Kathryn Flynn
For my International Politics in the Middle East class we recently read “US Counter-Terrorism Options: A Taxonomy”, written by Daniel Byman. This essay outlined the seven options the United States has regarding counter-terrorism tactics, focusing on al-Qaeda. Byman concludes that the best way to go about keeping al-Qaeda at bay is working multilaterally with allies. A realist would not look at al-Qaeda as a problem to be dealt with since it is a non-state actor; this essay clearly outlines why al-Qaeda is and remains a problem. It also shows that liberalism and the joining of states to work towards a common goal is the only way to slow this terrorist organization. From this information, it is clear that liberalism is the more relevant and correct theory of international relations.
Firstly, not recognizing al-Qaeda as an actor that has major impact on international relations is a terrible under-appreciation of the destruction the group could wreak around the globe. The need to keep this group as small as possible - it is impossible to eradicate terrorism - is something at the forefront of discussions between Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, the United Kingdom, France, the United States and many other countries.
Byman includes diversion as an option in his essay, which would try to move the terrorists focus to other countries instead of the United States. He argues that this is a terrible idea because the likelihood of the group gaining a state would increase. Likewise, if we took a ‘realists approach’ to al-Qaeda and just ignored it, the group could capture a state to control, which then would cause devastating consequences.
After considering how detrimental it would be to take a realist approach to al-Qaeda, we can move on the Byman’s conclusion of working with allies to control the terrorist group. The pure fundamentals of his conclusion rest on the idea that the United States has allies around the globe and that they work together towards a common goal. Byman points out that the United States works together with multiple countries in different regions of the world to thwart terrorist activity. This saves the United States money that they would have to spend if they tried to thwart terrorism on their own, and also helps stabilize relations between the states since they are working together.
Being able to work with these other states towards a common goal is a fundamental point of liberalism. The example of counter-terrorism just shows one way in which liberalism is a much more useful and modern-day theory when compared to realism. There are many other examples of states working together towards a common goal, I simply related it to a reading in a different class to give context to different subjects and different classes.
https://lms.dickinson.edu/pluginfile.php/816867/course/section/152653/Byman_terror_taxonomy_2007.pdf
While realists aren't against alliance to combat an enemy/rival, I think you are right to point out Byman's liberal viewpoint. How might you see constructivism working in here? I know this isn't what you post was about but it would be interesting to see you try to play with that a bit.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think about this much during the reading because the liberalism was so apparent, but now that I think back I can see constructivism playing a part in his ideas. I think he focuses on the United States leading the multilateral approach towards defeating al-Qaeda, but the countries that we lead are all part of the same culture. I'm trying to say that most of the countries working together are in the same region and share a similar culture, which means they are wiling to work together in their fight.
DeleteI hope I'm not missing some other piece of the puzzle in his thinking.
It seems that the realist thought on international relations fit comfortably within the context of the great wars of the twentieth century. Powerful nations with massive military forces took aim at one another to affect the hierarchical structure of the international system for the good of their own security and power. These wars, however, differ greatly from today's unconventional war on terrorism. Therefore, the realist theories of yesterday, while still useful, require at least some tweaking to fit the present situation. What changes would you make in this ideology?
ReplyDeleteI think realists need to start realizing that terrorist groups can impact international relations, even though they aren't states. I'm not sure what else they really could do until they recognize terrorist organizations.
Delete