Cam
Hainey
Professor
Shirk
International
Politics
September
17th, 2017
A
Realism Approach to Eliminate Terrorism
When looking at the realist theory I
started to relate it to a class I took called Global Politics of Terrorism.
When looking at the content of that class and the realist theory I believe that
States take a realist approach when confronted with terrorism. Terrorism is
using coercion because it is trying to force a state to do something and states
then use coercion to fight the terrorism and force them through military forced
to end the violence they have created.
Terrorist groups threaten a states
security and therefore the only way IR approach that focuses on security is
realism. The first thing that I related to this class was the balance of power.
With terrorism, states will come together and combine forces to eliminate or
prevent terrorism from spreading or threatening states any more. This balance
of power occurs among recognized states coming together to eliminate the threat
of an unrecognized state. In many cases the larger more powerful military force
wins, and most of the time the recognized states that combine military powers have
the larger more powerful military and therefore are able to dominate the
terrorist group most of the time. For example Al-Qaeda threatened the security
of many states, those state (such as United States, Germany and Great Britain)
then came together and created a military force that was too large and powerful
for Al-Qaeda to overcome and ultimately has been reduced to a much less of a
threat then they were 10 years ago.
The “war on terror” is one that can
be fueled by the need to have cultural power as well and security of a states
identity and image. States view terrorists as a threat to not only the state
itself and it’s survival but also the culture and identity of the state. The
United States receives more support in the fight of ISIS in some sense because
they pose a threat to the western culture. There values are different then the
wests and the culture of ISIS is different then that of Western Civilization
and Europe, which poses a threat all alone because in realism any threat to a
states identity is a threat to its survival. This need to protect a states
identity and culture to survive from a threat from a different culture or
different groups identity is dealt with military power. This realist approach
is how states approach terrorism.
Ultimately though when it comes down to
it, states are worried about self help before mutual benefits. When a terrorist
attack occurs in a foreign state the initial reaction of a state isn’t to send
help to that state but to first decide if there is any threat to their state
first. The terror attacks in France for instance, when those attacks first occurred
the US sent people over to investigate, and their first priority is to decide
if there is any threat to the US. With all of this, this is why I believe that
in the case of terrorist states take a realist approach to solving and
eliminating terrorists.
Cam makes a good point in relating realism to the balance of power. I enjoyed how he stated that states will band together to oppose terrorist forces, however, make sure they stay true to the main desire in realism, keeping the home state safe. Additionally, I thought the statement that the war on terror can be fueled by the need to have cultural power and the security of identity to be an interesting thought within this topic.
ReplyDeleteCam's point of view on the matter of terrorism makes a lot of sense. He makes it very clear that realism is the only theory that really talks about security and explains in depth why realism can really work. I would like to also hear a counter point of view and see the argument broken down and taken apart. I wanted to hear about why the other theories would not work as well as this one.
ReplyDeleteCam makes a very good point on how countries really only use realism when dealing with terrorist threats around the world. It is a very good point how countries will work together to essentially overpower a terrorist threat and make it obsolete, which is effective for the most part. I also found it interesting that Cam stated the war on terror is driven by the desire for cultural power, while I feel like it is mostly driven by hate.
ReplyDeleteCam did a good job of explaining how realism is used against terrorists. I liked how he pointed out how the war on terror can be looked at as fuel by trying to gain cultural power and security of a state's identity/image. When thinking about the war on terror may people would not think of cultural power but it is true that it makes a difference when looking at the war of terror. When there is a terrorist attack somewhere that is similar to us/ seen as being part of the Western Civilization like the United States and some places in Europe (like london, france, etc), we react more to it and it is known more. This was clear when there was an attack in paris, France and Turkey/ the middle east less than a week apart. When it was in Paris it was talked about more in the news and was all over Facebook with people changing their profile picture and tagging prayer paris but when the same type of terrorist attack happened a few days later in Turkey/ the middle east not may people knew about it and it was barely mentioned on Facebook so cultural power is a big part of the war on terror like Cam said.
ReplyDelete