Essay
US withdrawal from Afghanistan in eyes of IR theories
- Module
- Politics
- Institution
- The University Of Strathclyde (UOS)
It talks about how realism and constructivism as theories of IR apply to US withdrawal from Afghanistan
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
Content preview
ESSAYChoose 2 different theories we have covered in class. How do they help us
to understand the timing, character and impact of the recent United States'
withdrawal from Afghanistan?
The United States withdrew its armed forces from Afghanistan in August 2021 concluding its two-
decade-long military engagement in the region. The decision made by the Biden administration
generated significant controversy leading to heated discussions on the timing, nature and potential
ramifications of the United States' withdrawal. In this essay, I aim to analyze the United States'
withdrawal from Afghanistan by using two prominent international relations theories, namely
Realism and Constructivism. Both theories presenting divergent viewpoints significantly contribute to
understanding the underlying forces that influenced the withdrawal of the United States and its
broader international consequences.
Since the end of World War II, realism has evolved as a significant theoretical paradigm in the area
of international relations. Realists have a pessimistic view of the dynamics of international politics,
asserting that nation-states function within a global framework characterised by an absence of
central authority, leading them to engage in power struggles and prioritise self-reliance in order to
ensure their security (Morgenthau, 1948). Realism is a theoretical framework that centres on the
primacy of power politics, whereby governments actively seek their national interests. Mearsheimer
(2001) posits that realists assign more importance to military and economic capabilities as the
principal factors influencing power dynamics while downplaying the relevance of international
institutions, norms, and moral considerations in the realm of global politics. Realists argue that the
distribution of power among states is primarily determined by the deployment of material resources,
particularly military strength.
While economic power is undeniably a consequential element, realists prefer to assign more
significance to the primacy of physical military capabilities. Waltz (1979) posits that nations
deliberately use their available resources in order to exert influence on other entities and bolster
their relative power position. Furthermore, advocates of realism contend that governments mostly
use self-interested tactics in order to protect the national interest a notion that is understood in the
context of power relations. Individuals often exhibit a proclivity for prioritising pragmatic factors and
engaging in a cost-benefit analysis of their activities, rather than being strictly constrained by moral
norms. In research conducted by Morgenthau (1948), it was shown that the influence of morality is
limited inside a society characterised by anarchy. The basic principles of realism cover a set of core
tenets that form the basis of this philosophical and artistic movement. State-centrism is a theoretical
framework that posits states as the dominant actors in the domain of international politics.
This approach acknowledges the absence of a centralized authority in the anarchic international
order, as described by Waltz (1979). The discipline of international politics focuses on the analysis of
power dynamics between states in which countries use their capabilities to advance their own
national goals (Morgenthau, 1946). According to the scholarly work of Waltz (1959), nation-states
ascertain their national goals by considering power dynamics and undertaking a strategic evaluation
to enhance their power capabilities. The impact of morals and ideology is negligible. The primary
, goal of governments is to ensure their security and maintain their autonomy as independent
institutions (Waltz, 1979)
From a realist perspective, the United States' decision to withdraw from Afghanistan might be seen
as a rational course of action aimed at ending a prolonged and costly battle that no longer
corresponded with its national interests. Walt (2021) discusses that the United States effectively
achieved its core aims of dismantling Al-Qaeda and apprehending Osama bin Laden. Nevertheless,
endeavours aimed at the establishment and development of a country have faced substantial
impediments, resulting in a state of limited advancement. Therefore, it contends that the ongoing
deployment of resources, including human lives and financial expenditures, in Afghanistan lacks
sufficient rationale.
The withdrawal process allowed the United States to maintain its dominance by shifting its focus
towards more pressing concerns, such as the geopolitical competition with China and Russia. The
prioritization of national security concerns shifted with the battle between China and Russia for great
power status taking precedence over counterterrorism efforts. The allocation of resources in
Afghanistan necessitated their reallocation to other locations. The presence of the United States'
occupation in Afghanistan contributed to the cultivation of Afghan animosity and facilitated the
recruiting efforts of the Taliban. The act of departing would eliminate a contributing factor to the
presence of anti-American sentiment.
The act of withdrawal would enable the United States to preserve its dominance and direct its
attention towards pressing global matters such as China, Russia, and the ongoing issues. Continuing
to remain involved in Afghanistan was seen as a wasteful use of the United States' resources and
skills. Realists argue that the United States initiated military intervention in Afghanistan in 2001 with
the objective of eradicating the terrorist menace presented by Al Qaeda and dismissing the Taliban
regime from authority. Proponents of the realism perspective contend that the United States'
continued involvement in Afghanistan's internal strife is no longer congruent with its fundamental
national security objectives given the significant weakening of Al Qaeda and the emergence of other
threats. It is said that as the expenses associated with the conflict increased, policymakers in the
United States came to the conclusion that allocating resources towards defeating major adversaries
such as China and Russia would be a more cost-effective approach. The Afghan government was seen
to be an ineffective effort. The alleged dishonesty and perceived ineffectiveness of the Afghan
administration rendered the United States' endeavours in nation-building ultimately unproductive.
The subject matter under consideration pertains to the realm of domestic politics. There was a
decrease in popular support inside the United States for maintaining involvement in Afghanistan.
From a political standpoint, it is evident that both the Democratic and Republican parties expressed a
preference for withdrawal (Mearsheimer, 2021). Moreover, supporters of the realist approach saw
the shift as a recognition of the changing balance of power in the region. In light of the advent of
new security concerns and the limitations on the United States' capacity to exercise influence in the
process of reconfiguring Afghan political dynamics, proponents of realism viewpoints argue that the
choice to decrease the US military presence was a sensible one. The ideological implications
associated with the Taliban's ascension to power elicit concerns among observers. However, realist
approaches tend to downplay the strategic significance of the governing body in Afghanistan. Realist
scholars contend that the United States should prioritize the maintenance of its authority until
substantial security interests are at stake. In this context, they propose delegating the burden of
defeating the Taliban to regional nations, including Pakistan, India, Iran, and Russia. The realist
perspective which primarily emphasizes material capabilities and security interests failed to take into
account the moral reasons that may have played a significant role in shaping the United States'
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller jaieeashtekar1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £8.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
60434 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now