Morgenthau’s six principles of
political realism, explains the events currently taking place in ISIS. We have
two opposing forces, namely the U.S. and religious extremists, trying to push
their political agendas in the same geographical territory. Under this theory,
we will examine both states intentions, and discuss why war is most likely
inevitable based upon previous and current political actions.
Political
realism makes us believe that states behave as rational actors when dealing
with matters of foreign policy, and that we as spectators can predict future
actions based off hard evidence. The U.S. is looked upon to be the most
relatively powerful state in the world. The U.S. has a vested interest in
protecting its borders from any potential terrorist attacks. Ever since 9/11,
the U.S. has undoubtedly made security its number one priority through the
means of advanced weaponry, counter-surveillance technology, and a vast amount
of troops. Organizations such as the NSA are working around the clock in order
to intercept any terrorist activity before any attack happens. It is clear that
the U.S. is practicing both the offensive and defensive theories of realism in
order to maintain its security.
On
the other hand we have ISIS, which is comprised of Islamic radicals, who are
gaining more power in the Middle East. When we take a look at ISIS from a
realist point of view it is obvious why there is tension between the two
states. ISIS has already had conflict fighting U.S. troops during the war in
Iraq. ISIS has made it clear that they are here to stay and have plans of using
any necessary force against non-devout Muslims, especially westerners. Isis is
gaining support through hard and soft power. They are using the territories’
resources, (especially oil) they take over in order to acquire more economic
power, which will translate into even more military power. Media exposure is
helping ISIS’ cause in gaining support from outside individuals.
Analyzing
both states foreign policies from the realist perspective; the U.S. is
definitely more reasonable than ISIS. Although the United States is straying
away from conventional realism in the sense that the U.S. is heavily relying on
ally support from other states in combating ISIS, the U.S. is more likely to
have success in the struggle against ISIS with minimal amount of causalities.
This is a rational act that will further the U.S.’ goal of establishing more
democratic states. Originally ISIS started as a terrorist organization, which
wouldn’t even be considered as part of the equation of international policy
under realism. However ISIS is more military minded than the U.S. and isn’t
relying on support from other states. Of
course this is a result of their building from the ground up and not having
many connections with large states, but we cannot overlook their daily economic
gains and progressive agenda. On a global scale ISIS has more latent power than
relative power because other nations don’t consider them to be a real state.
War
is inevitable between the two states because of the security dilemma that has
enveloped both parties. Realism teaches that mankind is inherently evil so it
would be foolish for the U.S. to sit by idly while ISIS gains more military
power. As stated earlier, ISIS is not hiding the fact that it wants to oppress
state actors who do not conform to their way of thinking. This political
mindset can only lead to an even more chaotic international policy. It is no
surprise that other states have joined the U.S. in air-striking ISIS because a
combatant such as ISIS will not cease unless they are obliterated.
I am not to sure that the realist perspective will necessarily lead the United States and ISIL to an all out war. If anything based on the realist perspective, the United States should ignore this small state of ISIL. A realist like Morgenthau would most likely advise against any action or interaction with this gang of Islamic extremist. The six principles of political realism although helpful in explain the security dilemma presented are not the most reliable in this case. The major players in the world today, large states that Morgenthau would view as important, are no longer engaging in as much open conflict. Instead the security dilemmas created are from these small states or groups. Only through individualist approaches, treating each security threat as unique will states like the United States be able to be successful combat forces that threaten their interests. The era of large state conflict is hopefully in the past, unfortunately it has been replaced by a seemingly fragile world of international relations where anyone, any group can pose a threat.
ReplyDeleteISIS cannot be considered just a threat anymore. They are calculated and operate as any military would. The point of my post was to treat ISIS as a big state because they are behaving as one. However I do agree with your last point about how any group can pose as a threat. ISIL is no poser however they are the real deal.
ReplyDeleteI think one of the biggest problems with ISIL is how irrational they are, or can be. Dealing with different powers and entities becomes much easier when you can safely assume that the other player cares about their own benefit. This may not always be the case with ISIL. They may care more about religion, fear or other things that will prevent them from being rational. This makes them unpredictable and unreasonable, which would make fighting them much harder.
ReplyDeleteISIS are definitely a big threat to the United States and other countries. We shouldn’t underestimate what can happen, as they are very radical with their beliefs and act irrational. A war can always be considered an option but the US and other nations will try everything to prevent a war from happening. I do agree that the US acts more reasonable and rational than ISIS.
ReplyDelete