Why Do We Fight - Coursework Example

Why Do We Fight? Why Do We Fight? Introduction Sovereign nations are at liberty to choose policies that would be beneficial to its citizens. The interest of each state is paramount while decision making. When the sovereignty of a given nation is threaten, the country reacts in a given manner. The battle for supremacy has changed from the traditional superpower to contemporary economic and political conflicts. The interaction between states is limited by conflicts involving two opposing sides. The essay will focus on the conflict between the United States and Syria. Conflicts have evolved from the world wars to the cold war. The contemporary conflicts are a matter of personal interests and national security. Resolving these conflicts would need joint efforts. The essay will focus on theories that explain the conflict with respect to each country’s personal interests. Historical relation The USA conflict with the Al- Assad regime began way in 2012. In 2013, the region experienced a quest for regime change affecting most of the regions in the Middle East and Levant regions (Blanchard et al, 2014). The internal matters become a global issue once the passive powers got involved. The first internal conflict took place early in 2011 when rebels called for regime change and engaged with the existing government. This escalated into a civil war that left millions displaced. The issue destabilized the region. The Kurdish region of Kobani would stage another internal conflict that would draw international attention (Dunne, 2013). An uprising calling for independent Islamic states rose and affected the region. USA and her allies called for joint efforts to curb this movement. This would later on escalate into USA- Syrian conflict. Dunne (2013) attributes the internal conflict to failures by the government to control activities within its borders. The loss of confidents from a given percentage of the Syrian created room for the rebels to advance in their activities. USA interests in the region Three major points drove the military actions against the region. The first point is to aid the rebel in ending the Al- Assad rule. This is enhanced by the fact that the current regime is opposed to the USA involvement in the Middle East. The USA perceives the regions stability as integral in their war against insecurity and other forms of terrorism (Blanchard et al, 2014). There was needed for a collaborative government in the region that would ensure the USA’s policies are executed with less resistance. The second aspect falls on the need for regime change in the region n that new ideology that would enhance the regions stability. Fear for counter attacks from the Taliban sympathisers make USA more interested in Syria than any other western state. The regions USA allies’ interests, security needs to be protected, and the military action to the Kurdish region is meant to achieve these goals. The final reason as to why the USA engaged the region in a military battle is the economic interest of the USA in the region. USA interest in Iraq places Syria as an important location. Instability associated with internal conflict within Syria would jeopardise the economic interest in the region. After the USA invasion in Iraq, USA was mandate the duties of ensure a more stabilised Iraq and continue their previous economic interest in Iraq. The USA Syrian lack of control of the Kurdish region makes the Syrian- Iraq border more porous. This makes it difficult for the USA to advance in their economic plans, to restore the Iraq’s economy and pursued development agendas. The funds and resources allocated to fighting Iraq and the Taliban forces needs to be minimized in the long –run thus destabilising rebels and other fighters according to Funk and Said (2004) should be the solution. Syrian perspective The military actions by the Syrian state in fighting allies associated to the USA are meant to protect their sovereignty. External interference means that the stability and economic agendas being pushed by the Assad would stall. The country is faced by a conflict that places Syria on the other side while the USA on the attacking end. This adds to the internal conflicts associated with the regime change agendas pushed by the US-backed rebels. The mandate of each state is to protect its people and at the same time ensure the sitting government enhances the much-needed security (Steans et al, 2005) The argument on the government side is to protect the sovereignty of the state by limiting external conflicts. The authorities hence fights to protect the presidency and to restore calm after years of civil unrest. The impact the war has on the economy is threatening instability within the administration and hence the counter strikes are meant to protect the economic interests of Syria while ensuring stability. Realism theory in relation to the conflict Nations seek power for various reasons. Those powerful nations would tend to prove their supremacy over smaller and weaker nations (Landry & Rickles, 2012). For case of the conflict between Syria and USA, the states portray a supremacy battle. This is evident by the manner in which the USA funds rebels to fight the ISIL movement and the same time offer Military assistance to the Kurdish Syrian and Iraq to aid in their power quest within the Middle East countries. The