How the Research Is Empirically Examined 105
was docked at Eden Port for refueling;^129 and the terrorist attacks of Sep-
tember 11, 2001, in the heart of the United States, which were the most
devastating of this type ever.^130
Following a series of positive feedback actions taken by a number of
terrorist organizations against the United States, primarily the Septem-
ber 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the fear that they might destabilize the
global balance, the system dictated to the United States to take signifi-
cant positive feedback actions, which it took to maintain the homeostasis:
(1) The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which was intended to uproot Al Qaeda
from Afghanistan because of its responsibility for the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, described above;^131 and (2) the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
which was a direct follow-on of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
These events highlighted the need to prevent the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, and primarily to prevent their transfer to Islamic ter-
rorist organizations. Although there was no significant proof implicating
Iraq in supporting Al Qaeda or the terrorist incidents of September 11,
Iraq was perceived thereafter as a country posing a potential threat to the
United States’ national security.^132
THE STABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS—
CONCLUSIONS
Table 4.7 shows the stability of the six instances of the three different
models of polarity in 1816–2016 according to the international relations
theory of war.
Table 4.8 shows the stability of the three different polarity models in
1816–2016 according to the international relations theory of war.
Based on the discussion held in the last chapter, Table 4.9 concentrates
the arguments of the various realist theories concerning the degree of sta-
bility of the various polarity models compared with the international rela-
tions theory of war.
Systemic Factors and Territorial Outcomes of WarsIn the course of human history, certain periods have been character-
ized by the territorial expansion of the polar powers at the end of wars,
whereas other periods have been characterized by their territorial non-
expansion. The comparison of the bipolar system of the Cold War period
with the unipolar system thereafter, for example, shows significant differ-
ences in the territorial outcomes of polar wars. In the bipolar system, the
Soviet Union’s war in Afghanistan ended in maintaining of the territorial
status quo, whereas the United States’ war in Afghanistan in the unipo-
lar system ended in territorial expansion of the polar power, the United
States, despite Afghanistan’s being located in the Soviet Union’s backyard