Professor Shirk
Internationals Relations
September 20, 2015
For a long time now the U.S. has been seen by the world as one of the greatest if not the greatest world power. It currently has the largest GDP and one of the largest military's in the world. The U.S. has been seen by many nations as a "world police" because of all the foreign conflicts and engagements they get themselves involved in. Due to this, the U.S. has many rival states that some may even call enemies. Although generally I don't always agree with the realism, I think it's imperative that the U.S. keep a realist mindset in order to protect its national security from foreign threats.
One major threat to U.S. national
security are terrorist groups such as Isis and Al Qaeda. A strong military and
special force groups are essential in the fight to combat terrorism. Ever since
9/11, the U.S. has taken a hard stance on terrorism by drastically increasing its
security in airports and fighting terrorism head on such as when special forces
killed Al Qaeda’s leader Osama Bin Laden. The U.S. must continue promoting an
image abroad that it will not succumb to terrorist threats. This is also
especially crucial for the U.S. since not only do these terrorist groups hate
the west, but even more so the United States. Many may argue that the U.S.
spends too much on its military budget, but it’s vital in the fight against terrorism
and really is part of the U.S.’s cultural identity. If they were to cut down
the defense budget they’d be seen as weaker and more of an easier target.
Another threat comes from states
such as Russia, China, and North Korea. Both Russia and China are large powers
with two of the best economies in the world like the U.S. has. North Korea is
also a massive power, but less is known about their true military potential due
to limited media allowed into the country. All three are seen in a sense as
rivals to the U.S., and also have nuclear capabilities. A realist would argue
that there’s a security dilemma going on with these states since they’re all
great powers who just keep advancing their military technology and budget. This
is in fact the case, so it’s necessary for the U.S. to keep up with these
states in order to achieve hegemony. There’s no doubt the U.S. is a great power,
but it’s all relative and all that really matters is that they are a greater
power in comparison to nations such as Russia, China, and North Korea. All
three countries are communist, and have some major political disagreements with
the way the U.S. goes about its foreign policy. China in particular is the U.S.’s
biggest competition, and many foresee the two great powers entering war in the
future. So it’s always best to be prepared from a military standpoint. Physical
survival is first and foremost, without it nothing else can truly be achieved.
Tomas,
ReplyDeleteDo realists think that groups such as al Qaeda and ISIS are important? What types of actors are important to a realist?
I agree with your position that a Realist would adress Russia, China, and North Korea as major threats to the United States's survivability. However, are al Qaeda and ISIS considered to be states? I do not think so. In terms of being a state, the entity must have a defined territory, of which both al Qaeda and ISIS lack. While the military buildup within these terrorist organizations is threatening from a nonrealist perspective, a realist would view these actions would only be overviewed within the nations in which they happen in. For example, ISIS's military buildup would be seen as a threat of increased military buildup within Iraq, thus making Iraq, not ISIS, a threat to US security.
ReplyDeleteTo answer both of your questions, yes of course from a realist perspective rival states are the most important actors. In terms of Al Qaeda and ISIS, you are both right I should have clarified that the states (such as Iraq) in which these terrorist organizations operate in are the real threat. If it weren't for ISIS, Iraq would not seem as big of a threat to the United States.
ReplyDeleteEchoing previous comments, I disagree that Al-Qaeda and ISIS are states. They are organizations that should be dealt with, but they have yet (and shouldn't) be legitimized as a state on it's own.
ReplyDeleteBack to the comments on the actual states, would is be in the US's best interests to achieve hegemony in the international system? Realists also consider the possibility of shifts in the balance of power. That being said, perhaps US is content with the current status quo that allows it to be prosperous. It's a regional hegemon, but it has not achieve global hegemony, and that seems to be enough.
While I understand that a realist would like to keep our military as powerful as possible, I don't think the realist thought would agree with you that ISIS (which should be called da'ish) and al-Qaeda are groups the United States needs to worry about. While da'ish might be coming into the realm of something to worry about to a realist, since they have a large army and pretty advanced capabilities, I still don't think a realist would bother with them yet. Just something to think about!
ReplyDeleteI agree with previous comments. Realism believes that nation-states are the essential actors in the international system (not individuals, groups, or corporations). In my opinion, due to its focus on the "big picture", the structure of the whole international system and the distribution of power among the nation-states within it, I would argue that realism is becoming increasingly irrelevant in a world of asymmetric warfare with non-state actors like terrorists. How can a model that excludes all parties below the level of the nation-state have anything to say about terrorism?
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with your argument that the United States must keep a realist mindset. There are many other powerful states, such as the one have mentioned, that can equate our own militaristic capabilities. There is no telling when one state may lash out and we as a nation must be prepared to defend ourselves. However, I don't think that we need to keep the same mindset for terrorist groups like ISIS and Al Qadea. While they do pose a threat within their own states, they pale in comparison to Russia and China.
ReplyDelete