The researcher tries to provide a statement that United States of America acted through a realism point of view toward Afghanistan after 9/11 attacks. This study aims to analyse U.S. intervention in Afghanistan under the scope of national interests and a description of realism theory in comparison with U.S. politicians will be cited. At the very first instance it's essential to have an in-depth explanation of realism.
Realism is considered amongst the frequently accepted and the oldest theory of international relations. Realism share recognisable and distinctive flavour, the matter of concern in realism is constraints on politics ‘egoism’ or ‘human selfishness’ and in international arena ‘anarchy’ or in another word, absence of international government. (Donnelly, 2009)* The precise definition of realism in international relations is “The theoretical approach that analyses all international relations as the relation of states engaged in the pursuit of power. Realists see the international system as anarchic, or without a common power, and they believe conflict is endemic in the international system.” (Lamy, 2011) The most influential realists are Niccolo Machiavelli and Hobbes, John Mearsheimer, Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz George Kennan. (Donnelly, 2009)
Thomas Hobbes explain the theory of realism in his book “Leviathan” which is published in 1651, he proposed three assumption regarding nature of human and equality in international arena. The assumptions are:
Human are equal
Men are interact in anarchy
And the motivation points among them are diffident regarding glory and competition.
Therefore, combination of mentioned factors lead human to a war of all against all. He argues that equality is in the sense of that the weaker has the strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others, from this equality of ability arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. However the element which makes man enemy of each other is desire. (Donnelly, 2009)
The assumption of equality in Hobbes theory of realism is problematic and controversial. Hence material inequality leads men to a hierarchy influences and inequality in bilateral relations such as hegemony, sphere of influence and empire. But in relation between “great powers” those states have the power and capacity of threat, damage or even threat to death. Hobbesian theory of realism is for great powers rather than to be used generally in international arena. (Ibid, 2009)
Hans J. Morgenthau, author of famous book “Politics among Nations, The struggle for power and peace” stated six points for better understanding of realism.
Governing of politics by objective law which exists in human nature.
Concept of interest described in terms of power, it helps political realism in order to find paths and go through landscape of international politics.
Variability of interest and power in content.
Moral principles do not applied in states actions.
Political realism does not identify both universe and particular nation’s moral aspiration.
The recognition of autonomy in sphere of politics.(Morgenthau, 2000)
In order to explain and apply these rules, it is to say that: according to Morgenthau, human nature is the same since hundreds and thousands of years it is not changed since the ancient civilizations. Thucydides points out the importance of human nature “to understand clearly the events that happened in the past and which (human nature being what it is) will, at some time or other and in the same ways, be repeated in the future.” (Thucydides, 1976, p48) As Morgenthau mirrored Thucydides’ statement in his first principle that “the laws of politics have roots in human nature” (Morgenthau, 2000)
Within the second rule, Morgenthau shows “the link between reason trying to understand international politics and the facts to be understood.”(Ibid, 2000) Among various thought related to this subject such as: ethnics, ideology, and religion the main focus of realism is power as a symbol of national interest. Morgenthau’s captured the matter of national interests in the third chapter of his book “Politics among the Nations” and the importance of power and those Interests which earns through power.
“Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. Statement and people may ultimately seek freedom, security, prosperity, or power it. They may define their goals in terms of a religious, philosophic, economic, or social ideal. They may hope that this ideal will materialize through its own inner force, through divine intervention, or through the natural development of human affairs. They may also try to further its realization through non-political means, such as technical co-operation with other nations or international organizations. But whenever they strive to realize their goal by means of international politics, they do so by striving for power.” (Morgenthau, 2000)
Based on book “Diplomacy” by Henry Kissinger, the main concern of foreign policy is national interest and calculation of power. (Kissinger, 2002) In order to maintain the national interest, continuity and rational discipline realism is struggle with two fallacies: the matter of ideological preferences and the matter of motives.
