Running head: THE US PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN 1

The U.S. Presence In Afghanistan

Joshua Stevens
Salt Lake Community College
International Relations 2100
February 20, 2021
Colin Moore
THE US PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN 2

The Posing Question and Introduction

What governs the actions between nations in the modern world? The wealth each nation

has, perhaps the military might or the unpredictability of the state governing the country? Maybe

the combination of these factors is the answer, i.e. an economically healthy nation has the ability

to build up its armed forces and wealth to give them the most advanced technology and

weaponry. Actually, this is a question that is not easily answered and in fact will have different

answers that may contradict each other that can also all be correct. This is because the world of

International Relations is a complex one, one that has many governmental bodies, influential

individuals and groups, and other actors who can sway the policy of a gubernatorial head; and

there is not simply one way to think about these factors. Relations between nations are analyzed

through competing schools of thought looking at what is truly important when considering what

influences a nation. These schools of thought are called theories, and these theories use

historical evidence, psychological sciences, and economic currents to qualify their interpretations

on what is the underlying cause of major events. In this paper we will be briefly analyzing the

war and conflict aspect of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

International Norms

First, we must outline a few of the key points and rules that the leading nations and states

of today play by. Let’s start with defining a crucial word and what it means to the U.S.,

international regime. From the book International Relations, (Pevehouse & Goldstein) we get,
THE US PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN 3

“An international regime is a set of rules, norms, and procedures around which the expectations

of actors converge in a certain issue area (whether arms control, international trade, or Antarctic

exploration). The convergence of expectations means that participants in the international

system have similar ideas about what rules will govern their mutual participation:” and to the

main point, “Each expects to play by the same rules.” The U.S. is part of an international

regime that it allows to dictate some of the actions it takes and within this international regime

there are rules that can be violated that will bring international courts to deliberate upon a nations

actions. The 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center buildings opened up the legal

possibility for the U.S. to take military action against groups within Afghanistan, a decision

which at the time was supported my many other states that were also part of the same

international regime the U.S. was a member of. There are conditions which the United Nations

will allow a nation to go to war with a state.

The Material Realist theory provides much of the reasoning behind why the U.S. started

its invasion. A major economic center of transfers of wealth had been utterly destroyed and

many lives along with it, all under actions that were a major trauma to the sense of security of the

United States and many other nations allied to the U.S. The impact and threat this occurrence

had on the international web of commerce was too great to brush under the rug so direct military

action was taken. Liberal institutionalist theories explain why many states allowed the U.S. to

take this direct military actions as the threats posed needed to be addressed and much of this can

be explained by the term collective security. International Relations, “collective security, the

formation of a broad alliance of most major actors in an international system for the purpose of

jointly opposing aggression by any actor; sometimes seen as presupposing the existence of a
THE US PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN 4

universal organization to which both the aggressor and its opponents belong.” Ensuring

collective security was of chief importance at the time.

Constructivism and Collective Security under Constructivism

Constructivism provides the best explanation for why the U.S. led coalition still has

troops in Afghanistan. Constructivism states that much of why states act the way they do is

because of pre-existing elements necessitating certain actions. There were goals that the U.S.

wanted to accomplish while it was occupying Afghanistan. One of those was to bring stability to

the region as there was not an identifiable state that was responsible for the WTC attacks. It was

a problem that there was a lack of a governing body in Afghanistan to which the groups within

the region would be accountable to. The Taliban regime was not an officially recognized body

of governance and gave safe harbor to the Al Qaeda group, which was suspected of being the

chief actor in the WTC attacks. Constructivism also holds that the rules can be changed some by

the parties involved and the reason why the U.S. continued operations in the area was to

influence a regime change and establish a stable reliable government there. The Constructivist

realizes that the understanding, cooperation, and responses of the people within a nation to the

institutions and laws of a nation matter much more that the writ of the law on paper, created by

the government of that nation. Although there was not much of that in Afghanistan in the first

place, the U.S. wished to establish a change to what the people of the middle eastern region

would experience as they went about their day.

THE US PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN 5

References

Jon C.W. Pevehouse, Joshua S. Goldstein. (2017). International Relations. Pearson

Professor Caleb Gallemore. (2011, June 10). Theory in Action: Constructivism. Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYU9UfkV_XI

IR Scholars. (2012, June 21). Theory in Action: The War in Iraq. Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUF-T5JubDg