Theory in Action: Realism and ISIS, Term Paper Example

How the factors motivating the United States’ fight against ISIS keep with what the realists would predict

The International Relations theory, realism, has various ideas and variations stemming from it. As per the definition, the theory aims to explain the concept of reality in terms of politics at the international level and how it helps the nations understand why realists critiqued the ethical responsibilities of the nation’s governance. Famous historical thinkers like Machiavelli and Hobbes have influenced the narrative of the realist. The many variants of realism are realism in the classical period, the traditional perspective of realism, structural realism, and realism that focused on liberty. According to the realist’s view, it could aid the United States in International conflicts shifting from “international disorder to globalizing networks: cultivating diplomacy, politics, economic development, communication, and culture.”

From a realist’s perspective, the actions the U.S. government took would refute all their efforts from achieving their goals. They would not agree with these actions because their goals were to change how the government viewed the ISIS issue. They focused on how the government stirred up the situation and fought against using military administration and moral principles to solve the issue instead of using ethics for the country’s survival and economic development. Therefore, by analyzing the actions, the United States,’ the paper aims to determine how one can understand how the realist theory motivates this response by inspiring the government to fight against ISIS and how the realists reacted to their actions.

In realism, an ISIS state, the “Islamic State group,” was formed to protect their belief in Sunni Islam. The group traces Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi as their head and link to their prophet Muhammad. Their leader wished and commanded the commitment of devoted Muslims worldwide to the group and conducted a range of extreme acts worldwide, but specifically to Western cities” (Antunes &. Camisao). The main goal of ISIS is to create a State with fear, extreme force, and terrorism and prevent regional powers from meddling in this process.

Conversantly, Sandrina Antunes, of the International Relations department and public relations, is an Assistant Professor at the “Universidade do Minho, Portugal.” She is also a fellow in sciences at the Center for the Study of Politics at the “Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.” Next, Isabel Camisão is a professor of International Relations at the University of Evora, Portugal. In this text, both authors discuss ISIS as an organization, transnational terrorism, realism, and U.S. foreign policy towards ISIS. This information helps support the thesis and provides context for readers. This text gives context to what ISIS is and how the group operates as a whole. In addition, it portrays specific examples that provide context on how realism is a necessary tool that has positive and negative aspects.

Francis A. Beer is a political science professor at the University of Colorado, and. Robert Hariman is a communications studies professor at Northwestern University. Francis has written several books on Political Science and International Relations, while Robert is also an accredited author. Both co-edited the book “Post-Realism: The Rhetorical Turn in International Relations.” A text that provides most of the evidence used and gives excellent examples of a post-realist perspective. Also, this text expands on ISIS and its culture. Overall, this text is essential in this paper for defining “post-realism.”

Hal Brands is an accomplished expert who has authored several books, most of which are popular today. He is a prominent Global Affairs professor at the John Hopkins SAIS and a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). In addition, he has contributed his skills as a Special Assistant to the Defense Secretary for Strategic Planning for 2015-2016. Also, he has offered and acquired for consultations with many offices in both the government and other agencies in the national security and intelligence communities, serving as the primary writer for the Commission on the National Defense Strategy for the United States. He was awarded his bachelor’s degree from the University of Stanford and his Ph.D. from Yale University. This work elaborates on past and present policies the United States has adopted due to ISIS. The authors give their opinions using their expertise on what political-military strategy the United States should pick.

In relation to I.R. and realism, Peter Paul Reubens, an artist, using classical techniques from the Renaissance period in Italy. He used his unique styles and painted the situation between the ISIS, which other Baroque artists have far adopted in Spain, France, and Italy over time. In his paintings, he boldly liberated the occurrences of each scenario he painted on his pieces of art as evidence of all that conspired.

With relevance, the theory of realism does not explain the international relations on only military conflict and war; instead, it focuses on how the war was used as a mechanism to change. Using the history of the Peloponnesian war, particularly the Thucydides, records of the fifth century B.C., and other standard records that explain the traditional realism recorded that as Athens grew in power, the Lacedeamonial war became inevitable (Rubens). Concerning that, looking at recent events during President Obama’s terms, realists were more concerned and critical about his strategies in intervening on the military administration (Rubens).  It was controversial because it proved that realists’ concern was not based on creating peace. Instead, their schedule, especially with ISIS, was concerned with critiquing the U.S. interventions of the military administration. According to a senatorial hearing, 114-566 of the U.S. government held on January 20^th, 2016, as a set of senators and witnesses recorded several actions presented due to the situation with ISIS. It was determined that ISIS was motivated by their religious rivalry rather than political (“- inside the mind of ISIS: understanding its goals and ideology to protect the homeland” better). The government found out that ISIS, based on religious rivalry, steered brutality within the U.S., which led to civil dominance.  The hearing aimed at determining the motivating factors in the fight against ISIS, thus the realists’ critique of the military administration and how they chose to handle the matter as war instead of considering negotiation or establishing a deeper understanding of what ISIS meant to the government.

