A Naive Constructivist's Approach to the IS

             On June 29^th, 2014 Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi created the Islamic State, a bastion of militant Sunni Islam.  Since its construction, the Islamic State (IS) has embarked on a campaign of terror and brutality, killing thousands of innocents across the Middle East. As a constructivist, I believe that education, not violence, is key to combating the dangerous social forces behind the radical Islamic State.
             In order to understand this viewpoint the tenets of constructivism must be laid out. Students of constructivism believe that international relations are historically and socially constructed. Constructivists believe that the goals of states and the people in the states come from their identity, a “We are ‘X’ therefore we should do ‘Y’” mentality. (Lecture, Constructivism). The French philosopher Michel Foucault espoused a similar theory he called “discourse”. Discourse, Foucault explained, is a “regime of truth” a society establishes that frames and enforces a certain set of morality, goals, and politics (Foucault, Power/Knowledge, 109-133). Constructivism and discourse both boil down to the idea that societal constructs ultimately have a huge role in determining the morality and policy of states and people.

            Couple the theory of constructivism and the theory of discourse with some basic assumption about human nature, and the natural conclusion is to use education to combat Islamic radicalism. One basic assumption is that humans are born a blank slate for the most part, and people are taught rationality, morality, etc. by the society they are born into.  So with this “blank slate” or “tabula rasa” theory, a theory perpetuated by some of the greatest philosophers of all time, including John Locke, we can conclude that no one is born evil, and no one is born irrational, barring some genetic predisposition that makes them irrevocable evil or irrational, such as anti-social personality disorder. Furthermore, we can posit that no one chooses to be evil or irrational, rather, people are made "evil" thanks to social forces convincing them that "evil" is "good". When ISIS members behead journalists, kill Kurds, and threaten Western civilization, they are not doing so out of a desire to be evil, they are doing it because they have been taught it is good. Al-Baghdadi himself stated that they he is fighting for “dignity, might, right and leadership” (Strange, The Telegraph). The fighters in the Islamic State honestly believe they are the forces of good, thanks to the social forces influencing their moral sense.

            Building off these assumptions and theories, we should assume that, in many regards, the militants in the IS are not militants by choice, but rather due to social forces that have warped their ability to think rationally, making good into evil and vice versa. The social and political forces behind the IS are the problem, and we must find some way to destroy those forces, if we truly want to destroy the IS, and promote peace in the Middle East. The question now is how to destroy these forces. Military intervention will only fuel the hatred that extremists feel towards Western powers. If we kill a member of the IS, his brother, father, sister, mother, son, daughter, will all feel a personal grievance and hatred towards Western powers, and any or all of them may take up arms against the "evil" of the United States. Short of committing literal genocide and obliterating every family in the Middle East, we cannot use violence to destroy this radicalism. Instead of using violence, we should use education and other soft powers to destroy the irrational and barbaric social forces that fuel the rage of the IS. By using education, we will not only save the lives of all those individuals in the Middle East that the IS is currently threatening, but also save the lives of the brainwashed members of the IS. Violence should only be used to keep the IS contained, and prevent any further attacks on the Yazidis, Kurds, Iraqis, and Syrians, but bombing IS strongholds and cities will only perpetuate a cycle of violence that we as a species must end.

            You can trace back a cycle of dogmatic violence to the beginning of humankind. The only way to stop the circle is for the developed and educated states of the world to recognize the citizens in the IS as victims, and use our power to elevate the IS to the light, rather than burn it to the ground.

Bibliography:

Foucault, Michel, and Colin Gordon. Power/knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon, 1980. Print.

Strange, Hannah. "Islamic State Leader Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi Addresses Muslims in Mosul." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 5 July 2014. Web. 26 Sept. 2014.

Measrsheimer, Realism, and its Relevance

In Anarchy and the Struggle for Power, Measrsheimer discusses competition between states from a realist point-of-view.  A realist believes that security is survival, and this article supports that with “the principle motive behind great power states is survival,” so it is therefore in a state’s best interest to think offensively and gain power over other states.  Measrsheimer paints an “every-man-for himself” picture whilst describing states’ struggle for power maximization in the international community.  He writes, “Great powers, I argue, are always looking to gain power over their rivals.” Though a realist standpoint does not always directly reflect my own beliefs, I think that Measrsheimer’s idea of a state’s desire for power maximization for the sake of security can be recognized in most international conflict amongst nations. The United States, for example, finds security in being a great military and economic power.  If our security were to be threatened by another nation or terrorist group, it would be in our best interest to do whatever we need to “gain power over our rivals.” 

