paradigm’s emphasis on power, national interest, and anarchy is said to inevitably result in conflict. As such, it seems...Show moreRealists are said to paint a bleak, pessimistic view of the world. Their paradigm’s emphasis on power, national interest, and anarchy is said to inevitably result in conflict. As such, it seems counterintuitive to think that the most vocal critics of the Vietnam War and Iraq War were realists. Certainly, in public discourse and in the field of political science, there exists a common perception that realists are synonymous with warmongers. However, preeminent realists such as Hans Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer were heavily opposed to the Vietnam War and Iraq War, respectively. The question arises why prominent realists are such vocal opponents of war, while the theory they prescribe to is often conflated with war. This thesis explores the central elements of the realist paradigm in the realist opposition. A qualitative analysis of both the works of Morgenthau and Mearsheimer is done to further contribute to our understanding of the realist lessons on the use of military force and how it can be used to ensure the vital interests and the security of the United States in the 21st century. It finds that that a rational approach is taken within the realist paradigm: The nation's interest lies always in power and all actions should only be taken if its power was to increase or maintained. The Vietnam War and Iraq War both did not pose a threat to the power of the United States. Rather, the United States upset the balance of power by its actions and considerably lost power as defined by realism. With the next decade looking to be under unprecedented strains, the American foreign policy elite would do well to use the valuable insights gained from the earlier wars to steer the country and the world to a just future.Show less
