Liberalism Does Not Explain The Islamic State

            We often look to political theories to explain events that happen in the world. They can give us a deeper understanding of events, and help us look at conflicts in different lights. However, sometimes events occur around the world that go against political theories, and can ultimately question their accuracy. In particular, I have come to question Liberalism’s truthfulness in our current age. The quite recent rise of the radical terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) goes against all aspects of the Liberalist theory, and therefore challenges the theory’s truth.

            One of the main pillars liberalism stands on is the idea that all states will act rationally. It assumes that states will have a mutual understanding of rationality and reason, and will act according to those views. As Opello and Rosow explain, “Liberalism developed a distinctive form of ideology that accepted the state only insofar as it could be justified by a rational discourse appealing to universal standards of human nature and justice”(1). Though it would be nice to assume all states acted in the interest of good human nature and justice, this idea seems utopian in the context of ISIL. The Islamic State is a radical group that has recently taken many actions that most of us would characterize as irrational. The group has beheaded several citizens of other countries after holding them captive, and recorded the murders and used them as threats to getting requests from other countries. These actions are far from rational, as they have much of the world in disbelief and fear. Though ISIL may see their actions as rational, it is quite clear that the murders committed by ISIL have not appealed to “universal standards of human nature and justice”, as innocent people lost their lives. They very well have a different definition of rationality. Therefore, liberalism is far from an accurate theory in explaining the situation involving this extreme group. Rationality is not something that has a universal definition, and ISIL has illustrated this very clearly.

            Liberalism also fails to give a realistic explanation for ISIL’s refusal to negotiate with other states. Liberalism suggests that states will act in the interest of absolute gains, and will therefore cooperate so they can mutually profit. It says that countries will think twice before partaking in war or violence against other states, because they are essentially dependent on each other. This is not the case with the Islamic State. The terrorist group has many clear goals (money, territory, revenge of the U.S., restore the caliphate), none of which they have made any attempt to compromise for. In an email sent from ISIL to the parents of beheaded U.S. journalist James Foley, the group explained their anger with President Obama’s refusal to release Muslim captives. They used this to explain their murdering of Foley, writing in the e-mail, “WE WILL NOT STOP UNTILL WE QUENCH OUR THIRST FOR YOUR BLOOD”(2). This is clear confirmation that ISIL is not willing to compromise, and is not concerned with cooperating with the Untied States in order for both states to mutually profit. They are not dependent on the United States in any way, and thus Liberalism is far from an accurate explanation of their horrific actions.

            But the refusal to negotiate does not end with ISIL. After the beheading of journalist James Foley, his mother spoke out against the American government, saying they did not do enough to let her negotiate with the terrorist group for her son's life. Although ISIL is the more violent and radical party, the United States was also not willing to mutually profit with them. Liberalism’s idea of economic interdependence is clearly not evident here. Liberalism is again incorrect in explaining the United States in this conflict, as they are not dependent on ISIL and are not acting in the interest of mutually profiting.

            After multiple murders by the terrorist group, President Obama had no choice but to launch air strikes on the Islamic State. There is no telling where this international conflict will go, but violence is definitely going to increase. ISIL has made it clear that they will not stop until they get what they want, and will do whatever measures necessary to see their group thrive. Liberalism would be an ideal and utopian way to look at this situation, but it is simply unrealistic and inconsistent with the recent events of the Islamic State, as they continue to act irrationally and have no interest of mutually profiting or cooperating with other states.

1.)   Opello and Rosow. The Nation-State and Global Order, page 4

2.)   http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/isis-fast-facts/