What Is The Liberal Internationalist Perspective

Much of the international news right now seems to relate to the crisis situation created by the civil war in Syria. The topic is on the minds of politicians, especially regarding the Syrian refugees hoping to escape the dangers of the war. Syrian rebels are attempting to overthrow the existing government. Some of these rebels have the support of the United States while others, such as those who are connected to ISIS, do not. Russia has intervened on the side of the Syrian government. The reasoning for their intervention is perceived differently depending on the political theory followed in the explanation. The three major theories in international relations are realism, liberalism, and constructivism -- each of which will be discussed in terms of how they would explain the Russian intervention in Syria.

65). Syrian’s that are stuck in refugee camps or still living in Syria are fighting for the freedom from authority that they did not agree to, the war has killed over 220,000 people and displaced half of the country’s population (GIlsinan, 2015). The states thus far have responded to the many facets of this crisis with very realist approaches via military action. Realists will tend to prioritize power and place it above and separate from morality and ideology, basing their arguments on tradition and focusing on the power to be gained or lost in the situation (Goldstien, 56). Are force and fraud the most reasonable types of action (Suth, Elias 2007), where is the morality; “More than a third of Americans want to ban Muslims from entering the United states” (Hayoun 2015, The independent). It appears that realism is winning the war against idealism in the US - realism is pessimistic and cynical towards life and human nature, thus there is no hope for a good end of human kind (Najob, Hamed, Gandomikal 2015). One possible motivation of the American people to adopt this very pessimistic and realist way of looking at the crisis and the Muslim population as a whole, is they might assume that liberalist approaches, with its theories in moral reasoning, may

Liberals believe that everyone deserves a equal opportunity and that everyone should be equal. Liberals also believe that the government should make sure that no one is in need and they also emphasize that the government needs to play a big part to solve problems. Conservatives on the other hand believe that people need to be more reliant on themselves that people need to be more responsible for themselves, limited government, traditional American values and a strong defense.   One of the things that is dividing the country is the argument about whether the death penalty should be allowed so when in the case of murder or someone deliberately takes the life of someone else that they should be either punished with imprisonment or they should

Have you ever witnessed something bad and wanted to do something but you couldn’t, what if I told you you could fight back, you could lead. In president obama syria speech he has the power to do something and change the world by helping people and stopping terrorism. Likewise Obama wants to fight back against inhumane behavior, Obama’s speech was about how he needs our help to fight back against the terrorist that used chemicals to attack kids and women. Obama also appeals to our sense of humanity by talking about how it is affecting the kids and how it's just inhuman. President Obama uses rhetorical choices to persuade the American citizens and foreign nations abide to the ban of chemical weapons due to War on Syria. Obama would like to activate military action to intervene in the war.

President Obama attempts to gain the support of the Conservative population through a more logical approach, detailing the potential consequences of his actions or lack thereof to our nation 's credibility. He begins his appeal to the Right with a warning that “[dictators] depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory”. This means that if were to do nothing, as Assad hopes, he will likely attack more and commit more war crimes. With more war crimes, President Obama points out that it “is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security”. Because American conservatives are traditionally more isolationist, they are less likely to agree with President Obama 's plea to intervene. Though, he argues if we let Assad continue, we will likely be threatening our own safety. The reason it would threaten our national safety, President Obama says, is that “as the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them”. The

President Obama’s tactics in Syria is much different than President’s Bush’s tactics in Iraq. In August 2013, Obama seeked Congress approval on military action in Syria after the Syrian government used chemical attacks that killed over a thousand innocent civilians. On September 11, 2013, military action was placed on hold

Nicholas Kristof’s, New York Times article, “I Am Very Afraid I Will Die Tonight”, covers the nightmares that are going on in Syria and why the USA should be taking action to put it to an end. Civilians are currently being terrorized by their own government as they are intentionally dropping bombs on on them. They are doing this as a method of attempting to fight back against the extremists. According to Kristof’s article, the United States has put minimal effort towards stopping these horrors, and there is much more we can do to stop it. To carry out his argument, Kristof uses different rhetorical appeals.

