Realism and the U.S.

A theory, by definition, needs to be partial in order to create a model for seeing the world. Without this key aspects theories would merely by empirical observations and we would have no way to predict behavior. Realism perfectly balances this partiality, highlighting military strength as the critical part of states need for power in the interest of their security.          

The U.S. is the perfect example of realism in action. It uses it unparalleled military strength as an implicit threat when dealing with its allies, such as France who is seeing increased pressure to participate in airstrikes against ISIS following President Obama’s declaration of war, and against its enemies. Following the famous words of Theodore Roosevelt “speak softly and carry a big stick” the U.S. has time and time again used its military to solve disputes and consolidate its power. The ever-present threat of its military, now costing as much as the next eight countries militaries beneath it, dominates the international stage. Without a doubt, the U.S. is the world hegemony. It uses its powerful economic resources to fund its military and in turn create better economic opportunities for itself. Many have speculated that the U.S. involvement in Iraq and other Middle Eastern states was just as much about oil as it was about national security. While it is impossible to prove these theories, many will cite the fabricated nuclear weapons claims as proof that the U.S. was merely seeking to increase its power. As all realists believe, power is relative and therefore must be taken from others in order to increase your own. More proof of the U.S.’s realist tendencies comes in the form of the NSA. Many have heard of the agencies lack of morality and unrivaled espionage ranging from international allies such as Germany’s Angela Merkels cell phone tapping to the US’s own citizens. The U.S. is acting in the interest of national security with no regard for international laws or moral code, knowing full well that with the backing of its military, none will oppose them perfectly exemplifying the mistrust that, as Mearshiemer states “Great powers fear each other. They regard each other with suspicion, and they worry that war might be in the offing.” They have such a mistrust of other states that they would spy on the Prime Minister of their own ally. As the hegemony, their fear is magnified by the risk of losing their place at the top of the world influence. 

While the critics of realism would argue that it is a one-sided view of international relations, it has been maintained since Machiavelli’s time largely with the same central tenets. It was very applicable in his time, when armies and military power were the only focus of sovereign states and their rulers. However, realism has evolved to continually explain the world today, as proven by Morgenthau and Mearshiemer, who carefully developed many of the key aspects of realism today. Critics focus on the small inconsistencies and repetitions of their theories, such as the ambiguity of what power is or the lack of empirical evidence toward the true human nature, which Morgenthau claims is “in which the laws of politics have their roots”.  Realism does not fail to explain the world in which we abide, proving time and again that military power trumps all the rest particularly in the case of the U.S. It flawlessly personifies the realist state in anarchy seeking to security, only using its economic resources to further expand its military and living in paranoia and constant mistrust of other states.

Sources: Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton,

2001, p.29-54. (ELMS)

Morgenthau, Hans. “Six Principles of Political Realism” in International Politics:

Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues. edited by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis. 8th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2007, p.7-14 (ELMS)

Role of Competition in Global Affairs

            In a world filled with so much international conflict and war, it’s easy to ask yourself “why?”.  What’s the point of all of this fighting? What is America benefiting from involving itself in conflict in the Middle East? Why do we continue to involve ourselves in international affairs when we seem to be doing just fine on our own? In chapter 2 of Mearshemier’s piece, he attempts to prove how competition for world power is the main factor behind all international relations.

            Now, initially after reading Mearshemier’s piece I viewed it as insight as to why world peace is impossible to achieve. He often reiterated the idea that global competition largely revolves around fear. Because there is no clear governing force bringing together all the governments below it, states are forced to act on their own. They have no idea what other states could be planning or how much military power they actually have, forcing states to do everything they can to maximize their own power, ensuring the utmost security of their state with no mercy of other states around them. Essentially, he concludes that in international relations, there is no trust. And just as in life, we as humans need trust in order to feel safe and progress our relationships with other people, the same goes for states in international relations. With no trust, governing bodies need to be ready in case another state strikes, thus reinforcing competition of which state is most prepared for the unknown. While I once thought that one day there could be a time where all states were in peace and there would be no international conflict ensuing, I now see that in the political system our world has created, that is simply not the case. The only way peace could ever be achieved is if we all felt secure enough to let our guards down. Unfortunately, however, that would require a complete balance of power among states, which judging by how much imbalance there is today, seems pretty impossible.

