Cover Page

Name: Nancy Sherif Mahmoud Dakroury

Module: International Relations Theory

Research Topic: In recent decades, with the decrease in major interstate

war, scholarship in the International Relations has focused increasingly on
the changing nature of armed conflicts. Topics as terrorism,
counterinsurgency, peace-keeping, “new wars”, and (international
dimensions of civil war came increasingly under focus. Pick one relevant
case study and show which IR theory could provide a convincing explanation
for how such phenomena evolve and are dealt with.

Research Question:
Realism as a Theory in Action and Practice: How Can Realism Explain the
2001 Afghanistan War?

1
 Realism as a Theory in Action and Practice: How Can Realism Explain the 2001

Afghanistan War?

The author of the 'Republic', Plato, would have never understood International Relations

(IR) as a discipline or even as completely separate from domestic politics. As the concept

of knowledge was often assumed by many other ancient thinkers to be something

indubitable. And that is the main element that does not exist in IR theory, ‘certainty’. There

are numerous theories that can explain how the international political arena works, as a

single event can be explained differently by the variations of the IR theories, yet all of

them can be equally feasible. Consequently, it can be observed that there is a dispute

regarding which theory gives the most precise explanation. Since one of the most

fundamental problems of IR is how to justify why war breaks out, a country like

Afghanistan which has been in a state of civil war since 1978 and did not witness peace

or political unification for the past 41 years, can be a very debatable case study when it

comes to explaining it using different IR theories (Cordesman, 2010). A realist will

completely argue and explain the cause of war in Afghanistan different than a liberal or a

social constructivist. Realism, for instance, operates under the assumption that states are

the only actors on the political stage living in an international anarchical system with the

absence of a universally recognized authority (Linsinski, 2012). For realists, war is mainly

fought to protect or to expand security for states. Throughout the history of mankind, there

were many characters who had been identified as realists who fought for this sole purpose

and reshaped history, e.g. Napoleon Bonaparte, Cesar, Alexander the Great, Adolf Hitler

(Linsinski, 2012). Since wars remain a huge extension of politics, it is difficult not to

acknowledge realism's account for war since history seems to favour it. Correspondingly

2
after the failure of realism to expect the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991,

it was revived again in the study of IR theory after the events of September 11 when

Afghanistan became a predominant national security concern for the United States

(Zahra, 2011). The aim of this paper is to analyse the American invasion of Afghanistan

by examining the approaches taken by the U.S. administrations towards it, especially, the

Obama administration. The analysis will hopefully reveal both Bush and Obama's

administrations shared a strong realist perspective and act, which was particularly

apparent in their administrations' counterterrorism strategy towards Afghanistan.

Between Realism and Ally ship (or The Theory of Alliances).

The theory of alliances or an alliance can be defined as a group of countries that

simultaneously abide by "collective security strategies" with respecting each other’s

boundaries but not having that much respect to the other states outside of the alliance

(Emerson, Niou & Ordeshook, 1994). Taking into consideration that there are inevitable,

established and adequate conditions for an alliance system to be stable, and so only

specific countries can play the role of the balancer (Emerson, Niou & Ordeshook, 1994).

With an application after the 9/11 terrorist attack on the United States, and within less

than 24 hours, America's allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization came together

to entreat the alliance's Article Five defence guarantee which states that "attack on one"

was to be recognised as an "attack on all” (Gordon, 2002). The US and its North Atlantic

Treaty Organization (NATO) allies launched the war against terrorism out of a deep-

rooted sense of concern and fear of terrorists attacking the major powers in the future

(Gordon, 2002), it can be observed by not just adjusting to the ally ship but also protect

3
themselves in a realist sense (Zahra, 2011). The same attitude can be observed in history

when the Roman Empire fought the Jewish zealots because of similar fears (Sorrells,

n.d.), this is the logic of politics that did not change throughout the entire history.

For the most part, the global war on terrorism has resulted in drastic consequences in a

snowball effect way. At first, it seems like one IR theory is insufficient to illustrate all trends

of contemporary politics. However, classical realism can be argued to be the only viable

theory that can provide reasonable interpretations of current trends (Julian, 2010).

