Editor's Note

Editor’sNote I o n g o i n g changes in the Soviet Union and the international system accelerated in the latter half of 1991. This issue accordingly features three articles that examine different dimensions of the changing security environment. Stephen Meyer of MlT explores the politicization of the Soviet military, a process that contributed to the failure of the August 1991 coup and has undermined the capabilities of Soviet general purpose forces. He argues that political divisions split the Red Army along generational, hierarchical, and ethnic lines, undermining discipline , morale, cohesion, and military effectiveness. These fissures led most military units to stand aside during the coup attempt because many commanders feared that involvement would produce the complete collapse of military institutions. Robert Jervis of Columbia University explores whether the future of world politics will resemble the past. After discussing why prediction is so difficult in international politics, he argues that values have shifted in the liberal democratic states of the West, making peace the likely state of their relations. In the former Soviet bloc, however, nationalism and economic crises still pose a threat to stability. In the developing world the end of the Cold War will probably lead to increased conflict, as there will no longer be two antagonistic superpowers with a shared interest in preventing escalation. As the United States confronts a muck wider range of choice in the new world, it must decide which values and goals it seeks. Daniel Deudney of the University of Pennsylvania and John lkenberry of Princeton University examine the causes that ultimately persuaded the Soviet Union to abandon its policies of confrontation and integrate itself into Western-dominated international society. They suggest that internationalfactors, including nuclear weapons, the spread of liberal capitalist states, the economic dynamism of the West, the diminishing appeal of Marxism-Leninism, the growth of transnational networks, and the attractiveness of Western culture, created an international environment that thwarted Soviet expansionism while presenting an appealing a1ternative. Theodore Postol of MlT finds that the Patriot missile was not an unqualified success in the 1991 Gulf War. Many Scud warheads may have landed in Israel and Saudi Arabia despite being intercepted. Debris from intercepted Scuds and Patriot missiles probably caused considerable ground damage. He draws the overall lesson that it remains difficult to defend against ballistic missile attacks. Even primitive decoys and countermeasures present great challenges for defenses. fln the next issue, the editors expect to publish an exchange between Robert M . Stein of Raytheon (Patriot prime contractor)and Professor Postol.1 Fifty years after the Japaneseattack that brought the United States into World War 11,JohnMueller of the University of Rochester reconsiders Pearl Harbor. He concludes that Japanese bombs and torpedoes did little militarily significant damage. Many destroyed U.S. skips and planes were obsolete; others were rapidly repaired or replaced . Mueller arpes that the Pearl Harbor attack was nonetheless a political 3 lnternational Security 16:3 I 4 disaster, because it impelled the United States into a long war against Japan in Asia when a less costly policy of containment might have been more successful. Gar Alperovitz and Robert Messer respond to Barton Bernstein’s Spring 1991 article, which argued that the U.S. decision to drop the bomb on Japan may not have been directed against the Soviet Union; Bernstein replies. Finally, this issue is my last as Managing Editor of International Security. 1 have had the good fortune to edit this journal during a period of exciting and unexpected changes in international politics. I was also fortunate to have had the assistance of many able colleagues who shared my commitment to the journal. But 1 have decided that the time has come to return to my own scholarship, so 1will happily turn my attention back to several long-delayed research projects. --Sean M. Lynn-Jones Chairman’sNote I 1 W t h this issue, Sean Lynn-Jones steps down as Managing Editor after four years of distinguished service to International Security to enjoy a well-deserved stint as a research fellow at the Center for Science and International Affairs, editing his own thoughts rather than those of others. Readers should know what authors already know, namely...