cause of disagreement is how the western states would control the region. The engagement of America in every world conflict indicates the lust for power, which is a key component of the realism theory (Donnelly, 2000). The geographical location of these two states eliminates the notion of inter-border conflicts. The war s between who can have a greater control of nations in the world. Choosing Syria as a party of conflict is a leeway in which USA would formulate their Iraq agenda and their power expansion to the Middle East. Syria on the other hand utilises the Steans et al. (2005) which they argue on decision-making based on the sovereignty of a given nation. The focus is to eliminate external factors that would affect the normal operation of a given nation. There is the concept of international relation where a given state chooses how they relate with other countries in matters trade and political interactions (Steans et al, 2005). This gives the Syrian notation either to honour treaties or reject on terms determined Syrian philosophies. The USA invasion to the country and support to rivals indicates in their own states. The Syrian choice would be to determine those international ganders that encourage their cohesion and stability and defend themselves against actions that will derail them. The action to counter the USA presence indicates the dissatisfaction and a bridge of policy, which entail each country independently, make choices. The conflict under the realism theory places the USA struggle for power to their invasion of Syria. The defensive nature of Syria also indicates the manner in which a state may protect its sovereignty. Hegemony perspective The supremacy of any given nation would be characterised b their economic status and levels of security. USA offense against the ISIL in Syria can be described has eliminating security threats against the USA in the Middle East (The Editorial Board, 2014). Securing the Middle East would ensure the United States of America to concentrate on their economic agenda and thus competing with other western states. This theory indicates the efforts by an individual state to gain power over the rest of nations (Bruchill et al, 2005). The stability of Syria and the Latvian states would increase the relationship between the USA and other countries. The solo engagement by the USA army ascertains the claims of power classes within society advocated by this theory. Personal opinion The major reason of the conflict is the battle for world control between the western countries. The most appropriate theory to explain the occurrence would be the constructivism theory, which acknowledges the different opinions that escalate into a conflict (Bruchill et al, 2005). This is evident on the ISIL calls for an independent state, which in the USA opinion would derail world peace and expose the US into a wider range of insecurity. The conflict arises when one party tries to control activities of the other nation. The Syrian- US conflict falls majorly on the concept in that two different nations with cultural parities engage each other fearing the influence one may have to its culture and political structure. Thus, both parties may all find the theory appropriate while discussing national security and international relations. Conclusion It is evident on how contemporary conflicts are a matter of personal interests and national security. The relationship between the conflicting sides is more of supremacy battles rather that politic related conflict. Those battling for supremacy would use military power to safeguard their current power position. The sovereignty of a nation would prompt defensive actions by the country under attack. Power struggle in the USA- Syrian conflict plays a major role in the continued attack and offense. In is clear on how freedom assigned through the realism theory either may enhance international relationship or may jeopardise world peace. Sovereignty and national security goes hand in hand and any effort by other nations to influence these two components may face either military or economic offenses from the affected nations. Reference Blanchard, C.M., Humud, C.E. & Nikitin, M.B. (2014).Armed conflict in Syria: Overview and US response: Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U.S. Response. Congressional research service. [online]. Accessed from: < http://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33487.pdf > [22 November 2014] Bruchill, S., Linklater, A., Devetak, R., Donnelly, J., Paterson, M., Smit, C. & True, J .2005. Theories of International Relations. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. Donnelly, J. 2000. Realism and international relations. London Cambridge University Press. Dunne, C. 2013. The Syrian Crisis: A Case for Greater U.S. Involvement. [online]. Accessed at: [22 November, 2014] Funk, N.C., & Said, A.A. 2003. Islam and the West:.Narratives of Conflict and Conflict Transformation. International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 2-20 Landry, E., & Rickles, D. 2012. Structural realism: structure, object and causality. New York Springer science Steans, J., Pettiford , L. & Biez. T. 2005. Introduction to International Relationships: Perspective and Themes. The Editorial Board. 2014. Confronting the ISIL Threat. New York times [online]. Accessed from: [22 November 2014] Read More