Why did the Soviet Union choose to invade Finland in 1939? Perceptual realism attempts to provide an answer. The theory accepts realism’s assumptions regarding interpreting the Winter War of 1939 power dynamics, but makes individuals the independent variables that interpret the balance of power and security threats. In this way, realism explains the context that incited tension, while the cognitive biases of Soviet leaders led them to choose war. I test the explanatory power of perceptual realism through two lines of inquiry: 1) whether the Soviets demonstrated misperception; and 2) whether misperception, not realism alone, explains their policies. The evidence supports the first hypothesis, but not the latter. Power dynamics alone explain the Winter War, while individuals influenced only the preparations for the conflict.  .pdf

When the Bush administration launched the Gulf War in 1991, they followed the guidelines of an intervention strategy that would later be dubbed the Powell Doctrine. This strategy demanded the use of overwhelming force to achieve clear military and political goals that could be quickly and obviously achieved. When the basic tenants of the Powell Doctrine were employed strategically in the Gulf War to reverse the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the benefits of the Doctrine became clear. The war was quick, decisive, did not cost the intervening coalition very many lives, and helped the US protect its vital national oil interests in the Middle East. In many ways, the Gulf War validated the benefits the Powell Doctrine. However, Iraq was plagued by instability after the Gulf War. The economy and infrastructure were crippled and harsh sanctions and military interference only exacerbated the problems. Internationally, Iraq was labeled a rogue state and relegated to diplomatic inferiority. Many of these problems, it turns out, link directly back to the military and political strategies dictated by the Powell Doctrine. First, the use of overwhelming force decimated Iraq’ s infrastructure. Then, the United States’ adherence to the strict objectives outlined prior to the conflict prevented it from helping repair the damage inevitable in war, especially one employing overwhelming force. Finally, the pre-war vilification of Iraq, specifically Saddam, isolated Iraq so completely that post-war interactions were impossible. Separately, but especially together, these failings surely caused a majority of the instability in Iraq after the Gulf War. It turns out, therefore, that despite its benefits the Powell Doctrine does not fully account for the effects of war and will likely exacerbate instability as it did in Iraq in 1991.     .pdf

British military interventions changed qualitatively after the Second World War. According to realism, this transformation should be rooted ultimately in a difference between pre and post-war British power. However, an analysis of domestic British opposition to the 1956 invasion of Suez indicates that ethical, not realist considerations may be responsible for less aggressive British foreign policy. Much of the British public opposed the Suez intervention because of a perception that it violated liberal norms of international law. This finding suggests that public opinion is informed by non-realist considerations, and that these attitudes may powerfully affect international relations.    .pdf