Can the War on Terror Be Understood in Terms of Realism - Essay Example

Can the war on terror be understood in terms of realism? The war on terror has its roots in American philosophy on war. The U.S has stuck with the classic interpretation of realism in defining and curbing terrorism. Realism has many definitions and elucidations; there is no hard line jumble of words that can specifically define the ‘war on terror’. For the purpose of this paper, war on terror will be understood from the U.S. perspective and what the U.S. think-tanks consider realism to formulate their war policies. Realism itself isn’t a strict description. Looking at the variations in its definition reveals significant diversity. This shouldn’t be startling as they all have a common origin and considering the complexity of the subject, it deserves this literary stretch. If Marxism and Christianity can have various interpretations, so can realism. John J. Mearsheimer, professor at the University of Chicago was once asked what realism says about terrorism, and his answer was, ‘Not a whole heck of a lot, Realism…..is really about relations among states, especially among the great powers……Realism doesn’t have much to say about the causes of terrorism’1. It would be better to take a look at various realism theories before going into the details of the war on terror. Realism is a ‘philosophical disposition’ in the words of Robert Gilpin; many commentators have considered it a general orientation and not a set of explicit rules. According to Ferguson and Mansbach, it is a set of normative emphases that shape the theory and an ‘attitude of mind’ with distinct and perceptible flavours in the words of Edward Garnett. Sandra Rosenthal considers realism a ‘loose framework’ while Colin Elman considers it a ‘big tent’ that has room to accommodate a number of theories and notions2. Realism is a methodology of understanding international relations and many scholars and thinkers have placed themselves in the growth of this method that is why it has been delimited in its projection and analysis. It is a little difficult to enclose terrorism or ‘war on terror’ in one definition of realism. Terrorism is a concept that has reached all corners of the earth. No place on this planet is oblivion of this concept, especially after the sad September 11 attacks on the twin towers of U.S. and the America’s ‘war on terror’. This phrase has redefined domestic conflicts and territorial skirmishes. Prior to 9/11 attacks and the alleged ‘war on terror’, terrorist groups were indigenous of their terrains but now just like international trade and commerce, terrorism network has gone global. All over the world, every now and then, new terrorist groups with their old as well as novel ideologies are being identified. Despite of all this feel of new trend about terrorism, it is not at all a new phenomenon. Terrorism (as it is recognized today) has harassed humanity since French Revolution and the 19th Century Russian Conflicts. Even the post 9/11 war on terrorism can be rooted back to the 16th Century when terrorists were considered the enemy and they were fought with, indicating that terrorism has always been a constituent of modern world history. Despite its international acknowledgement and the troubles it has created for mankind over the centuries, there is no single universally accepted definition of terrorism and consequently, no definition of ‘war on terror’. Every state or region has its own understanding of terrorism and based on those understandings; counter terrorism policies are formulated and executed. The U.S. is a classic example of formulating its own policies regarding ‘war on terror’. This specific ‘war on terror’ is governed by orthodox realist theories. And these theories initiated the invasion of several countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) and global intervention to allegedly destroy terrorist networks. The realist thought and ideology that fuels this war is misguided and problematic as the realism (The U.S. version) ignores the structural features of terrorism. This is why the war on terror has proved counterproductive so far3. The U.S. ‘war on terror’ is based on orthodox realism which ignores the root causes of terrorism and engages power politics to curb its growth and value. And based on the same principles of realism that U.S. formulated its ‘war on terror’ policies, this war will not limit terrorism instead, this Frankenstein of terrorism will continue to grow. The war on terror has its roots in idealist realism. As far as the question of the paper is concerned, war on terror can be understood from realism theories but the war is and will remain ineffective in controlling terrorism, especially the international terrorism. According to Kenneth N. Waltz, realism is that item which provides the state with the spring of action to take care of its own interests. This representation of realism is probably the governing principle of the ‘war on terror’, as Waltz further elaborates his notions by stating that success is the ultimate test of a policy for a state, and preserving and strengthening the state is the very definition of success4. The war on terror is not based on curbing and killing the terrorist groups, it’s about preserving and promoting the state’s interest. Success is the guiding force that escorts the artillery and ammunition into Iraq and Afghanistan. There is always a debate about why does the U.S had to invade Iraq? Many commentators from print and electronic media state that oil brought the U.S. army to Iraq. Even if America went to war in the name of eliminating terrorist groups, the basic driving force lies in the orthodox theory of realism which states that a country wants to be successful and success is achieved by preserving and strengthening its interests. Structure of terrorism (regarding ‘war on terror’) is based on international terrorism network. International terrorism is defined as when the victim and the perpetrator are from two separate countries. However, U.S. war on terror is based on transnational terrorism which is almost the same as international terrorism but has various hierarchies. Transnational terrorism comprises of; Trans border coordination of bomb plots Internationally functional terrorism infrastructure Financing at International