Furthermore, another factor that motivated the U.S. to fight against ISIS was the relatively depreciating economy. With youths in the United States joining ISIS, having that the country consists of a sixty percent population below the age of 25, poor governance led to economic deprivation (“- inside the mind of ISIS: understanding its goals and ideology to protect the homeland” better). Of course, the U.S. fought to save its economy and involved the military in intervening, but realists collected this from a different perspective. They predicted the escalation of the situation, a war that would put America in a more difficult position in future times, which could be avoided by other strategies that did not involve the military.

Since realists focused on their prediction, the 2020 hearing conceded a different realization. They carefully handpicked the factors that facilitated the growing situation with ISIS and used it against them. The U.S., over time, has been faced with war against terrorism, inequality, and social injustice. Through these discoveries, it was determined that this led to an unnecessary feud between the Americans. Religion was the basis and, to be concise, the history of Islamism and its ideologies (“- inside the mind of ISIS: understanding its goals and ideology to protect the homeland” better). According to these, the governments’ decision to apply military force into the ISIS matter was triggered by ISIS’s belief that war and bloodshed were the only way to achieve their wants.

More profoundly, the U.S. government realized that ISIS was not only their problem, but other countries such as Iraq and the Kurds found them as a threat. They made the Islamic culture look dirty and less civilized; thus, it stirred war with other Islamic countries that fought to clear their names. According to findings from the set hearing, notably, despite the realists’ view about ISIS, losses were based on war and military interventions. It was proven that the ISIS territory was narrowing after they were defeated by the Iraqi and Kurds (“- inside the mind of ISIS: understanding its goals and ideology to protect the homeland” better). These proved that the realists were wrong and showed that circumstances related to ISIS’ belief in conflict resolution proved to be less necessary.

Consequentially, in consideration of the critics’ views, the government considered using two strategies to understand and develop solutions to the ISIS matter. First, they focused on understanding what ISIS as a territory wanted and what various minor groups wanted. With discoveries, two issues contradicted their plans since ISIS wished to extend their roots into recruiting more Muslims and destroy the United States (“- inside the mind of ISIS: understanding its goals and ideology to protect the homeland” better). It drove the government back into considering understanding what each individual from the ISIS group wanted. The discoveries were shocking because a critical response majored on poor governance and benefiting the group. They indicated that with that as a contributing factor, they could convince other Americans to create a revolution against their own country.

By understanding poor governance as it appeared for the second time, the U.S. government was motivated to fight against ISIS. Since ISIS used poor governance as an advantage, they aimed to build ISIS as a state; The Islamic State in Syria (Beer and Hariman). They believed that together, they would erect a statue that matched their needs as a state, unlike what the U.S. government offered. Basing on the theory of realism, building a state was triggered by the pre-colonial and post-colonial eras, which left certain countries in turmoil. During these eras, realism predicted how politics would assist in solving issues that were related to post-colonial and post realism.

Regarding these findings, by analyzing the actions the United States’ take against ISIS, the paper aims to understand how the realist theory motivates this response by determining factors that motivated the government to fight against ISIS. Realists believed in using communication as a channel to solving conflicts, not the military force; thus, they would disagree with the actions taken by the government. Still, factors such as poor governance and the Islamic history of civilization proved to me matters that triggered the ISIS revolution against the United States. The realist critiqued the military intervention, but it was established that ISIS was adamant about fighting for their beliefs and perceptions about America. Despite the government applying realist’s theory, there has been a war between ISIS and the U.S. and other Islamic countries fighting to clear their names and finish off  ISIS. It, therefore, elaborates that the theory cannot justify a relevant strategy to end the ISIS revolutionary group, other than military intervention by the U.S. government.

Works cited

Antunes, Sandrina and Camisão, Isabel. “Theory in Action: Realism and ISIS” E-International Relations, June 17th, 2019, https://www.e-ir.info/2019/06/17/student-feature-theory-in-action-realism-and-isis/ Accessed April 19th, 2020

Beer, Francis A., and Robert Hariman. “Realism, Post-Realism, and ISIS.” Realism in Practice: An Appraisal, e-international relations, 2018, pp. 16–27.

Brands, Hal, and Peter Feaver. “After ISIS: U.S. Political-Military Strategy in The Global War on Terror.” Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/After_ISIS_US_Politico-Military_Strategy_in_the_Global_War_on_Terror.pdf. Accessed April 18th, 2020.

“- Inside the mind of ISIS: understanding its goals and ideology to protect the homeland better.” Govinfo | U.S. Government Publishing Office, January 20th, 2016, www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114shrg22714/html/CHRG-114shrg22714.htm.

Rubens, Peter Paul. “Realism and Peaceful Change.” E-International Relations, February 9th, 2018, www.e-ir.info/2018/02/09/realism-and-peaceful-change