United States of Afghanistan

Garrett 대 희 “Dae Hee” Edmark

Sept. 3, 2023, 12:52PM

United States of Afghanistan

PROFESSOR IONET CATALIN POPESCU PHD: Liberals argue that states generally benefit from following international law, while realists are skeptical of it and instead contend that states generally protect their sovereignty and pursue their self-interest. Which perspective has the better explanation for international military and economic interactions in today’s world? Are there examples you can think of that support one view or the other on the influence of international law?

GARRETT 대 희 “DAE HEE” EDMARK: I would contend that, in theory, while the beneficiary of adherence to international law is the states; in practice, realism best explains the nature of international economic and military interactions. Deviance from the liberal perspective, in regard to issues that catalyze military intervention or economic sanctions are too common. In theory, Liberalist perspective policy is fantastic in a vacuum void of deviance; however, In the case of Syria, the UN had to enact multiple policies in regard to the Syrian War which have not aided much. In the cases of the Russo-Ukrainian war, the Holy land war of Israel-Hamas, The Insurgencies of Maghreb, the ongoing civil wars in North & South Kivu and Ethiopia, the current conflicts in Afghanistan, Columbia, Somalia and Nigeria present a diverse set of issues the liberal perspective is ill equipped to explain. The realist perspective best fits to explain the nature of international economic and military interactions as a whole. Historically the primary catalyst for war is the presence of threatened sovereignty and ill-willed state-interest-centric actions.

cont.

PROFESSOR IONET CATALIN POPESCU PHD: Do you agree, ethically, with Obama's decision not to intervene in the Syrian civil war?

GARRETT 대 희 “DAE HEE” EDMARK: Yes, in previous discussions we had discussed multiple cases of unnecessary intervention by the United States. In the cases of the occupation of Afghanistan, the Vietnam war, the War in 1812 and a laundry list of others a commonality of non-necessity is present. The Syrian civil war is a heartbreaking example of the human condition, cases accounted for by Ahlam Al-Nasr describe the actions of the regime as ‘an anatomy lesson’ stating, “Their bullets shattered our brains like an Earthquake, even strong bones cracked then broke.” (Cresswell & Haykel, 2015, p. 3) Despite these gut-wrenching accounts, it is not the United States’ place to intervene in affairs not relating to the United States or its citizens. The burden of intervention belongs to organizations such as the United Nations, not the United States. Interventions in international Civil Wars are displays of thuggish misuses of power. Privatized support to the citizens of Syria is heartwarming and the donations of public officials to Syrian refugees and victims of the conflict is great; but the moment that the government as a union intervenes it becomes an issue in suggesting that the United States agrees with the militarized invasion, occupation and imposition of ideologies.

Privacy

About us