level Global trade of ammunition Recruitment and training across the globe5 Instead of understanding the ‘war on terror’, it would be more appropriate to understand the causes of terrorism to better understand the realism that formulates war policies. This realistic war on terror is only a reaction to the actions of the terrorists. The causes of global or transnational terrorism are more than one and various theories capture different aspects but not one theory explains everything. Terrorists hate the U.S. most probably because of its involvement and intervention in the Arab world. Various political and military interventions of the U.S. in the Middle East are more than enough to trigger hateful emotions towards America. The U.S. intervened in 1953 in Iran, 1979 in Afghanistan, 1983 in Lebanon, 1992 and 1998 in Iraq, 2001 in Afghanistan and again in Iraq in 20036. One way that the war on terror can be understood is because of the involvement of U.S., politically and militarily in the Arab region. Such actions cause disturbances and animosity among the regional people. They consider the interests of the U.S. (economic, territorial, etc.) as their loss. They feel the urge to destroy those interests. Such revulsion transformed into a complete war against the interests of America and now to protect those interests, the ‘war on terror’ has been lodged. Another way to understand war on terror is according to Neorealism. This theory explains that as the U.S. is the sole superpower of the world, the minor powers will always try to get level with it7. Destroying the interests of the U.S. would be one way to achieve this goal. If ‘war on terror’ is understood from this theory of Neorealism, then this war is completely justified as America is only defending its own interests and growth. If this theory of Neorealism is accepted then sub state actors cannot be highlighted in regards with ‘war on terror’ because this theory doesn’t regard such factors. The U.S. spends so much on its defence that the sheer volume of its defence budget can create huge problems. This power position of U.S. sends hate signals that create strong Anti-American sentiment in other nations. After all balance of power is natural. And the humungous spending on weapons by the U.S. can lead to efforts to balancing power by sub-state actors but Neorealism doesn’t support this. Realism lays emphasis on power and interests as the main motivators for international politics. Realism explains that there is no international government (this rules out the effectiveness of the U.N). Survival of the fittest is still the law in international politics. Being fit is defined as being successful and success is accomplished through power and dominance of power. Kenneth W. Thompson, an American Academic, stated that human nature has not changed since the time of the distant past8. Furthermore, realists like Thompson argue that human nature at its very core is egoistic and lacks moral value, people are wicked and they are driven by malignity when the opportunity presents itself. This alone is sufficient to understand international politics as well as the war on terror. There are certain realists that also consider the softer side of human nature. They consider humans to be somewhat moral but international politics is mainly governed by the egoistic nature of humans, there is no arguing on this statement. There is the ‘presence of tragic evil in all political actions’9. The war on terror is waged to paralyze the terrorists groups who destroy or seek to destroy the Western interests (primarily American interests). But coming back to the realist interpretation, war on terror is waged only to promote U.S. interests. Media projects this war as it is a conflict between the good guys and bad guys when in fact there is no good or evil involved in it. Realism comprehensively explains this war. War on terror is waged only to remove the resistance in the growth of U.S. power, both military and economic. War on terror is a result of political anarchy. Here anarchy is a very loaded word as it explains what goes on when there is no international government. People behave within a state or country only because they are governed by an authority. Same principle explains the anarchy (i-e, the war on terror), as there is no supreme authority governing international politics, only powers and super powers. When there is an absence of authority or a formal government, the law of jungle prevails. The number of human causalities in the war on terror is alarming and it cannot be explained by any other theory other than the orthodox realist theory. Majority of people who lost their lives were innocent of any crime. The humiliation and torture that victims suffered in Abu-Gharib jail only confirms realist theories, theories like the ones proposed by Sir Herbert Buttefield that the human nature is frail in happy conditions but in different scenarios, it is capable of hideous acts10. History reveals that the struggle of power has remained prevalent in all ages. Primacy has always remained influential and noticeable in all regions of the world politics. But the way popular print and electronic media talks about the war on terror gives the indication that the U.S. is probably waging wars all over the world in the name of ‘security’, when there is no denying that the use of force and dependence on this tool explains a lot about power politics of the world. Therefore, ‘security’ only means a less violent world with less risk and less danger. There can never be complete eradication of terrorism from the world. That is the essence of statesmanship, there is no elimination, only managing and mitigating the battle. Thomas Hobbes, an English polymath used an interesting way to describe the human nature in his book Leviathan. His statement will be an excellent conclusion of this paper as it comprehensively explains the ‘war on terror’. Hobbes stated that, ‘the natural condition of a man is a state of war’11. Bibliography Dipl. Pol. C Beyer, Why Idealist Realism can’t win the War on Terrorism, British International Studies Association, retrieved 31 December 2011, . K L Shimko, International Relations: Perspectives and Controversies, Cengage Learning Press, 2009 J Donnelly, Realism and International Relations, Cambridge University Press, 2000 Read More