Stories regarding the terrorist group known as ISIS, or the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, have been flooding major news networks for the
past couple months. The United States began an aerial war against ISIS in Iraq
over a month ago, but on September 22nd the United States widened
the air strikes into Syria to destroy the terrorist group. Is President Barack
Obama taking a realist, liberalist, or constructivist approach in United
States’ foreign policy regarding ISIS? Though the United States’ fight against
ISIS doesn’t fit all aspects of a realist’s international relations theory, a
realist approach strongly represents how Obama and the United States is
handling the ISIS terrorists.
Realism
focuses on the international relations between recognized states. ISIS is not a
state and is not formally recognized by any government; the terrorist
organization is not tied to any specific land and instead flows between the
states Iraq and Syria. Thus, the United States should not expect ISIS to act
like a recognized state. However, this does not mean that ISIS doesn’t desire
power, wealth, and security like any other state. That being said, the United
States is taking a realist approach in other aspects to maintain its own security
and power.
Power is
essential for a realist and military is paramount. Though no troops are on the
ground, the United States is exercising its military power with the air strikes
against ISIS. The aggressive air strikes projects to ISIS that the United
States has cultural power as well. The United States is exerting its power on
ISIS to demolish the terrorist organization and any power it holds. The nation
doesn’t want ISIS to become any more powerful than it already is. If ISIS were
to become any more powerful, it could pose a greater threat to the power of the
United States. While exerting its power towards ISIS with dozens of air
strikes, the United States is concerned about the gains it makes in relative
power compared to absolute power. Realists care more about the relative gains
in power. Knowing that it cannot destroy every link to ISIS, the United States
cares more about how much power it has in comparison to how much power ISIS
holds.
The air
strikes against ISIS exhibits the United States focusing on relative power
gains by exerting its military power. Like the sound points of realism,
national interest and national security are of utmost concern for the United
States at the moment. The United States’ concern over national security falls into
the palm of the state’s national interest. The air strikes expanded into Syria after
the beheadings of several American journalists and bomb threats against the
state from another terrorist organization based in Syria. The United States’
national security was at risk and it was of the state’s national interest to
administer more air strikes in order to maintain its security. Although
innocent people may die from the air strikes, the countrymen of the United
States are more important than others – an important realist thought.
It is not
to go unmentioned that the United States isn’t the only state administering air
strikes against ISIS. In fact, the United States opened their military
operation with five Arab allies. The idea of this coalition is supported by
realism as well. Forming alliances with other states is an example of external
balancing. The United States has formed alliances with five Arab states to
maintain the current balance of power between states and derail ISIS.
When deciding
between realism, liberalism, and constructivism, the United States’ execution
of air strikes against ISIS falls best into the international relations theory
of realism. By using the military to gain relative power and maintain the
current balance of power, the United States is protecting the national interest
of the state’s security.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-launches-more-airstrikes-against-isis-in-syria-pentagon-says/
If U.S. is indeed only focusing on the Realpolitk options in dealing with ISIS, then why is U.S. so reluctant to put "boots on the ground"? Wouldn't a realist want to use the aerial strikes to make way for a full scale invasion, to destroy ISIS and take over their territories instead of making ISIS controlled territories an anarchy?
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that an absolute realist would want to put "boots on the ground" and go ahead with a full scale invasion to destroy ISIS and take over the territories. I think the main reason I connected the United States as to following a realist theory is because the United States seems to be taking action out of concern for its national security and to maintain it's power - very important points of realism.
DeleteHouse of Speak John Boeher did advocate that US will ultimately need to send troops to Iraq to combat ISIS, that the airstrikes will amount to nothing if we don't. So John Boeher is speaking out as a realist, but other leading members of our government have different perceptions .
DeleteBuilding off of what Mingjie said, would a realist be concerned with such a small, relatively disorganized faction in the first place? Russia, a much more daunting adversary, just annexed a region of another sovereign state and proved international protocol regarding conflicts does not apply to them. It would seem a realist would likely attempt to secure itself from the threat of Russia first, then focus less powerful actors. I'm not actually confident a realist would consider ISIL an actor quite yet.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that being said, the point about Obama finding motivation for striking ISIL in maintaining the current balance of power and fortifying national security is absolutely correct and very difficult to argue.
I'm glad you agree on the points of Obama trying to maintain the current balance of power and holding down national security. Since the United States has taken action against ISIL already and you say a realist may not consider ISIL an actor quite yet, do you think the US could be considered more liberalist or constructivist for taking action?
DeleteI agree that some of the actions the US has taken against ISIS are realist. ISIS has gained power, and the US sees them as a threat because of ISIS's actions. So for now, the US feels that air strikes will do for now. I feel that the US is hesitant to send troops because they are weary of war from the Bush years.
ReplyDelete