Pre-class: Waltz

In the lecturelet on Waltz, Prof. PTJ asks whether one really needs all three images to explain the occurrence of war. Waltz would certainly argue that one does need all three images for analysis, and I would tend to agree with him (though I think there is a need to add non-state actors to the analysis). I think his argument on this front is summed up when he writes:

The third image describes the framework of world politics, but without the first and second images there can be no knowledge of the forces that determine policy; the first and second images describe the forces in world politics, but without the third image it is impossible to assess their importance or predict their results. (238)

Waltz argues that, if one were to analyze through only the first or second images, one could only get so far in the analysis. Yes, the immediate causes of war are found in the first and second images, but one's analysis has various implications depending on the framework of the international system (ie. it's anarchical nature according to Waltz). Likewise, one finds the permissive cause of war in the third image, but very little hope of ferreting out the immediate cause.

I tend to agree with Waltz that all three images are necessary for analysis. Without all three images, one runs the risk of missing the mark in analysis, especially if one is only analyzing from the third image--what are the immediate causes if not from men or the state? As Waltz so aptly says, "The prescriptions directly derived from a single image are incomplete because they are based upon partial analyses" (230). Also important is that all three images are useful--using only the first and the third image, or the second and third (I would argue that the third, as the framework, is a necessary component of the analysis) would leave holes.