War in Afghanistan, War on Terror - Coursework Example

College: War in Afghanistan/ War on Terror Introduction The study of global relations has continually evolved in the contemporary society, adopting a wide array of theoretical adaptations in the course of this progress. Some of the theoretical approaches used to explore modern international relations (IR) are founded upon this discipline, while others borrow wholly or partially from sociology and economics academic spheres, among others. Majority of these theories are contested not just in comparison with other major theories, but also internally, within the theory itself. Despite the divergent nature of the theoretical concepts of IR, principal school of thoughts can be discerned with their key differences emerging from major variables like ideological beliefs, military power, and material interests. In this case, two theories are chosen to examine the controversial War in Afghanistan, also popularly referred to as the War on Terror. These theoretical approaches are realism and Marxism. The Marxist theoretical assertion best elucidates the War in Afghanistan, since its commencement in 2001 up to date, as it points out America’s prior material interests in Afghanistan that have forced the nation and its allies to delay removal of their troops. Theoretical Approaches Realism Theory For proponents of realism as an international relations theory, the global system of interaction is delineated by anarchy, or absence of centralized authority. This implies that nations are sovereign hence independent of each other, particularly when it comes to governance structures. Under realism, there is also emphasis on the fact that no societal structure can exist to arrange and govern interactions between states (Dunne, Kurki and Smith79). Realists further argue that countries can only be bound through forcible action, which constitutes coercion, or out of their own volition, that is, consent. In a system characterized by anarchy, therefore, state power is crucial to sustainability of a country. This is because it is only through wielding such power that countries can defend their boundaries and citizens from external influence. Realism acknowledges power stemming from various sectors including military, economy and diplomacy, but eventually puts emphasis on power as a tool of coercion in charting the path of cordial international relations (Dunne, Kurki and Smith 80). Four key assumptions can be discerned from the realism theory. The first, and perhaps most important, is the notion that survival makes up every country’s fundamental goal. The implication of this assumption is that foreign attack or occupation constitutes the greatest threat to any nation. For this reason, even though a state’s culture, interests, and principles call for international cooperation and benevolence, anarchy that is characteristic of the global political system demands that the country wield adequate authority to defend itself and push forth its interests; all for the sake of survival. The second assumption is that nations are rational players in the international relation arena, and with their goal being to survive, they will behave in a manner that will maximize chances of sustained existence. Thirdly, supporters of realism presume that all nations have military capability and none is fully aware of its neighbors’ intentions. Finally, given the supposed danger and uncertainty in the world, the greater the military and economic power a country has, the higher its chances of surviving and taking global leadership (Dunne, Kurki and Smith 84). The Marxism Theory Just like the name of the theory suggests, Marxism borrows from Marxist ideology and more in depth causes of international relations, as opposed to the commonly perceived motivator of global links between nations. Marxism acknowledges the quasi-economic intentions wielded by countries venturing into certain global relations (Dunne, Kurki and Smith 159). The critical element of this theory alludes to the idea that there is more to international relations than meets the ordinary eye. For instance, in the context of war, Marxism and critical theory suggests that involved nations and especially the perpetrators get into the conflict with the intention to compete for extant resources and markets. This theory further implies that global conflicts are often the result of class systems and free markets (Dunne, Kurki and Smith 163). Supporters of the theory also uphold the notion that capitalists are always propelled through conflicts and other international occurrences of significance, by accruing the greatest profit. As a result, capitalist nations are constantly looking for unexploited regions that will allow them to expand markets for their commodities and raise demand of these products. Marxists further believe that capitalists, in their search for markets and underutilized resources, are capable of imposing their interests on other countries hence imperialism. It is also these aggressive tendencies that perpetuate discontentment among nations thus paving way for invasion and fully blown wars (Dunne, Kurki and Smith 164-166). Application of Theory Realism The iniquitous September 11 terror attacks were the first step toward the launch of war in Afghanistan. From the perspective of a realist, one can contend that the foreigners who attacked posed a significant threat to the nation’s sovereignty and defense system. The attacks resulted in the deaths of about 3000 American citizens and since the nation felt that its survival was threatened, it responded swiftly using the military. This is clearly within the domain of the realism theory, since America faced actual danger and was uncertain of whether there would be further attacks in the future by the involved terror perpetrators. In the face of such adversity, America had to make use of state power, in this case military forces, to defend its borders, citizens and ideals (Goldstein and Pevehouse b 23). It is clear, therefore, that the United States used the realist principle of defense to justify the War on Terror. There was also swift implementation of the ‘Bush Doctrine’, which emphasizes the fact that America had a right to uphold its security and take action against terrorist supporting nations that threatened this defense. Goldstein and Pevehouse (b) sum up the realism perspective of war by stating that, “realists assume that IR can be best (though not exclusively) explained by the choices of states operating as autonomous actors rationally pursuing their own interests in an international system of sovereign states without a central authority” (45). The statement demonstrates how America solely focused on its own security interests in justifying the war in 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 (Baylis, Smith, and Owens 2). 