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.