Looking at past and current terrorist conflicts is the best way for me to connect reality with Measrsheimer’s beliefs.  He believes in anarchy, the desire to survive encourages states’ to behave aggressively.  Looking at 9/11, its obvious that the United State’s security was threatened, there was chaos, and it can be argued that we did not have the “upper-hand.”  In this case, I agree that Measrsheimer is accurate in saying that this encouraged offensive action in the sake of the state- the Iraq War. (Obviously there were other things to contribute to declaring a war with Iraq but that’s another blog post.)  This is also applicable to our current situation with ISIS.  Bombing their territories was an offensive move to remain the greater power.  Acting under fear, for loss of power and state security, the United State’s made offensive military decisions.  That alone is Measrsheimer’s whole argument, which is why I agree that his ideas are so relevant when it comes down to international conflict. 

It is difficult attempting to apply such a broad idea like realism to such complex international situations, but I think that Measrsheimer’s ideas are an acceptable outlook on international relations.  (His ideas are so similar to Machiavelli’s in The Prince, too, to bring up another realist-like outlook on relations among states.)  I agree with him in that power maximization and fear for security is a basis for understanding many nations’ military decisions.  Though I also believe any international situation can be logically examined and explained through a realist, liberal, or constructive lens.

Food Dumping

Food Dumping 

            Food Dumping is a very interesting and important topic when it comes to world hunger. The idea behind food dumping is that by giving large amounts of free food to poverty areas we can actually make these areas worse in the long run. It is important to know that I am only referring to poverty areas where the level of hunger is not described as an emergency, but hunger is still a prevalent issue in the area. If an area is in an emergency situation due to hunger then food dumping is great aid to these areas. However, when hunger is not an emergency in the area food dumping can cause negative long lasting effects. This is because by giving massive amounts of free food to a poverty area you are affecting all of the local farming businesses. So while yes you are momentarily helping the area with their hunger problem at the same time you are setting the area up for long lasting hunger problems. Since most of these areas economies rely on the well being of local farms; food dumping has become a prevalent issue. It can be hard to believe that donating food can be detrimental to a poverty area; but the negative outcomes of food dumping are not hard to understand. Since food is being given to poverty areas in massive quantities through government and global aid programs less food is being purchased from local farms in the areas. So while the problem of hunger is being addressed local farms that can’t compete with food dumping are going out of business. Since local farms are usually a big part of the economies of high poverty areas this clearly affects the ability of the area to improve its economy in the future. Therefore we see that the area remains with economic and hunger problems in the future due to food dumping.  From all this information the question arises that if donating food to high poverty areas is actually detrimental to their future success, then what can we do to help these areas with both their hunger and economic issues.

            I believe that a liberal perspective could offer some solutions to the problem of food dumping. The first possible solution would be to give money to the people in these high poverty areas so that they can use it to buy food from local farms. This would deal with the problem of hunger and would not be detrimental to the local economy. Of course we would have to assume that the people receiving the money supplements would use it rationally for food from local farms and not for other products. Another possibility is to give money to the local farms in the high poverty areas and hope to stimulate their market so that they can get food to the hungry more effectively. If local farms were to receive a stimulus they could produce more food and sell it at a cheaper price to the people. Therefore, the problem of hunger is being controlled and the local farms are prospering causing the economy to improve as a whole. Again both of these strategies rely on the liberal idea that the people receiving the money will use it rationally and not waste the opportunity to improve their economy. One option is to put regulations on the money being given out so that the recipients can only use it for certain things. However, I believe that a liberal would not want too many regulations and practices to be put in effect. They would believe that the program should not have an overbearing government presence but instead leave the recipients to make good decisions about how to use the supplement money. Overall I believe that with the right approach a liberal perspective could be used to help fix the problem of food dumping.

Soft Power

             In the late 1980s, Joseph Nye introduced the concept of “soft power” –the ability of  “a country to obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries want to follow it, admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness.” Although the use of hard power dates back to the inception of government, it is no longer the sole method for a State to exert its global dominance. The traditional victory of war that hard power entails is rather elusive in this day and age. In a world that grows smaller as a result of globalization, the immediate but short-lived effect of hard power is not the principal choice anymore. In terms of international relations, States should be more reliant on soft power to gain admiration to their ideals as well as policies because this method has a more enduring effect and its execution requires fewer resources. 

