Grand Strategy and Theory There

Grand Strategy and Theory

There are three different theories involved in international politics and relations. These theories are realism, liberalism, and constructivism. The theories are used in the grand strategy of the war on terror by the United States. Each theory has its own approach, which differs greatly from the others. Analyzing the different theories and relating them to the war on terror has provided a better understanding on how different approaches can be used to fight terrorism. Each theory has its own merits as will be demonstrated in the paper. Using these theories the fight on terrorism has been quite effective and has reduced the attacks on U.S. soil. After the September 11th attacks, the United States has taken seriously to any terrorist activities and has really tried to fight terrorism both within its borders and outside.

Realism

In international relations, realism is the dominant theoretical tradition.

Realists depict international relations as power struggles among self-interested, strategic states. Any international order that is not based on force and power is discounted by the realists. The lack of a central authority that protects states from each other makes the realists describe the international society as international anarchy. Realists perceive states as independent sovereign political units which are focused on their survival. It is for this reason that the main objective for national security be survival of the state instead of guaranteeing international security.

Since realists do not want to engage in any long-term cooperation or accommodation, they view the political world as a jungle that is characterized by war. This is not a single, or constant war, but rather a constant possibility that war can occur among all states. A period of peace is perceived to be a state of non-war by a realist.

To the realists there is no possibility of eliminating conflict or war.

Realism predicts the persistence of conflict in an age of global economic interdependence, and the continuous centrality of military strength. The United States response to the September 11th attack was by use of force.

This can be better explained by using the realism theory, which specifies the use of force. The United States has continuously stated that it does not negotiate with terrorists, and this is the main reason that it has continued to use force in fighting terrorism within its borders. Realists believe that in order to win the war on terrorism, the United States should use military force. This way they believe they will manage to stump out terrorists and stop these attacks. Using force the United States has managed to stop potential attacks as the terrorists groups are forced to reorganize their attacks all the time. Using the realism theory, the fight on terrorism has achieved some success as the United States has managed to break down their networks. Using military force the United States has infiltrated their terrorist organizations and forced them to break up, which has led to the reduction in number of attacks. Since September 11th, there has not been any serious attack against the United States. This indicates that the fight against terrorism has been successful although it has not been won.

The advantages of using realism are that demonstration of power creates fear in the terrorists, which causes them to retaliate or attack other states. Taking the fight to the terrorists instead of waiting for them to attack the country has greatly reduced their force. The terrorist used organized networks and by using military force the United States has been able to break the networks, which in turn has reduced their impact. For example, the hunt for Osama Bin Laden who had been in hiding would not have succeeded had the United States not used military force.

Using military force has its cons too. The number of casualties has increased as the war on terror has increased. Innocent people are suffering or get injured in the cross fire.

Liberalism

Liberal theory is the principal challenge to realism. The foundations of liberalism were laid by Immanuel Kant a German philosopher. In international relations liberalism contends that there is a stunted vision in realism, which cannot create progressive relations with other nations.

Liberalists have refused to view international politics like a jungle and instead see it as a cultivatable garden. Liberalists combine the state of war with a possibility of peace. Liberalists argue that war should only occur when there is no other way of increasing self preservation and well being of a state.

With the widening of economic interdependence and spread of democratic norms, liberalism envisions a slow journey away from the realists' vision. Liberalists do not view a state as a single actor in war, but rather as a coalition of coalitions that is representing different individuals and groups. Limitations of state power, rule of law, transparency of democratic and government processes will make it easier for the sustenance of international cooperation.

In terms of security, liberalists differ from realists as they not only view it in military terms, but also as the promotion and protection of individual rights. In the fight on terrorism, the liberal approach would emphasize on application of legal instruments instead of military force. The liberal approach to the United States war on terrorism would involve issues like organized crime and its potential for creating terrorists.

This would be in contrast to the realist approach of force on the state where terrorists come from. Analyzing organized crime would allow for the discovery of links between terrorism and organized crime. This liberal approach would reduce the use of force and instead push for the investigation of how terrorists are crossing borders and the influence they have on other criminals.

The fight on terrorism has been successful due to the use of military force. Using liberalism theories, the United States would not have attacked terrorists as it would have been infringing on the rights of the individuals. Protection of individual rights would not have facilitated the successful fight on terrorism. The use of force has resulted in civilian casualties, which could have been avoided had the liberalism theory been adopted. The liberalist theory would have required that as military force is used consideration for the civilians should be considered. There should be a promotion and protection of individual rights.

Constructivism

Constructivism has gained prominence in international relations debates especially in recent years. Constructivism is a more contemporary strand of idealism. The constructivist theory promotes the use of identities and ideas, but it should be noted that the constructivist approach is quite diverse and does not offer a single prediction to any of the issues.

Constructivists take a state and regard it based on its identities and interests thus creating a highly malleable product. They do not just assume a state seeks to survive. Constructivists emphasize on how ideas are created, how they shape a states understanding, how they evolve, and how states respond situations