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.