Turn on the news
and the first thing you’ll hear about is the topic of the US air strikes in
Syria. I have been following this story closely for a while now, and our class
readings and discussions have allowed me to relate our material to this
important current event. President Obama just recently gave the order to
proceed with the air strikes after months without a concrete plan. President
Obama’s foreign policy has been under great scrutiny, and I believe it is for
good reason. The safety and well being of our citizens should be the number one
priority of the President, and the President’s foreign policy has not been a
reflection of this. The decision to allow airstrikes mirrors a more realist
approach to foreign policy, and I believe this is what needed to be done. The
President should focus on putting security first, making our citizens feel
safe, and taking the proper steps in the attack of our foreign combatants.
The current
situation is one of great complexity, but errors in decision-making have made
it this way. For example, the removal of troops from Iraq at an unstable time
has allowed ISIS to occupy parts of the country as well as destroy the existing
government. I understand that it is difficult to make the decision to engage in
combat for a multitude of reasons; however, the inability to take action
against a serious threat has left us in an even more difficult place than we
were weeks ago.
One of the staples
of realism is the emphasis on security. The safety and well being of our
countrymen and women should be placed before anything else. While we should
strive to be moral and just, there is no universal definition of what morality
is, especially in times of war. In Morganthau’s “Six Principles to Political
Realism,” the issue of morality is addressed. President Obama did look into
what he thought would be the moral thing to do, but he delayed taking any
action for an extended period of time. Some may argue his new tactics are
immoral, but as Morganthau said, “the state has no right to let its moral
disapprobation… get in the way of successful political action…(Morganthau 12)" We are not
seeking war; we are doing what is necessary to protect our country.
These terrorists
have murdered countless men and women and have threatened our national
security. The President’s less than authoritative stance in foreign
policy has put us in a difficult situation, and he should’ve addressed the
issues with a realist approach earlier in his term. As a leader of a country,
citizens put their faith in you to protect them from any threats and to take
the proper actions. With his past approach to foreign policy, President Obama
had Americans feeling as if they were unsafe. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC
News poll revealed that “47 percent of Americans feel the country is less safe
than it was before we were attacked on 9/11 2001 (O'Reilly 1).” This number rose from 28
percent to 47 percent in just one year, which proves Americans have not been
confident in the President’s ability to protect us from harm. I believe the
switch to a realist approach will improve the feeling of safety and security in
our country.
My argument is not
that there is no room for any other type of foreign policy, but rather that we
should determine the best course of action given the situation at the time. As
a result of this idea, I believe it would be foolish to embody any other
foreign policy than realism at this moment in time.
Works Cited:
Morgenthau, Hans. “Six Principles of Political
Realism” in International Politics:
Enduring
Concepts and Contemporary Issues. edited by Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis. 8th
ed. New York: Pearson/Longman,
2007,
O'Reilly, Bill. "Protecting the Folks." Fox News. N.p.,
10 Sept. 2014. Web. 23 Sept. 2014.
I credit Max for taking a stand early in his blog. By tying the features of the class to such a modern and close topic he shows he obviously understands the concepts in a real world context. I agree with some of his points, and disagree with others. By pulling out of Iraq without a stable government in place, US decision makers left the structure of the country weak and susceptible to a force like ISIS.
ReplyDeleteI do understand why some people believe that airstrikes targeting ISIS are in the best interest for the US public. However by going overseas to fight ISIS, the US is getting itself back into a war that seems almost unwinnable without the full support of Allies and other countries that see ISIS as a threat. By bombing targets on the other side of the world, the President is asking for a stronger retaliation from ISIS. Also innocent people are dying from these drone strikes, something that is never touched on in American Politics. It is very easy to label someone as a murderer of innocent people to justify attacking them, but our president is not innocent of any ill-advised bombing himself, something I think Max would agree on. By touching on the fear of the threat of ISIS, and it being the driving force for action, Max encompasses the realist point of view in his last paragraph. Overall i enjoyed this blog post and the different viewpoints of myself.
I enjoyed the perspective that Max displays in the blog. There were points that I agreed with and points that I disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteI agree with claim that America removing troops from Iraq has only made ISIS grow worse in the world. In a country that is politically unstable, America should have kept their troops for a little while longer. Now, it's almost as if all the years of pain and bloodshed has only hurt the country, seeing Iraq being taken over by an extremist group.
However, I disagree with the position that America should have a realist perspective in this issue. Seeing that ISIS is only becoming a greater threat not only in the country, but the world, if any country decides not to intervene, then ISIS will become one of the greatest threats since Germany in WW2.
Hence, I would argue that America take on a liberalist point of view when combating against ISIS. By rationally thinking through the choices, and relying on institutions such as the UN, ISIS can possibly be stopped. And so, I say that America should continue their foreign policy with the objective of trying to live with interdependence.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this blog post because it was one that was not only related to the real world, but to United States policies, which affects all of us. Max does a good job of relaying facts that help back up his argument about the need for more realism in modern American foreign policy, especially in areas where ISIS has been gaining followers. He took a significant tenant of realism, the emphasis on security and protection of citizens and made that the centerpiece of his discussion, allowing it flow well. For the most part, I completely agree with Max on the subject, especially concerning airstrikes and having a generally more realist approach to certain situations.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I support about this post is when Max talked about how airstrikes on areas, however unfortunate, are a necessary measure that need to be taken for security purposes. Though airstrikes and drone attacks may kill many people and cause a lot of problems, I feel they are necessary for the security of the nation and in order to remove people or things that would cause harm to the nation. In this sense, this is a realist perspective on the subject.
Another idea that I agreed with was when Max stated we need to have a more realist foreign policy approach concerning the situation with ISIS. The group is only just starting to grow into an extremely dangerous political group, and stopping them sooner than later is essential. There needs to be a strong and intimidating response to ISIS and the best way to achieve that is through realist ideology like airstrikes and troops.
Overall, I felt that this was a very interesting and well thought out blog post. Max did very well in not only explaining realism, but also in proving that realism should be further implemented in the foreign policy goals of the country.
First and foremost, I like how Max introduces his blog post. It clearly states his point of view and exactly what it is that he will cover for the rest of the entry. Also, his topic is not only relevant and blog worthy, but it is as current as possible and not only relates to our class and world politics, but has a focus on our own country. Max also makes it clear that he takes a personal interest in the topic, which makes it more personalized.
ReplyDeleteThe issue at hand is certainly a complicated one, and Max notices this. Therefore, although he criticizes Obama's decisions, he does understand his thought process. I both agree and disagree with Max on this issue. Even though the President should have the safety of the American people as his first priority, as one of the biggest (if not the biggest) power in the world, it is also our responsibility to maintain justice throughout the world. With the murders of innocent people by ISIS, I think airstrikes upon them is a possible solution. However, is it worth it? As Max stated, as hard as we act upon ISIS, they will retaliate only stronger. The important question we must therefore ask is, how strong should our anti-terrorism measures against ISIS go to still maintain our own National Security?