Withdrawing Empire: A Test of Structural Realism and Neoclassical Realism to Explain the Withdrawal of US Military Presence

Little work has been done to explain why the United States, a great power, would willingly withdraw its military presence from a much smaller country. In this thesis I attempt to explain why this happens in three cases by testing two major International Relations theories, Structural Realism and Neoclassical Realism. I provide two hypotheses based on each theory in the cases of Vietnam, Panama and Uzbekistan. Structural Realism is heavily based on behavior being influenced by capabilities and the pursuit of security and so I base my Structural Realist hypothesis on contracting capabilities. Neoclassical Realism argues that the pursuit of security is distorted by the domestic political system and pressures and so I base my Neoclassical Realist hypotheses on the perception of statesmen and domestic pressures. I find that the Structural Realist theory is inadequate to explain why the United States would withdraw from the countries studied, as its contracting capabilities in all cases are at most marginal. The Neoclassical Realist theory is much better equipped to explain these cases as domestic pressures and the perception of statesmen play a key role in the decision making in each case.

Author dc:creator

• Magnús Fannar Eggertsson 1987-

Contributors dc:contributor

• Háskóli Íslands

• Alþjóðasamskipti
• Bandaríkin
• Hernaðarstefna

Language dc:language.iso

en

Handle dc:identifier.uri

http://hdl.handle.net/1946/24111

OAI identifier oai:identifier

oai:skemman.is:1946/24111