Realism believes in the problem of the security dilemma, power politics, international

anarchic system, the human nature of continuous conflict and self-interest (Julian, 2010).

And of course, as previously stated, it acknowledges states as the principal actors in the

international system. Although the incident of 9/11 was not the first of kind when it comes

to classifying terrorist events in history, yet the significance it gained was simply due to

the involvement of a great state whose security was endangered. Because if the same

event happened in Bangladesh, for instance, it would not have gained that much

attention. This proves the precision of Thucydides’ logic when he stated that the security

and the concerns of a powerful state are more prominent in the course of events than the

weaker ones (Thucydides, n.d.).

The Re-Emergence of Realism and Its Practice by the US administration

As previously stated, realism has become the epicentre of the whole strategic arguments

started after the United States experienced an exceptional attack by Al Qaeda terrorist

organization in 2001 and the consequent war against terror afterwards (Zahra, 2011).

4
George W. Bush's Administration then had to act quickly using the concept of the Just

War 'to bring justice' (Paskins, 2007). The attention was shifted to Afghanistan when

Taliban has offered a safe shelter for Al Qaeda to hold their training and their operations

together (Thomas, 2021). Bush then clearly stated that he will not make any differentiation

between the terrorists and those who defend them (Bush, 2001). And so, within a couple

of months, it seemed like the US was achieving its goals of eliminating the Taliban from

power and destroying the shelters of Al-Qaeda. Especially in November 2001, when the

UN Security Council passes Resolution no. 1378, which called for a “central role”

represented in establishing a transitional administration, as well as, peacekeeping forces

of the UN member states were called to increase the stability and aid delivery (Katzman

& Thomas, 2017). However, the momentum began to slow down in 2002, because of the

American distraction of shifting its intelligence and military resources from Afghanistan to

its new military campaign in Iraq in 2003 (Katzman & Thomas, 2017).

Barack Obama got elected and took office in 2009, he was required to bring a reasonable

end to the two Middle Eastern wars that he had inherited -the Afghanistan war and the

Iraqi war -. It is argued that the Americans misunderstood him to be a non-interventionist

when he condemned Bush's step towards the American War in Iraq as he was strongly

against it (Hoffman, 2015). However, and as a matter of fact, Obama was not anti-wars

but rather an internationalist who favoured a vigorous American role in the Middle East.

Obama was only against the loss of thousands of 'American' lives and nearly a trillion

dollars, at that time, for fighting a war in Iraq that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

And thus, his intentions were clear, a reduction of resources and force in Iraq to majorly

5
shift to an increase of the effort and force again in Afghanistan, considering it as the

central front for the war on terrorism after Iraq diverted the focus of the United States

(Hoffman, 2015). It then became evident that Obama's foreign policy stances were

developed with a far more realist perspective when he was determined to increase both

U.S. troops and NATO troop level in Afghanistan, and additionally desired an accretion in

drone strikes and operations within Pakistan's border (Katzman & Thomas, 2017).

Moreover, his realist perspective further shined in his speeches that incorporated many

realist ideas like security, state interest and being a hegemonic power overseas (Obama,

n.d.).

Obama was clearly using liberal language when it came to addressing the audience but

his actual language behind the scenes depicted the genuine influence of realism in his

decision-making process (Hoffman, 2015). And thus, despite the rhetoric used words that

served as a publicity tool, the realist maxims of protecting the US and its national interests

were the important key goals and the primary subjects for the Obama administration. For

instance, one of the main realist policies of Obama's approaches in Afghanistan has been

the usage of drone strikes, as they demonstrate a clear commitment to realism as they

show no regard for morality (Campbell, 2014). Obama himself has a very realist approach

throughout the complete process, and this attitude reached his security council itself.

6
Realist Policies in A Liberal Government: Evaluating Obama’s Administration

(Obama’s Counter Terrorism Strategy as an Example).

