Realism And The Theory Of Realism

Theoretically, it holds that the United States (US) invaded Afghanistan as a self-defense strategy following the 9/11 attacks. Practically, however, as US foreign policy is about conquest, self-protection and resource-extraction, it seeks strategic dominance of geographical space to sustain its global relevance. The rationality of the US suggests the need to continuously accumulate capital, resources and military proficiency to ensure autonomy. Therefore, a pragmatic reading into the motivation behind the invasion of Afghanistan negates the self-defense theory. Rather, the shifting coordinates of power within central and southern Asia crafted the perfect criteria for US intervention. This work explores the motivations and systemic cover-ups designed by the Bush administration in ordering military troops into Afghanistan in 2001. It will hold that this invasion was not just a War on Terror, but rather a tactic to ensure US prevalence within the region, and henceforth, the rest of the world. Thus, why did the US invade Afghanistan?

There are, however, aspects that disqualify the realism theory in examining the War in Afghanistan. For example, realism explicitly applies to relations between nations and consequently, war between countries. This was not the case, since the war did and still does not involve conflict between America and Afghanistan. Rather the war was between America and the Taliban government that supported the infamous terror group, al Qaeda. For this reason, realist theory does not explain this highly controversial war. Another aspect that contravenes realism as an appropriate theoretical approach to understanding the War in Afghanistan is that fact that, America toppled the Taliban government within its first few months of the invasion. Realism cannot, as a result, explain why American troops and those of allied forces have not yet been pulled out of Afghanistan more than a decade after war started (Bird and Marshall 37).

The first view will be through the current predominant school of thought in international relations, realism. Although there are several different forms of realism the core ideas are that states are the central actors in international politics rather than individuals

Realism occurs everyday, one may not know but its the reason why know not everyone gets to live their lives to a happy ending, its the reason why sometimes you can't get everything you want in your life. Realism is the attitude or practice of accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly. Realism is a trend which takes place in the nineteenth century during which literature depicted life "as is," and focuses on real life. This literary movement frequently depicted everyday life; it follows the rule of a phenomenal world and that nothing is added to your life. It is the reverse job of what a filter would do to all the troubles that one may encounter later in life. Realism is

Meanwhile, this episode displays many more aspects of realism. Another idea of realism occurs when Carter is discussing some concerning issues towards the group about Rick. Earlier during the episode, we saw that Carter does not agree with Rick's plan about drawing the walkers away. His idea was probably a more ideological one. He proposed the idea of building up the weak spots around the community so the walkers would not be able to get inside. Rick quickly shoots this idea because there are thousands of zombies around (no number was actually available). Not only this, but when Rick evaluated the quarry where the walkers are located, he noticed that the barriers containing the zombies will soon give way. Carter begins to start not approve

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

All branches of realism share some central tenets. Realists believe that the world exists in a state of anarchy. Since there is not a world government to keep states from attacking each other, or to punish them when they do, it becomes very important for each government to be able to protect itself and ensure its survival. It is also why states are considered the most important actors in realism. Due to the anarchy, the world operates

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

Realism and Liberalism is one of the most important theoretical approaches to the study of international studies. As for realism, it has been argue that realism is not just a simple perspective, as it is actually a complex area of debate rather than just single specific of point. In Realism, we can identify such classic and specific versions, some realist who call themselves as neo-realist or structural realist, and so on. As for Liberalism, its history goes back to when the scholars tried to come up with a new theory that could end the despair of the First World War. Liberalism starts to take up the world politics after the fall of Idealism after the Second World War as they have more pessimistic view of the world politics. Both of these theories

Realism became a political ideology in 1648 with the signing of the Peace Treaty of Westphalia. Liberalism became a political ideology during the French Revolution with the storming of the Bastille in 1789. Both Realism and Liberalism believe that the state is anarchical, but Realism focuses on self-help, while Liberalism focuses on self-determination. Realism states that wealth is power, while Liberalism states that power is only one factor in the international system. Realists believe that the state does not encourage moral behaviour, while liberalist believe conscious moral decisions lead to prosperity in the international system. Realists believe that the state is the most important part of the international system, while liberalists see the state as one of the many important actors in the international system. One could assess that Realism is more pessimistic towards the international system, while Liberalism takes a more optimistic approach. Realism and Liberalism can be contrasted and compared within the study of International Relations, given the similarities of conservative theories and yet the differences between the realists practical world and the liberalist idealist

Classical realist theory is based upon the idea that human nature is inherently bad and selfish, the international system is anarchic, and the state is the most important actor in international affairs. Basing policy decisions on human nature, the state looks to maximize it’s power and security within its geographic location. Realist theory sees all conflict deriving from power struggles between states, though it is not about fostering wars; rather the opposite.

Constructivism Realism agree with the theory that says the world is in anarchy (chaos). Constructivism also said that international relations can be established through conflict and cooperation. So here assessed the importance of existing institutions namely through regulative and constitutive. Each country needs to comply with the decree. If away, then there are various forms of action to be taken such as military, economic supply restrictions and others. So countries need to assess national interests whether to cooperate or not.

For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that anarchy can be weak or strong. Furthermore, neo-realists think that international cooperation is much harder to achieve than neoliberals do. What is more, they see institutions as unable to mitigate international anarchy, while neoliberals doubt this. All of the aforementioned differences will be sequentially elaborated on throughout this essay.