models,models everywhere

I think these models are best used as proofs of one another to build a more accurate picture. The rationalist approach is a good initial model and provides inputs to Laffey and Weldes.  The last and most important piece is to take the fully integrated model and utilize intelligence on the high-level actors within the states and make conjecture at the likelihood that the human actors will behave out of line with interests of the country. Each model provides another layer of complexity to create a complete picture of a states interests defined within its own scope that takes into account the very real effect of power struggle and personal interests of world leaders and their influential constituents.

I think it was pretty unanimous amongst the class that everyone found both models to be inadequate. I think that instead of looking at them as competing modes of analysis we might better use these as tools. I think that using the ideas/interests model it would be the best model to use in the absence of detailed intelligence and longstanding experience with a particular regime. A basic assumption of rationality can be a litmus test to further define motivations for an actor. Also, this can start to classify beliefs of an actor into categories that are discreet and objectively relatively simple to analyze. This model provides relatively safe interpretations as they are based more so on observable results and doesn’t require any sort of conjecture or guessing. From here we can see if this model has been good at predicting past behaviors and if so is sufficient.

So once the litmus test of rationality is not met we move onto the Laffey Weldes. Most international actions do not act simply “rationally” they act with some eye toward they world view or construct they view as their ideal society.  The purpose of international agreements is to serve domestic interests.  This is where we can build upon the rationalist model and incorporate the separate pieces into a more succinct over all picture given the additional factors and considerations given using Laffey and Weldes. When we look at the actor through their own eyes and motivations with an eye to the rationalist basis we can get an idea of baseline and how far an actor moves from there.  The only wrench left is for specific interests of the political leaders.

In the American response to the Iranian hostage crisis the interests group within the Carter administration pushed the president to certain ends. They manipulated the President into taking inflammatory moves like brining the Shah into the U.S. and taking military actions. Additionally, Carter himself had certain moral interests that overtook his purely rational thought. These pieces of information would be considered critical intelligence and allow a government to more accurately predict the moves of the President.  

This method of multiple analysis with the addition of critical intelligence would yield the most accurate model. I think the Laffey/Weldes will be the more accurate model as global interests continue to meld.