In reality, United States did take up the shape of a liberal hegemon and utilized its soft power to spread the ideas of liberalisms across the globe. However, Nye (2004) had argued that despite of doing this, this had negative impact on the global stability as instead of fostering peace, it brought conflict, war and violence. In the aftermath of 9/11, American was under attack from Al-Qaeda, the worldly hegemon transformed into an imperial one and adopted an aggressive approach towards those who did not conform to the liberal view of the world. This failed policy lead to the wars in Iraq, Iran and North Korea who America termed as the axis of evil. Iraq was invaded by America in 2004 because of the security threat, North Korea declared itself as a Nuclear power, whereas suspicions arise that Iran is also trying to reach nuclear capability as well.
5. Reasoning the theories The official story was that Osama bin Laden was the terrorist mastermind behind the attack, but some believe 9/11 was a smokescreen for a far bigger American conspiracy and that the Bush administration is the one, behind the vicious attack. 5.1. Justifying war The events of 9/11 ultimately led to war against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and allowed the United States access to Iraq’s most prized commodity, oil. America declared war on Iraq to gain control of Iraq’s oil but in order to do so it had to cover up its track.
Realism has become a successful theory since then because it is has given meaning to the interests of states that coexist with each other in a hostile environment (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008: 92). Realism has further offered insights in how state leaders’ should conduct themselves and their foreign policies in order to maintain the security of the state; this behavior is often referred to as “reason of state” (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008: 92). In addition, realists warn state leaders’ about falling into the trap of moral principle because if they do, it will lead to them sacrificing the state’s self-interest for an ethical code. With the aforementioned, this essay will discuss the theory of realism by using two different theorists, namely Hens Morgenthou and Kenneth Waltz, to understand classical realism and structural realism. These theorists will help us understand the differences between the two and how they both relate to each other.
If the policy of containment was purely humanitarian, it would be expected that the actions of all US agencies would follow this ethos. However, this is not the case. Perhaps the best example of this would be the CIA’s assistance in a royalist coup in Iran resulting in the expulsion of its then Prime Minister. The coup was primarily organized in reaction to the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry as well as fear of Iran joining the Soviet Bloc. This is a clear example of the dubious nature of facets of the containment policy, after all, there is a strong argument that the coup was arranged in order to secure American access to resources as opposed to halt the advance of communist ideology.
The US and its allies believed that this would end the war on terror, but they were wrong. They did not think that, at the same time they were withdrawing troops from Iraq, another terrorist force was growing. It was called the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria. This terrorist group is different from the Taliban, as its influence was greater. The Western nation would had to deal with the mess that they had created in the first place, and this time it would not be as easy as sending in coalition
It further lays emphasis on state preferences rather than national power as primary determinant of state activities. There are certain events in history that purely served realist paradigm’s fundamental postulates. One main event is the Iraq war 2003. . Thucydides famous statement-the iron law of realism ‘the strong do what they have to do and the weak accept what they have to accept’ can be a satisfying rationalization for the war in Iraq. (Strong hegemonic power-the USA did what she had to do and the weak-Iraq accepted what she had to accept.
In this essay I will firstly talk about the concepts of legality and legitimacy. Then I will present arguments on the side of legitimacy over law in international actions, followed by those against it, who emphasize that illegal activities should always be condemned. Both of these concepts relate to the U.S. military intervention in the Kosovo wars of 1999. The U.S. acted without approval from the UN, therefore making their actions illegal. Legitimacy should never surpass legality, because of its ambiguous nature and the potential consequences if it does.
The Iraq War was not a good example of the United States going to war after all of the facts became known; however, the facts that were presented to the United Nations (UN) and the American people were a reason to go to war with Iraq because the Iraq government possessed weapons of mass destruction (which turned out to be false and made up by the Brush Administration). Another example, if Iran would bomb Saudi Arab without any cause, it would be a valid reason to go to war since the United States is an ally of Saudi
War is something that, at this point in history, can be arguably deemed as part of the human condition. For whatever reason, it appears that humans are destined not to get along and that violent conflict is the preferred method of solving issues that arise. Whether it be fighting for the love of Helen of Troy or espousing the likes of God and Allah as a justification, war is one thing that time has yet to see the end of. That being said, it comes as no surprise that academics, scientists, and philosophers alike have taken to attempting to understand why wars happen. A controversial and somewhat debated topic is the concept of the Just War Principles.
The essay provided an outline on each theory before going on to explain the theory’s view on what causes wars. After I evaluated and juxtaposed, it led me to the conclusion that even though there are changing and opposite explanations to answer the question of what causes wars, realism provided the most relevant answer. It seems as if the balance of threat against a potential hegemony has been the most relevant answer as to what causes wars. I can also conclude from this that because states are the primary actors in international relations they will seek to expand their power because they believe it is an essential element in an anarchical