The next four hypotheses Byman and Pollack introduce focus on personality traits that delve into a deeper level of analysis. They hypothesize that risk-tolerant and delusional leaders are more likely to cause a war. This can be corroborated by observing the differences between Saddam Hussein and Hafiz al-Assad; Saddam’s high risk-tolerance led him to attack multiple countries as opposed to Assad who was risk adverse, and avoided confrontation. In addition, Wilhelm II’s delusions are the reason he perceived Germany was surrounded by hostile powers. Consequently, he developed a fleet that caused others to see Germany as a threat and turned his delusions into reality. Byman and Pollack also theorize that trustworthy leaders will have durable…show more content… This may not hold true; just because a leader has a grand vision, does not mean they can carry it out. More importantly, the political structure of a state would determine whether this hypothesis holds true, revolutionary leaders and dictators would more likely be able to carry out their grandiose vision in comparison to leaders of democracies. Byman and Pollack fail to analyze this aspect in their theory. In support of their hypothesis, Colgan contends that ambitious leaders are more likely to reject the status quo, both domestically and internationally. The fourth and last personality hypothesis is that trustworthy leaders will have stronger and extensive alliances. This is a strong and commonsensical argument, because the purpose of an alliance is to increase the security of a state, and an inconsistent leader will not increase the security of another state because they may not carry out their promises. The Anglo-German military alliance disintegrated in 1901 because of Britain’s skepticism of Germany being able to fulfill their alliance commitments. The British had little faith in Germany because of their past inconsistencies in other alliances (i.e. being unable to obey to the treaty commitment with Japan). Alliances are usually intended to outlive the tenure of the individual leaders; therefore, other factors such as a countries history may hold more importance…show more content… For example, a leader who is risk tolerant may also have peace making attributes, and thus, would likely avoid war. Moreover, one of the three reasons theorist marginalize the importance of the first level of analysis is because it is hard to generalize individuals. To combat this, the authors could have created leadership styles or personality profiles that divide leaders by their goals or motivation. Margret Hermann (2001, 95) argues that leadership styles are one of the primary determinants of foreign policy. She produced a codification of leadership style with four categories: Strategic, crusader, pragmatic and opportunistic. A crusader defies political constraints, unwilling to accept new information, and is unconstrained in pursuing their version of the world (e.g. Fidel Castro). The opposite of a crusader is the opportunist, is mindful of political constraints, pursues information, and does not risk alienating other actors. The strategic leader challenges constraints but is open to information, and is bold but cautious when it comes to acting out their ambitions (e.g. Hafez al-Assad of Syria). Lastly, the pragmatic leader respects political constraints but is not open to new information. Henry Kissinger had a similar view, he viewed individuals as four types of
