Conventional Military Forces example essay topic

Realist thought on international relations fit comfortably within the context of the great wars of the twentieth century. Powerful nations possessing massive military forces took aim at one another to affect the hierarchical structure of the international system for the good of their own security and power. These wars, however, differ greatly from today's unconventional war on terrorism. Therefore, the realist theories of yesterday, while still useful, require at least some tweaking to fit the present situation. Probably the most obvious critique of realism with regard to the war on terrorism is that it is a theory that deals with international relations. The belligerents in the war on terrorism are not always conventional nation-states.

Therefore, any theory that seeks to explain international relations must be amended to fit the framework of a situation in which nations are not the only players. This is not simply a matter of diction either. Non-state actors do not always act like states possessing a cohesive foreign policy and a desire for self-preservation and advancement. Furthermore, terrorist organizations are not tied to any specific area of land surrounded by well-defined borders that are protected with conventional military forces. This is not to say that terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are entirely devoid of the motivations on which traditional nation-sates act like the desire for power, wealth, and security; because, to at least some degree, they must possess these to continue their mission, but it is reasonable to assume that their actions will not always follow the same paths as states. On the other hand, one area in which realism is valuable to the war on terrorism is with regard to the notion that raw military might is one of the best, if not the best way for nations to ensure their security and prosperity.

While it is a bit dubious to assume that conventional military forces will be able to effectively combat individual physical acts of terrorism, it is reasonable to assume that military force can be used to change some of the root causes of terrorist action. Many of the terrorist attacks against the United States over the past two decades have been carried out by Islamic extremists from impoverished countries run by tyrannically oppressive regimes. The quality of life for most people in these countries is miserable at best. As such, it should come as no surprise that people from these circumstances are prone to defending with violence what they believe to be attacks by the West on the only good thing they have - religion. However, in the absence of such wretched circumstance, it is likely that they will be less inclined to act violently. History has shown that the most effective way to create wealth and subsequently improve quality of life is within the framework of capitalism supported by liberal democratic institutions.

Conventional military might can, as we have seen recently in Iraq, depose tyrannical regimes and replace them with representative governments that foster the well-being of their people. Therefore, combining the normative goal of improving living conditions by means of the realist approach to military power, the United States can better defend itself against the threat of terrorism.