In A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide, Samantha Powers writes that the US is “extremely slow to muster the imagination needed to reckon with evil.” Powers’ comments are particularly relevant to U.S. policy during the turbulent 1990s and more recently in Syria when the U.S. policymakers chose not to deploy military capability to prevent mass atrocities. Since Powers’ seminal work, the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College (CGSC) located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, has taken on the challenge to educate military officers with 10 to 12 years of military experience in the prevention of and response to mass atrocities (MARO). My paper will discuss how international agreements such as the Responsibility to Protect, the Genocide

While the comments on his dog's passing were touching condolences his reviews on his previous column were defensive and bluntly inconsiderate. After providing evidence of his multiple reviews, Kristof reasons with his readers and provides rhetorical questions to support his rational. For example, “Would it have been wrong during the Holocaust to try to bomb the gas chambers at Auschwitz? Was President Bill Clinton wrong to intervene in Kosovo to avert potential genocide there? For that matter, was President Obama wrong two years ago when he ordered airstrikes near Mount Sinjar on the Iraq-Syria border, apparently averting genocidal massacres of Yazidi there?” Kristof uses theses questions to his advantage to persuade his readers into seeing the obvious absurdity of the realities/suggestions. He also includes the successful results of various disasters that occurred after receiving help to prove that Syria and its people are worth paying attention to and

“The New American Foundation's Brian Fishman recommends a patient approach of training and modestly arming rebels,” said an online article for the Council of Foreign Relations. Others suggest that the U.S. should reach out for the non-extremists in Syria and work with them to most importantly secure the collapse of Assad’s regime. The U.S. helped over the

On April 4th, the town of Khan Sheikhoun, a town in the Syria’s north-west undergoed a massive chemical attack. It’s suspected that more than 80 people died from the chemical barrage, which allegedly was fired by the Syrian government (Assad regime). The government claims that instead this was a fabrication of the truth and that they did not fire upon their own people. But several witnesses/victims argue differently. Following the attack, US president, Donald

As of recent, there is an ongoing debate over the response of the Obama administration related to the events occurring in Syria and the potential violation by the Syrian government of customary international law and relevant treaties and conventions in the use of chemical weapons against its own people. The conflict itself has history which is required to be thoroughly examined before conclusions can be placed and actions are to be carried out. The Syrian Civil War has not only affected the lives of Syria’s citizens but has becoming a pressing issue in direct international relations between countries like Russia and the United States. Obama’s administration has their own response to the crisis at hand and believes that a military strike is a fully legal move to make given the situation present at hand. According to the evidence, it would seem possible that a violation has not occurred and that the threat by Obama’s administration to use force in the Syrian crisis stands on illegitimate grounds because the proceedings are done by Syrian government on their own grounds. However the atrocious actions committed by the Assad regime could in fact provide legality to military intervention by the United States. Finally, the focus will be to determine whether chemical weapons are in fact the sole factor for international intervention.

The Syrian situation has been viewed using the just war theory lens by different scholars who have offered contrasting analysis. In what started as pro-democracy protests following the Arab spring uprisings in 2011, the ensuing unrest escalated to a civil war between government forces and rebel forces with the UN reporting that 90000 had been killed as of June 2013 and 250000 as of 2015 (Rodgers, 2016). The question raised is whether the intended United States military intervention is justified or not from a just war theory perspective. According to William Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings institution, the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention failure to which he thinks the war will continue indefinitely. Based on the principle of just war, Galston observes that the proposed intervention would be protecting further killings of innocent human life pointing out it might be the last resort (Shimron, 2013). Another scholar, Rabbi Broyde, a professor of law, concurs with Galston’s observations that an

Due to Obama making this “red line” countries disliked him and he was forced to retreat out of Syria, which in turn made ISIS stronger. “Another 100,000 non combatants have died” “ISIS grew stronger and swept into Iraq”. ISIS not only killed 100,000 people they displaced 9 million people. That is a lot of people that have been put into danger due to the “red line” that Obama proposed. A second example of people being in danger from ISIS due to the “red line” is “where

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and