The third principle focuses on power and the variability of power according to the interests which is known quite early time as Thucydides. He stated “identity of interests is the surest of bonds whether between states or individuals.” (Thucydides, 1976) Again, Morgenthau reinforced position of Thucydides by expressing “interests…not ideas, dominate directly the actions of men.” (Morgenthau, 2000)
According to realism perspectives, which suggests a number of prescriptions to powerful countries such as United States, to ensure their security are as the following: Powerful country should be ready and ensure their balance and capability in case of opposing with potential or actual power rivals and minimize their expansion. At the meanwhile they should have a relax view toward minor powers and hostile powers who are inhabit at the most important and strategically areas of the world. (Mearsheimer, 2001)
It is unpredictable to measure the devastating consequence of interstate war. Obviously, the weaker states are more likely to be defeated and the powerful states are likely to prevail. (Biddle, 2004) International relations between states are quite different from the local or domestic ones. In international system absence of legitimate use of force in order to control the use of aggressive act and intervene of powerful states are the main concern. Therefore, the current global system is anarchic; and the syndrome of anarchy is war, the very probability of war in such system make the states to seek power and follow the realpolitik “to be self-interested, prepare for war and calculate relative balance of power” (Doyle, 1997, p18) The Realists argue that state behaviour is determined by power in an anarchy world and the cause of security dilemma is inherently threatening of another state. (Rotberg, Rabb and Gilpin, 1989, pp.39-52)
As Weinberger doctrine has got deep roots in realism and suggests a number of principles for United States in order to involve in a war.* In 1983 Casper Weinberger a U.S. Secretary of Defence delivered a speech where he enunciated the points which assumes the conditions to balance the situation whether the U.S. engages in a war and initiates a conflict or not. His doctrine is as the following:
First, the United States should not commit forces to combat unless the vital national interests of the United States or its allies are involved.
Second, U.S. troops should only be committed wholeheartedly and with the clear intention of winning. Otherwise, troops should not be committed.
Third, U.S. combat troops should be committed only with clearly defined political and military objectives and with the capacity to accomplish those objectives.
Forth, the relationship between the objectives and the size and composition of the forces committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.
Fifth, U.S. troops should not be committed to battle without a "reasonable assurance" of the support of U.S. public opinion and Congress.
Sixth, the commitment of U.S. troops should be considered only as a last resort.” (Weinberger, 1984)
From the very first steps of war in Afghanistan, United States strategy has been formulated to eliminate any kind of threats from terrorist organizations or supporting countries in order to protect its national interests. President George W. Bush pointed out the strategy “Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, and drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbour or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” (Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov, 2001)
According to the origin framework of war against terrorism in Afghanistan, the U.S. is ready to use all its national power in order to secure its territory, national interests and eliminate all kinds of expected threats. United States and its allies pledged to deliver $54 billion in Afghanistan till the end of year 2009 to fight for the victory of strategy and ensure its hegemonic position (Collins, 2011, p1-159)
Both Obama and Bush administration considered the war in Afghanistan as a vital necessity for national interest, therefore realists argument is based on national interest and survival.
Weinberger’s doctrine has got deep roots in realism principles, the key points of his doctrine certainly linked with Morgenthau’s principle of realism. The concept of being powerful for a country such as United States to control peace and international system, all these variables used in US foreign policy as well as in US politicians’ view while discussing regarding international politics. Consequently, at the time when president Obama reassessed conflict of Afghanistan, it is clearly possible to notice that his action were coherent with Weinberger’s doctrine and Morgenthau’s principles. Apparently, United States Objective in Afghanistan’s conflict was preventing the country to become a safe haven for extremist groups. Therefore, Afghanistan became the priority while Iraq was under control. National interest of US was considered more in danger in Afghanistan rather than Iraq. To accomplish the conflict and achieve this new strategy United State deployed 30,000 troops in order to help Afghan National police and National Army to provide security. (Ramiro, 2013) Weinberger pointed out this issue in his doctrine.
President Obama’s speech shows the scope of threat to US’s security, he said it is very necessary and utmost seriousness to the United States and its allies. He adds “…this is not simply an American problem, far from it. It is, instead an international security challenge of the highest order… We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends, our allies.”(Woodward, 2010)*
Regarding to the first point of Weinberger’s doctrine the vitality of conflict in Afghanistan considered important to national security, again according to the Morgenthau’s observation ‘interest defined in terms of power’. Obama’s Speech reflects point three and four of Weinberger doctrine, Obama added “…we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That’s the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just.” (Ramiro, 2013)
Obama’s speech regarding well and clear objective, certainty of victory, increasing resources and budget of war at the time which US economy* experienced uncertainty. Therefore, the efforts mentioned above sides with realism statement that national interest is the most important issue to take into consider.
As it is stated previously, going to war in Afghanistan has been recognized as national interest of U.S. Therefore, according to Morgenthau’s and Weinberger’s doctrine which is both realism theoretical approach, claims that US troop will remain in Afghanistan until no treat remains active. Moreover, it is acceptable the country might be insecure; people may live in an extreme poverty but not a major threat to the U.S. interests. Obama’s speech makes it clear “I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan… If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home…”(Ibid, 2013) It is much worthy, to explain and analyse United States Policy, objectives and strategy through realist approach that derived in military conflict.
In summary, the core definition of realists from humankind is that they are not inherently benevolent, but for sure humankind is competitive and self-centred.