This section is intended to look deeper into the realist approaches and policies that were

driven by the White House in Obama's administration. Counterterrorism can be classified

as a superior insight that can further help to end the Obama liberal-realist debate

(Campbell, 2014). This will be argued by highlighting Obama's employed tactics to

combat terrorism that clearly conflicts with his rhetoric liberal speeches. Certainly, it is

recognised that campaign slogans are not meant to ensure and secure citizenry but rather

to win the elections. Unlike what he promised in his 2008 campaign as to combat terrorism

in a multilateral manner and in accordance with the rule of law, Obama's counterterrorism

strategy has alternatively followed an absolute realist logic (Campbell, 2014).

For instance, among all of the counterterrorism methods used, the Obama administration

has been characterized by nothing as much as it was marked with the use of drones,

dedicated to killing high ranking members of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban (Campbell, 2014).

The operations conducted to combat suspected terrorists, in 2011, targeted them in six

different sovereign states (Obama, n.d.). However, having ascertained that targeted

killings violate a number of liberalism's fundamental principles and the general liberal

security preferences (Campbell, 2014). For instance, violating international law was

present when:

i. there was a violation of the principles of urgency and proportionality found

within the criteria of "jus ad bellum" - which means the conditions under which

the use of military force is justified- (Paskins, 2007).

7
 ii. the targeted killings do not meet the criteria of self-defence designated in the

UN Charter (Campbell, 2014)

iii. the conflict between the United States and Al-Qaeda does not even match the

levels necessary for an "armed conflict" (Campbell, 2014).

The use of drones is only supported in a realist policymaking manner, which does not

necessarily mean that realism does not support the idea of morality but rather any

decision based on morality should never inhibit or impede a state's survival (Julian, 2010).

With all things considered, it can be concluded that the fundamental policies that were

employed by Obama's administration suggested a preference to perform unilaterally, and

ridicule international law. However, it enhanced national security –which again, is a clear

realist thought- at the cost of the generally accepted liberal international values.

To conclude, classical realism shows clearly how a powerful state can exercise its power

by forcing its own political will and how, on the other hand, a weaker state ends up at its

political fate. With an application of this insight to contemporary international politics, it

can be found that as a result of the 9/11 terrorist attack, Bush launched a global war on

terrorism, invaded two countries, obligated Pakistan to shift its pro-Taliban Afghan stand

overnight (Zahra, 2011). Furthermore, U.S. revenged 6,000 deaths of 9/11 (Katzman &

Thomas, 2017) with countless deaths of innocent civilians and a virtual metaphorical

death of the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice. All of this can be

concluded when Thcysdides wrote in the 'Meliab Dialogue', 'the strong do what they have

to do and the weak accept what they have to accept' (Thcysdides, n.d.). Apparently, the

8
exclusive decisive point in international politics for survival is power and certainly, it is the

only principle that matters.

Was it really worth it?

For the past year, there has been an obvious inconsistency in the Taliban's "jihad".

Although they stopped the attacks on international forces after the signing of an

agreement with the United States, however, it continued to fight with the government of

Afghanistan (Thomas, 2021). And after nearly two decades of fighting, marking it to be

the longest war in US history and although the violence is still intensifying within the

country, President Biden decided to withdraw the American troops back to the US by

September 11, 2021 (DeYoung, 2021). A combat mission that costed two trillion dollars

and thousands of lives (Thomas, 2021) has clearly failed to establish a stable democratic

system or even to achieve any of its objective goals, is finally coming to an end (DeYoung,

2021). Moreover, the Allies have also decided to begin their withdrawal of forces stationed

under the (RSM) or known as the non-combat Resolute Support Mission, which has been

training, teaching and assisting the Security Forces of Afghanistan and its organisations

and institutions since January 2015 (NATO, 2015). The whole drawdown of both, the

United States and RSM forces started on the 1st May 2021 and should be supposedly

completed within the next few months.

The situation remains as it is since World War II, as the United States has just nearly lost

every war which has been fought in any developing country. It has simply highlighted the

tragedy of the greatest world power’s incapability to win asymmetric conflicts. Taking into

9
consideration that the potentially destructive consequences for Afghanistan, the

neighbouring region (especially Pakistan) cannot be underestimated (Thomas, 2021).