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 9). Another principal attribute that disqualifies realism in debunking the Afghanistan War is the fact that America made concerted efforts to gain support from the United Nations (UN) before commencing the invasion. This contravenes the assertion put forth by the realist theory that, a nation does not take the international system or organization into consideration when taking actions directed towards safeguarding its survival. The autonomous action stipulated in realism is particularly essential when a state is threatened and cannot afford to trust other nations. In this sense, America completely disregarded the realist approach to international relations, by not only consulting the UN, but also rallying allied nations like the UK, Canada, and France among others towards its campaign against terrorism (Goldstein and Pevehouse b 55). The realist theory is generally applicable to America’s War on Terror due to the purported fear of a potent enemy, consequent lack of security and swift resort to military power. However, the theory cannot explain why the American administration expresses concern about overseeing democracy and stability in Afghanistan. The latter perhaps points towards the country’s material interests in this Central-South Asian country, as discussed further in the subsequent section exploring the Marxism and Critical Theory on the Afghan War. Marxism Theory The plausibility of Marxism in explaining the War on Terror can be discerned from specific assertions of the theory. Key among these principal notions of Marxism is emphasized by Sens and Stoett, who denote that, “Marx insisted on a materialist worldview, asserting that throughout history the political nature of society was determined by its economic structure” (21). Given the fact that capitalism was the economic structure that existed during Marx’s era, one would argue that he saw flaws in the inequality this structure brought about, in terms of differences between economic classes in the capitalist framework. In regard to classical Marxism, the upper economic class or the bourgeoisie governed society on the basis of their interests, controlling inventions, property, and technology, while dominating governmental structures, as well as, religious and moral principles. On the other end of the spectrum, the lower economic classes or proletariat sold labor and their meager resources to the rich, in exchange for compensation. The philosopher foresaw possible revolution on the part of the proletariat, in an attempt to counter the exploitative nature of this social structure hence fostering equality (Sens, and Stoett 21). Within this context, it is feasible to suggest that the Taliban government, which America sought to overthrow in its War on Afghanistan, rebelled against the perceived pervasion of American ideologies, materialism, and economic equality. The revolution was unfortunately in the form of tragic terror attacks that effectively triggered the Afghan War. The rationality of this explanation is emphasized by Sens and Stoett, who point out that, “for the marginalized and dependent states and peoples everywhere, revolution and the overthrow of the world capitalist system are the only hope for change” (23). In addition to providing a potent explanation of the discontentment that triggered the war, the Marxist perspective also points to the economic disparity fuelled by global capitalism. It is evident that countries with numerous natural resources often export them to big markets like America. This means that the exporting nations depend on such markets to sustain their economies, while huge economies like America’s need a consistent supply of resources to support their citizens and institutions. The economic disparity is best summed up by Sens and Stoett, who note that “global capitalism has created a world divided between a few rich and many poor, and how globalization is merely imperialism and colonialism in another guise” (22). From this assertion, there is significant possibility that America, which depends largely on oil from the Middle East, sought to guarantee a constant supply of this crucial resource by positioning itself strategically within the region. The new Marxist perspective, also referred to as neo-Marxism, provides further insight into international relations, particularly into contemporary conflicts like the Afghan War. According to Sens and Stoett (23), this version of Marxism upholds several assumptions including the notion that, the most significant players in international politics comprise of dominant socioeconomic classes or economic interests. The second supposition is that, the stature of a country and war are primarily instruments of the governing classes. Another postulation of neo-Marxism is that, countries around the word adopt a hierarchical framework that fosters patterns of dependence and dominance. This means that economically advanced nations like America occupy a high rank in the structure of global politics, while poorer nations like Afghanistan have lower ranking and are largely dependent upon others. Further, there is a significant gap in power between rich and poor nations, owing to their disparity in production ability and position in regard to the state of other global economies. Judging from the assumptions in the preceding paragraph, it is irrefutable that material or economic interests played a significant role in fuelling the war in Afghanistan. For instance, in accordance with the first postulation, it is apparent that America is a dominant nation in sociopolitical matters and has equally significant economic interests. The allies that America called upon to engage in the war on terror, such as Britain, Canada, and France, among others, are equally important players in the international economic and political environment. These