Why Terrorists are Realists
Realism
holds the idea that power and security are the main objectives of any country before
they pursue anything else beneficial for their state. I would like to argue
that terrorist can be seen as realists since they pursue a type of power and a
sense of security surrounding their political and ideological identity.
Terrorists
can be defined as a person or group of people that uses acts of violence
against a certain group of people to address a political issue. For example,
the Iran Hostage Crisis of 1979-1980 would be considered an act of terror since
the Iranians addressed the issue of too much Western influence on their land.
Terrorists
can be seen as structural realists since they rely on both the offensive, as
well as the defensive, aspect. Terrorists are generally from the Middle East, a
land that has been under the rule of many empires and nations for a few
centuries. Hence, their objective would be to hold onto their land, or play the
offensive during political conflicts. Furthermore, they find it their duty to protect
their land from Western influence. Hence, they use suicide bombings to send a
striking message to states that they want to be left alone.
Under
the tenets of realism, terrorist first secure power. Most of their power comes
from the military. However, this is not a traditional military; it is made up
of people who are absorbed in their ideologies and are willing to die to defend
their beliefs and their land. The 9/11 incident reveals to Americans and the
West that the terrorists wanted less Western influence on their borders. They
sent a signal to the world that they wanted to handle their own issues without
any states’ interference. Furthermore, terrorists use economic and cultural
power to fuel a need to serve their country. Since they are fighting an
ideological war, they instill into the young men their ideology and culture to
make them have a desire to die for their nation.
Terrorists
also seek security. As stated before, the Middle East has been under the rule
of many rulers, which made their culture almost disappear at one point in
history. Furthermore, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to an increase
dominance of the West in their land. The late twentieth century has been full
of wars set in the Middle East as well. Hence, one can see that the terrorists hold
a fear that they might lose their land and their culture. Therefore, they use
terrorist attacks to excite the world and send a message that they want less
Western influence in their borders and they want to be handle their issues on
their own.
The
fear and the need to preserve what they own drives terrorists to bring fear to
the world with acts of aggression against a state or group of people. They
believe that their beliefs are timeless—the search for an Islamic land where
the caliphate will rule over everyone. This belief drives them to perform shocking
acts, such as suicide bombings, to attract attention and tell the West not to
interfere in their affairs.
Hence,
terrorists are realists because their main goal is to obtain power while
securing their land from losing it yet again.
When I first read the title of this blog, I must admit I was pretty skeptical. I never really thought of terrorists as realists, and I found this to be an interesting piece. While I can agree on some of the points Thomas made, there were still a couple areas of this idea that I would question. For example, in realism the security of the citizens of the nation is what is most important. I don't believe that terrorist groups are necessarily doing acts of terror in order to protect their fellow countrymen and women. I believe that it is done with the intent to hurt another nation.
ReplyDeleteDespite this one small piece, I do agree with a lot of the points that were made. One point I thought was interesting was when Thomas talked about how the terrorists are also seeking security. This was something that never crossed my mind, but the way he connected the past to the present was a great addition to the blog. As a unstable nation, it makes sense that these terrorists would want to prevent their land from being overtaken as it has in the past.
This was not an easy topic to write about, so I give Thomas credit for taking on a tough topic of debate. I enjoyed the piece and found it to be thought provoking and it also helped to further develop my understanding of realism.
Thank you for your comment. In response to your comment I would like to continue arguing that terrorists are realists.
DeleteThe point that you brought up was that terrorists are mainly doing acts of terror with the intent to hurt another nation. And I agree with you partially. Terrorists are using acts of terror to hurt the nation. But I believe that they are doing it with another purpose as well: to send a message to that nation or nations that share a similar ideology. They use such acts of violence as a way to tell that nation to leave their land. Violence, especially the killing of many innocent lives, is convincing enough to get a country out of your land. And terrorists use this technique very well. Hence, they are protecting their land and their people by using something as atrocious as killing themselves and others, which ties to realism.
Thank you.
I personally agree with Thomas in that terrorists can be seen as realists. While realism makes it clear that security and strength are two of its most important ideologies, I don't believe that terrorist groups don't also have those ideals in their core beliefs. Outwardly, terrorism can be seen as radical, fanatical acts of violence by a group in order to get what they want. However, there is always a lot more that is involved for these groups. Security and safety are two things that nearly all terror groups are looking for.
DeleteLook at Hamas for example. People would classify this group as a terrorist organization that kills Jewish civilians and soldiers for their own goals. However, Hamas was founded on the principles of Palestinian protection in the Gaza Strip and a return to their homelands. Hamas does not just kill in order to send a message, they kill to make sure that their citizens are protected and that their homes are secure. In this means of thinking, Hamas would be a realist terror group.
Thomas starts his blog off with a definition of realism which sets up the beginning of his argument. He states that terrorist fit the definition of realists, so the definition is a good thing to include for the reader to look back on. However when talking about IR realism discusses "great powers" something I would argue a terrorist organization is not. He states that terrorist seek power and security.
ReplyDeleteThomas could have made his blog more open by saying terrorist attempt to become great powers through realism, but i do not believe that terrorists are realists because they do not have great power to begin with. They strive to gain power or influence through violent attacks, something a realist might do, but again a organization or terrorists are anti-establishment in my eyes, something that doesn't fit the realist model. I credit Thomas for taking on a hard topic
In response to your comment, I would have to agree that terrorists are not a great power. Realism is usually tied to a great power that is seeking power and security in their region. Terrorists are an organization that is gaining power.
DeleteHowever, I would argue that terrorists utilize the theory of realism well in that they seek power and security in many ways that a similar to a great power seeking power and security. They have an army of radical, ideological men who would sacrifice their lives for the sake of their religion and need to keep their culture; and they feel insecure when the West spreads their influence in their lands. Although terrorists aren't a great power, they can be seen a growing threat, that if not contained, can become a great power eventually.
How do you think realist political scientists would respond to your argument? How do you think terrorists would respond? Is it an entirely realist perspective for terrorists, one of a Hobbesian world, or is there some concepts involving identity and the "other" in there as well?
ReplyDeleteI like how Thomas first defined exactly what realism is and who terrorists are. Then he intertwines the two to show how terrorists are realists. I agree with the points he makes besides the fact that terrorists aren't great powers, because realism usually takes place with great powers. However, terrorists do use realism to gain power, which in turn you could argue that by using realism, they attempt to become a great power.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I would agree with Thomas that terrorists seek security and power through violent force, which is exactly what realists do. Overall, terrorists try to instill fear into their "enemies," or basically, their targets. By doing this, they try to establish a dominance over others by using this fear to make an easiness among them. Therefore, terrorists always keep an element of surprise to their targets because they never know what or when they will perform attacks.