None of Bush's empty promises whether to save the Afghans from the brutal theocratic

rule of the Taliban and its alliance with Al-Qaeda or to change Afghanistan political system

into a stable and prosperous democratic system were fulfilled. In the end, the US and its

allies will withdraw their forces, leaving behind a broken Afghanistan and just like the

same scenario with South Vietnam in 1975 and the unnecessary war of Iraq. The Taliban

has already claimed victory, and the helpless Afghan citizens are the ones who are still

paying for that. It was clearly not worth it.

Conclusion

Non-state actors are not a uniquely new phenomenon in the international political arena,

but the Twin Towers 9/11 attack can be considered as the first-ever attack on the US.

The consequent response United States can only be understood in realpolitik terms,

furthermore, it can be explained as a reassertion of the pre-eminence of the state. In

short, no matter how many times a county is bragging about its liberal approaches. As

long as the state is central, realism is always relevant.

10
 Bibliography

Bush, G. (2001, September 11). Statement by the President in Address to the Nation.
Welcome to the White House; Office of the Press Secretary, White House.
https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-
16.html

Campbell, B. (2014). Realist or Liberal?: Theoretical Interpretations of the Obama

Administration’s Counter terrterrorism Strategy. Retrieved from:
https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/211343

Cordesman, A. (2010). Realism in Afghanistan: Rethinking an Uncertain Case for the

War | Center for Strategic and International Studies. Center for Strategic and
International Studies |; Center For Strategic & International Studies.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/realism-afghanistan-rethinking-uncertain-case-war

DeYoung, M. R., Karen. (2021, April 13). Biden to withdraw U.S. forces from
Afghanistan by Sept. 11, 2021 - The Washington Post. Washington Post; The
Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-
security/biden-us-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan/2021/04/13/918c3cae-9beb-
11eb-8a83-3bc1fa69c2e8_story.html

Emerson M. S. Niou, & Ordeshook, P. (1994). Alliances in Anarchic International

Systems. International Studies Quarterly, 38(2), 167-191. doi:10.2307/2600974
Gordon, P. (2002). NATO and the War on Terrorism a Changing Alliance. The
Brookings Review, 20(3), 36-38. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20081052

Hoffman, T. (2015). Realism in Action: Obama’s Foreign Policy in Afghanistan. Article 6.

16 (IV). Political Analysis.

Julian, W. (2010). Political Realism in International Relations. Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism-intl-relations/

Katzman, K., & Thomas, C. (2017, December 13). Afghanistan: Post-Taliban

Governance, Security and US Policy. Congressional Research Service ;
Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30588.pdf

Lisinski, K. (2012, May 3). Explaining War: A Comparison of Realism and

Constructivism. E-International Relations;
https://www.facebook.com/einternationalrelations. https://www.e-
ir.info/2012/05/03/explaining-war-a-comparison-of-realism-and-constructivism/
NATO - Topic: NATO and Afghanistan. (2021, April 15). NATO; NATO.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_8189.htm

11
Obama, B. (n.d.). - NARCO-TERRORISM: INTERNATIONAL DRUG TRAFFICKING
AND TERRORISM--A DANGEROUS MIX. Govinfo.Gov | U.S. Government
Publishing Office. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-108shrg90052/html/CHRG-
108shrg90052.htm

Paskins, B. (2007) Realism and the Just War, Journal of Military Ethics, 6:2, 117-130,
DOI: 10.1080/15027570701381971

Sorrells,W. (n.d.). Insurgency in Ancient Times: The Jewish Revolts Against the
Seleucid and Roman Empires, 166 BC-73 AD . (n.d.). United States Army
Command and General Staff College ; School of Advanced Military Studies
.Retrieved June 3, 2021, from https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA436236.pdf

Thomas, C. (2021). Afghanistan: Background and U.S. Policy: In Brief. Congressional

Research Service. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R45122.pdf

Thucydides. (n.d.). The Melian Dialogue. Retrieved June 3, 2021, from

http://fs2.american.edu/dfagel/www/Class%20Readings/Thucydides/Melian%20D
ialogues.pdf

Zahra, N. (2011). Terrorism, Realism and the State. Pakistan Horizon, 64(1), 61-74.
Retrieved April 21, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/24711143

12