Blog Post #1, Dignan, Why Realism Won't Work with ISIS

Sara Dignan

GVPT200, Section 0101

Blog Post #1

Why Realism Won’t Work with ISIS

            In his Huffington Post article “As ISIS Beast Threatens Mideast, A Call for Realism in U.S. Foreign Policy,” James Crotty argues that the United States should employ the realist theory in its confrontation of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Crotty asserts that if the U.S. is to be successful in its handling of ISIS, it should take a realist approach and bolster its military action. While I agree that military action in ISIS is beneficial, I don’t agree that the realist theory encompasses the U.S.’s best national interest in foreign affairs. In my opinion, the theory of liberalism would allow the U.S. to confront ISIS more effectively.

            The reason the realist theory can’t be applied to the U.S.’s dealings with ISIS is because it is too narrow. By assuming that power and security are the only goals of the state, realism overlooks many other issues facing the U.S. Liberalism better suits the U.S. because it allows for military action - in addition to economic dealings, global health issues, and humanitarian efforts. The U.S. has many other international concerns outside of its relative power ranking. For example, Obama shared his plan to increase aid for the fight against Ebola. This disease is expected to kill a million people by the end of this year, far more than ISIS ever will. It is clear that military power is not the only thing on the U.S.’s agenda. Crotty’s argument is ignorant because it fails to recognize the broad spectrum of affairs that the U.S. is involved in internationally. Fighting ISIS is one of our many concerns and it would be foolish to expend all of our resources on increasing our military power, as the realist theory suggests.

            Another issue with Crotty’s argument is that the realist theory applies only to states. ISIS, in the technical sense, is not a state. It is a terrorist group - an unrecognized state. Therefore, it is technically not recognized by the realist theory.

            Furthermore, employing a modern IR theory, like liberalism, allows for cooperation among states. In his article, Crotty argues that the U.S. should single-handedly take down ISIS with military force. However, ISIS is not just a threat to the U.S., but it is also a threat to the entire world. In my opinion, it should not be solely the U.S.’s responsibility to defeat ISIS just because we are the global hegemony. This week at the United Nations, Obama urged other world leaders to join the U.S. in the fight against ISIS, saying that it’s everyone’s battle and an international responsibility to stop the group. I agree with the president’s statement. This isn’t just the U.S.’s battle to fight. Cooperation will be necessary in order to take down this group. This cooperation that is needed is customary of the liberal and feminist theories of IR. If the U.S. were to take Crotty’s suggestion of utilizing the realist theory, cooperation would not be part of the equation, and battling ISIS would be much more difficult.  

            Crotty makes a valid point when he says the U.S. needs to employ military force on ISIS. I think he takes things too far, however, when he argues that we should deal with it from a realist point of view. Yes, military action is needed in the situation, and I agree with the U.S.’s decision to use air strikes in the region. But, in addition to military force, we need cooperation with other states, economic power, and humanitarian relief in order to effectively terminate ISIS. Liberalism would be a much better theory for the U.S. to apply to its action on ISIS.