            The effect of soft power has a more durable impact than that of hard power. As a result of globalization, Western culture has permeated most of the “developing world.” Social activist Naomi Klein states, “Despite different cultures, middle class youth all over the world seem to live their lives as if in a parallel universe. They get up in the morning, put on their Levi’s and Nikes, grab their caps and backpacks, and Sony personal CD players and head for school.” Klein’s assertion is still relevant in that it supports this long-term evolutionary trend and depicts the extent to which Western influence has spread worldwide. It may not be CD players now, but iPhones and iPods are the must have item among teens all over the world. Thus, the cultural customs and popular merchandise adopted by other States as a result of the influence of Western culture, depicts soft power, though in a subtle sense. Soft power gives States an alternative to the traditional “by all means necessary” approach of hard power. States can use soft power to their advantage to not only sell popular market items, but to also sell their ideals and foreign policies with the prospects of long-term retention. Furthermore, exerting soft power not only has a long-term effect but also reduces the possibility of detrimental consequences.  

Finally, if States are able to have other States admire their ideals, then there is a reduction in the amount spent on the sticks and carrots approach in order to protect the States interest. Unlike hard power, soft power requires fewer resources and is subsequently less costly. Joseph Nye explains, “ the soft power of a country rest on primarily three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad); and its foreign polices (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority).” Thus, relying on soft power rather than hard power, will not only yield desired results but it will also be less costly. In other words, the State will not have to exhaust resources such as weaponry and military presences to achieve desired goals. Moreover, in addition to the reduction of monetary cost, soft power may substantially diminish the cost of lost lives. When engaging in war or launching attacks on other States to get a desired result, there is an inevitable a cost of life that does not occur when soft power is utilized.

Many individuals argue that the modern political philosopher Niccolò Machiavelli was correct in his assertion that a “prince should be feared rather than loved.” In other words, States should primarily use coercion over admiration in order to get what they want. However, the reality is that the era in which we live now differs from politics to technological advances in comparison to Machiavelli’s time. Indeed, hard power should not be completely eliminated; but states can make use of other types of influence apart from military strength and economic governance. War is no longer the only option for a States to make advances internationally. The exclusive use of fear and coercion can result in States gaining undesired adversaries. Where as through the exercise of soft power, there is a greater possibility for alliances or simply healthier relationships among States.

Soft power can promote a system that benefits all States globally and improve the prospects for diplomatic contact, commerce, and trade amongst States. In consequence, States that depend more on the appropriate execution of soft power in the international sphere can contribute to improving the world.

A realist view of ISIS

                I think that it’s pretty generally accepted within the United States that the bombings in Iraq and Syria was the best course of action to take. Realistically, it is not an option to ignore ISIS any longer. However, just for the sake of playing devil’s advocate, I am going to argue that from a realist point of view, bombing ISIS is not the best course of action to take.

                To begin, realism focuses on states as the only actors in international relations. As a result, it ignores the war on terror completely because these terrorist groups are considered peripheral to the main state actors. Therefore, on a basic level, realists might not even view ISIS as a threat that we have to deal with because they are not a state.

Another way in which realism might disagree with the U.S. actions in Iraq and Syria is because the most important tenet of realism says that power and security are a state’s number one priority. From the U.S. point of view, this would mean that we would only defend ourselves from threats that could threaten us with more immediate harm. As it is now, ISIS is a very powerful actor within the Middle East, but their ability to attack us directly right now in the homeland is not realistically as strong. If the U.S. was acting in a realist way, they might look to the threat, see that it is not immediately impacting our security, and decide that it is not worth dealing with at this time.  

                Realism also believes that security can only be created by yourself. That is, Iraq and Syria cannot rely on the U.S. and the other members participating in the bombing for their own security. A realist might argue that if Iraq and Syria cannot create their own military security than they cannot be helped either.

                Realists believe that the ultimate goal in international relations is to become the most powerful state, especially concerning power relative to all other states. Realistically, the United States has already achieved that, as it is most powerful state in the world, and has been since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Considering that as a state’s main goal, there is no need to take action in the Middle East unless there is a state there that is threatening the United States status as world hegemon. Since ISIS is not at this point, there would be no need for the U.S. to take action in the Middle East unless they increase their power enough for it to threaten the United States power.

                In addition to this, realists believe that absolute power is the most important aspect of our foreign policy. Therefore, they would not like the cooperation that is occurring with the airstrikes in the Middle East. By defeating ISIS, the U.S. is increasing the security and power of the other countries in that region by eliminating a threat in that region. Liberalists would certainly approve of the bombings in that regard for two reasons. One, they would approve of both the cooperation between countries, and two, they would approve that defeating ISIS would increase the security for all nations, a mutually beneficial exchange. However, realists would not view the situation as a benefit for all those involved because they would not want to act in a way that would improve the relative power of Middle Eastern countries because it would overall decrease the U.S.’s relative power.