            On the contrary, while it’s easy to think global competition is solely the source of conflict, it’s also important to view it as a positive force that drives states to progress in an evolving world. Without competition, it’s likely the world wouldn’t be nearly as advanced as it is today. A prime example of this is the space race of the mid-twentieth century. Competition between the US and the Soviets to become the more dominant power led to discoveries in space we would have never found otherwise. Assuming every country lived in peace, unaware and uninterested in what other states were doing, there would be no need for any type of advancement in society, whether it be military, technological or economical. Competition is one of the most important aspects in society today, and without it there would be no room for growth or improvement.

It’s also necessary to look at how global competition affects states on a more domestic level. Later on in the chapter, Mearshemier delves further into the idea of hegemony.  He argues that while global hegemony is virtually impossible to achieve, it is possible to establish regional hegemony. He talks about how the US is the only state which holds regional hegemony, which makes the US, arguably one of the most powerful states in the world. Now, America is also prided on being the land of the free, proving that the more powerful the government, the more powerful the citizens of that land. While some may view global competition in a negative light, I believe if competition results in more freedom in the people and the ability for society to evolve with the times, then maybe competition is not such a bad thing after all.


Source:

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton,

2001, p.29-54. 

The United States Use of Power Over ISIS.

            The latest hot button in conversations all across the world is ISIS. Here in the U.S it has gain major news media attention. ISIS, also known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and Islamic State, major goal is to create an Islamic state across Sunni areas of Iraq and Syria. The problem most of the western world sees with this organization is its extremist methods of force, like massive killings, public executions and crucifixions. This has created a major alert and threat to states all around the world. Some have come to believe it is stronger threat than Al Qaeda. 

            In the past couple of weeks the U.S. has taken action over ISIS threat. At first surveillance was sent over Syria to gain more information of the group. Today the U.S. is at war and has sent several air strikes over Syria to demolish this dangerous group. More than 50 other countries have joined anti-ISIS coalition.  Actions taken by other countries after the U.S. decision can show how much soft power the U.S. has over other states.

            After the U.S. initial decision to airstrike Syria and Iraq, U.S. officials did not use coercion to get other states to also place attacks. They persuaded other countries that ISIS is a real threat to many nations and action is needed. President Obama spoke with the U.N. two days after sending airstrikes to several militant targets in Syria. He urged other countries to join the effort to dismantle ISIS “network of death.” This is an example of the U.S. soft power among the world.

            It can be argued that the U.S. used hard power to get other states to join. The U.S.  has a strong military and economy which places them in a high rank of worldly power. They have legitimate authority over there own government and have in the past set norms and rules of appropriateness for other countries. We see this reflected in the U.S. Influence in popular culture around the world. So some may question that the reason that other countries joined was not because they feared the Islamic state but instead feared the U.S. if they didn’t follow along.

The U.S. strong and large military power can be threatening to other counties. What is flawed with this argument is that there is no direct proof that the U.S directly threaten other countries to follow their actions. Instead it was the art of persuasion and the bandwagon approach to join in on the attacks. When a large world power makes a decision in most cases its allies and other states join in as well because of the influence of soft power.

What can be said is the use of hard powers are the actual air strikes against the Islamic State. The U.S. does not intend to persuade and seduce the ISIS to stop their gruesome executions but instead destroy the group itself. It has come to the severity that the U.S. government sees no other way to stop the group. The U.S. will use their hard power to get them to stop one way or another.

Whether the U.S. and the others states who joined the anti-ISIS coalition hard power is successful is still unknown. The country can be at the war for many years. If the U.S. comes out victorious and destroys ISIS it will ultimately prove its legitimate authority and power it has over the world.
Sources: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/
              http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/25/world/middleeast/obama-syria-un-isis.html?_r=0