Realistic View of ISIL

The realist view of International relations focuses on importance of different states competing for power over each other, mainly through military conquest. During this struggle, each state’s aim is to achieve an ultimate hegemony over the other states. One of the largest problems at the front of the United States’ foreign policy is dealing with ISIL. The situation with ISIL is interesting, because at a first glance it could pose some problems for the realist view. There are two roads to take when thinking about ISIL: that ISIL is a state as they claim to be, or that they are a mere terrorist organization. Realists view states to be the only important players in the game that is IR, so if ISIL is a state this poses no problems for the Realist view. But, if ISIL was view as a terrorist organization they should not be anywhere as important as they are according to realism. While this may appear to be a hole in realist theory, the situation with ISIL can still be justified from a realist perspective.

The argument for why the United States is engaging with ISIL can be derived from the ultimate realist goal of hegemony over the other states. Therefor United States ultimately wants and needs to have hegemony to guarantee its security. But, this hegemony does not have to come from the elimination of other states but by making sure that you are a monolith of power that can control the other states in the international theater. The United States therefore should make decisions that would be intended to retain ‘control’ over a certain state. A good example of this is the United States involvement in the Gulf War. The United States enter the Gulf War at the plea of King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, who feared being invaded by Iraqi force after they had invaded Kuwait. The United States did not want to lose their ‘control’ over Saudi Arabia, so the United States entered the Gulf War and pushed the Iraqi force out of Kuwait.  Now the United States’ ‘control’ in the region has expanded into Iraq after ten years of the Iraq War. The Iraq War has been costly and now the progress made in Iraq is being threatened by ISIL riding the momentum of the Syrian Civil War as far as it can take them. ISIL want control over Iraq to acquire a large Islamic population, to bolster their claims to caliphate creating their own state, thus removing western and the United States ‘control’ over Iraq. The threat of ISIL is not that they can directly threaten the United States, but they can undermine the United States control over Iraq while creating their own state.  The United States responded to this threat, in a very realist fashion, with fairly heavy handed bombing campaigns. So while ISIL may appear to be a contradiction to realism, after you scratch the surface and understand the motivations of the conflict you see that realism actually explains it fairly well. 

- Steve McNamara

From Tickner to Watson, it's time for equality

As an educated woman capable of critical thought, I wholly identify with J. Ann Tickner’s analysis of Morgenthau’s principles. The field of international relations, much like many other educational fields, is truly influenced by masculine conceptions of human nature, power, and morality. Reading this article is incredibly timely considering Emma Watson’s recent speech at the United Nations, which launched her new campaign centered on gender equality, HeforShe. Tickner and Watson’s arguments are incredibly similar in most ways, but definitely differ as they discuss gender roles in society. In tandem, they paint an interesting picture for the future of women in positions of power and international relations in general and call for meaningful change worldwide.

Evidence of extreme gendering can be found with a quick glance down any aisle in any toy store. There are girl toys and boy toys, and an implicit divide between the two with little room for gray area. The world of international politics is similar in this regard.

Tickner relays that women tend to be “…more comfortable dealing with domestic issues such as social welfare that are more compatible with their nurturing skills” while “nuclear strategy, with its vocabulary of power, threat, force and deterrence, has a distinctly masculine ring” (15). Gender roles are a societal norm that cast definitive shadows for both men and women, which is something both Watson and Tickner agree on.

Unique in Watson’s speech is the notion that men are just as negatively impacted by gender stereotypes as women are. Typically, masculinity is defined as powerful and emotionally objective. Tickner’s description paints this portrayal as a positive role for men to fulfill, while Watson describes just the opposite. Watson relates that she personally “…started questioning gender based assumptions a long time ago”, since the age of eight. She continues to say recount “when at eighteen my male friends were unable to express their feelings”, and how detrimental this is for mental health, stating that suicide is the number one killer of men ages 20-49 in the UK. Clearly, stringent gender roles are a problem worldwide, for both men and women alike.

Though Tickner and Watson differ in their perception of male gender roles, they both call for meaningful change for women globally. Morgenthau’s six principles have an anachronistic tone as predetermined international relations laws that will remain unchanged as time progresses. However, this is an incredibly dangerous notion, which both Tickner and Watson relay. First and foremost, traditional conceptions of power value war and coercion as primary means for dealing with tension. In a nuclear weapon ridden world, this is incredibly lethal. Tickner also states that, “The ecology movement…and the women’s movement are deeply interconnected. Both stress living in equilibrium with nature rather than dominating it” which is another concept integral to international relations today. Aggressive and wasteful international policies are not only outdated, but also unsustainable. Different, more feminine, approaches are undeniably important to consider as we attempt to create a healthier, more inclusive world for future generations.