countries also share the same economic and ideological interests. These facts, therefore, explain their collaboration even more than a decade since they deployed their allied forces to invade Afghanistan. In addition to America’s and its allies’ economic interests, it is also evident that they used their powerful standing and war as tools to achieve their objectives, including accessing oil and advocating for democracy. The use of war and state to attain predetermined goals is clearly in accordance with the second assumption of neo-Marxism, put forth by Sens and Stoett (23). The other concept under Marxism that further explicates America-led war on terror is the Marxism based theory of hegemony. Dunne, Kurki and Smith state that the theory, which was conceptualized by an Italian Marxist known as Gramsci, “is a subtle form of political power, which relied more strongly upon consent than coercion” (161). The scholars further explain that in hegemonic situations, dominant parties lay out a social vision aimed at serving everyone’s interests and they recruit partisans into the coalition, in order to destabilize opposition. Using the latter idea as a foundation for analysis, it becomes clear that America adopted this approach to launch the war in Afghanistan. The country selectively recruited allies to join in its campaign against the reigning Taliban government. America also oversaw the election of a transitional government based on the ideology of democracy, which is a social vision the nation strongly advocates. In further support of the previous assertion of how dominant societies strive to uphold social order, Sens and Stoett (23-24) explore Gramsci’s theory of hegemony in further detail. The authors are emphatic that social order, which is controlled by dominant nations or groups, is reinforced by instruments such as government propaganda, media, and social organizations. These instruments are “designed to socialize the masses to convince them that their lives are better off under capitalism than could be otherwise, and that they should aspire to imitate the upper classes in order to live the good life—a life most will never achieve” (Sens and Stoett 23). As a result, elite capitalists ensure that international politics protect their economic interests, not just with firearms and wars, but also with widespread adoption of capitalist and democratic ideology. It is convincing that America widely utilized the said instruments of hegemony to instigate the war on terror and sustain it thus far. For instance, following the 9/11 attacks, the media sensationalized the tragic incidents, replaying them repeatedly via televised and online platforms. Shortly after the attacks, there were consistent calls for retaliation from the American public and foreign sympathizers. Also noted by Bird and Marshall “when coalition forces first arrived in Afghanistan to avenge the attacks on America carried out by al Qaeda on 11 September 2001, academics and journalists the world over speculated wildly about the outcome” (10). Exaggeration of the 9/11 events and the aftermath shows that war propaganda had effectively been ingrained into mainstream society. This hegemonic influence is best demonstrated up by MacGregor and Zarembka, who note that, “like all major terrorist incidents, 9–11 sustained social redirection by instilling widespread fear in the public and inviting retaliation against an alleged enemy” (140). Overall, in the words of Villar and Cottle, “Marxism has not only continued throughout the past half century, but has continued to thrive” (121). This, the authors emphasize, is demonstrated by ideological movements that surpass their boundaries and develop into destructive wars under the guise of fighting terror, such as that in Afghanistan and Colombia, among other places. Conclusion Judging from the analysis of each theory’s compliance with extant evidence, Marxism is more persuasive in explaining the Afghanistan war than realism. This is primarily ascribable to the fact that that realism only befits the start of the war, but fails to explore its prior triggers and the reason for prolongation of the conflict for more than ten years. In contrast, Marxism highlights possible factors that led to the terror attacks and consequent invasion of Afghanistan. For example, there is a high possibility that intolerance to American political ideology and capitalism based economic interests triggered the animosity of the equality oriented Afghan government. The Marxist theory also provides insight into why American and allied forces remain in Afghanistan up to date. The prolonged stay can only be explained as an attempt by the U.S to safeguard its economic and ideological interests. These intentions are adequately addressed by Presbey, when he asserts that “these wars are intended to extend the military, political, and economic reach of the corporate elite as far as possible” (119). Taking these facts into consideration, the American government should seek other approaches to sustain its wide array of interests in future, as opposed to jeopardizing lives of innocent civilians and impeding developing economies. Works Cited Baylis, John, Smith, Steve, Patricia, Owens. The Globalization of World Politics: An Introduction to International Relations. London: Oxford University Press. 2008. Print. Bird, Tim and Marshall, Alex. Afghanistan: How the West lost its Way. London: Yale University Press. 2011. Print. Dunne, Tim, Kurki Milja and Smith Steve. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity. London: Oxford University Press. 2013. Print. Goldstein, Joshua and Pevehouse, Jon (a). International Relations. London, England: Longman. 2011. Print. Goldstein, Joshua and Pevehouse, Jon (b). Readings in International Relations. London, England: Longman. 2008. Print. MacGregor, David and Zarembka, Paul. Marxism, Conspiracy, and 9–11. Socialism and Democracy, 24.2 (2010): 139-163. Presbey, Gail. Philosophical Perspectives on the War on Terrorism. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi. 2007. Print. Sens, Allen and Stoett, Peter. Global Politics: Origins, Currents, Directions. Toronto, Ontario: Nelson Education Ltd. 2010. Print. Villar, Oliver and Cottle, Drew. Cocaine, Death Squads, and the War on Terror: U.S. Imperialism and Class Struggle in Colombia. New York: NYU Press. 2014. Print. Read More