Realism and Liberalism

In my topical essay my purpose was to summarize and provide a critical review of two JSTOR articles that are related to International Relations with respect to the causes of terrorism. In addition, my focus was to compare and contrast both authors’ theoretical approaches. I concluded that it was difficult to review the causes of terrorism because of the many variables and have sifted my focus on counterterrorism strategies, which can be further broken down into two types of political theories on effective counterterrorism strategies: Realism and Liberalism. I will examine by comparing and contrasting the Bush Administration’s (Realism) counterterrorism policy vs. the Obama (Liberalism) Administration’s counterterrorism policy and provide my opinion on which strategy is more effective on combatting the threat of terrorism.

Introduction

Prior to September 11th 2001, terrorism has traditionally been treated by Western governments as a criminal matter rather than a political one however, this treatment of the causes of terrorist activity can be debated as insufficient for dealing with what is, in reality, a political problem. For an answer to a political problem, it is necessary to examine some political theories and their treatment of the subject of terrorism. Realism and Liberalism offer differing viewpoints on terrorism and how it should be dealt with.

Creating a counterterrorism strategy for any country is a complex undertaking. How a government manages those obligations depends on its definition of the threat, its understanding of the players involved, and its assumptions about capabilities and responses both at home and abroad. In other words, a government must make a decision to balance the hard facts of realism with the potential of a more liberal foreign policy.

The George W. Bush administration saw terrorism as an existential threat and opted for the realist approach because in his administration’s