The most important takeaways from both works are that including women in the international relations conversation can not only create a more cooperative and peaceful world, but also create worldwide freedom from harmful gender stereotypes. Tickner advocates for a new global perspective that “…appreciates cultural diversity but at the same time recognizes a growing interdependence” and “avoids conflict where possible” by taking feminine opinions into account. Watson envisions a world where “we all perceive gender roles on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals”. These two powerful ideas in cooperation can truly change the international perception of power globally and free both men and women from binding stereotypes.

Realism and ISIS

Earlier this week, the United States made the decision to launch a vast majority of airstrikes against Sunni militant targets in Syria. In the New York Times article “U.S. Is Carrying Out Vast Majority of Strikes on ISIS, Military Officials Say”, journalist Helene Cooper says the first stage of the attack was conducted solely by the United States, followed by two more attacks with the help of other Arab nations. This ties into our discussions on realism and liberalism.

 From my perspective, when dealing with militant forces such as ISIS, liberalism will never work. Liberalism focuses on negotiations, optimism, and believes states will act rational if given the space to do so. ISIS is a group of Salafist jihadists committed to upholding the original meaning of the sacred texts of Islam. They targeted the United States as public enemy #1 because we are seen as a threat to their fate. There is no way of negotiating with this group because we do not share the same values as them such as limiting freedoms of women. They will not accept our ways of living just like we will not accept theirs. We cannot enforce democracy and human rights on a group that specializes in suicide bombings. Elements of “soft power” such as persuasion or attraction will also not work against this group because they don’t want to function like the United States or care to adopt our popular culture. The closest ISIS has related to our culture is creating a twitter account where they posted a video of them beheading three Westerners.

Realism is the only governmental strategy that can stop militant groups. Using military force is more effective especially when the opposing side cannot compete with our highly advanced military technology. Structural realism believes states need some offensive capabilities in order to be secure. We cannot predict this group’s intention, and even Obama admitted in a 60 Minutes interview Jim clapper, the head of his intelligence committee, underestimated the power of ISIS. That is why it was a smart decision by General Mayville to send F-22 fighter jets to strike their command and control building, where they store weapons and hold meetings. It is better to attack them early and prepare for the worst. Another realist theory is making sure there is an external balance of power, such as creating alliances. We now have military support from five Arab states, France, Australia, the Netherlands, Belgium, Britain and Denmark.

I do not want to say that liberalism does not always work. It is a useful strategy between countries that have the same values and do not see war as an option. However, I feel safer knowing my country can defend itself and our threats are taken seriously by other nations because of our military’s exceptional reputation. I do not think there will ever be world peace and having constant distrust for other countries is healthy. To me, a gun is more powerful than an institution and following realism theories will get the job done.

Blog post 1. In My Opinion....

Sydney Puckett
Government 200

In class we learned that there are three main forms of governmental strategy. These include realism, constructivism, and liberalism. In this blog post I shall discuss each one in brief and explain why I feel that realism is the best strategy out of the three.
Realism is a political way of thinking where you find that anyone at any time could turn against you. So alliances to a realist are pointless. In my opinion realists have the best way if thinking. They prepare for the worst. One critique of realism would be that some people believe that they cannot adapt to change. But I believe this to be untrue because a lot of things can change in the world but I believe human behavior and decisions will stay somewhat constant.

The next form is constructivism, this is one that I personally am not very fond of. This claims that aspects of our relations with other countries are socially constructed. Nothing can be inevitable. The problem with this is that constructivism has very few studies or experiments that could be done in its favor. So it makes it very hard to prove. In my opinion something that cannot be proofed by a sort of study or test is not worth implementing or even considering. Constructivism is also the newest form which makes it somewhat "new age". This to me is a disadvantage. This being because it doesn't have to be a new concept to be more accurate or correct.

The last form is liberalism, this is also another form that I am not very fond of. This form originated during the enlightenment. This form focus' on achieving worldwide peace. In my opinion I find this utterly ridiculous because I believe that worldwide peace is a unaccomplishable goal. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. So to have a form that focus' primarily on that seems like a big waste of time to me. In my opinion no matter how many theories you put into place like the "Democratic Peace Theory", in the end they will NOT work. This is because in real life the human society will always be struggling for power.

Human nature is to be the most powerful. Some have different means of accomplishing this but in the end they all have the same goal. Everyone wants to be the most powerful and they will accomplish it by any means. This is why realism to me makes more sense. Why try getting around what is in my opinion human nature?  You can't. So you might as we'll be prepared for it, protect your own and be prepared for the next country, friend, person to backstabbing you and get ahead. Better to be prepared then to sit there and let them take you down because you were trying to "create peace" or find how itrelates  to how we were "socially constructed". To me this is a waste of time. Be REAL, believe in REALism.