Arquilla makes the argument that IR scholars will likely resist the concept of networks as a way to understand what’s happening in the world. Arquilla suggests that ignoring the rise of networks will lead to more military interventions and will cause states “to focus more on confrontation and co-optation than on embracing this new form of social organization” (Arquilla 2007, 207).
Does his argument make sense? What is the most compelling part of his argument? What is the least compelling?
Arquilla suggests that ignoring the rise of networks will lead to more military interventions and will cause states "to focus more on confrontation and co-optation than on embracing this new form of social organization" (Arquilla 2007, 207).
Does his argument make sense? What is the most compelling part of his argument? What is the least compelling?