What should the US do about the conflict in Syria? Should we intervene and uphold international law? Or should we stay out of it because nothing good could come out of it? In international relations there are two main schools of thought, Realism and Idealism.
Enlightenment thinker Thomas Hobbes popularized political Realism; to Hobbes any action that a state made was to increase its own power. A nation was to gain and maintain as much power as possible in order to survive. War is just another tool in a nations arsenal to increase its power, but one must be careful not to engage in any conflict that could leave the state in a worse position than it was in before. It is for this reason that many realists condemned the Vietnam War because Vietnam was not a threat, and intervening did nothing to advance the states power. In realism, every action was selfish, reflecting a negative view on human nature that Hobbes held.
18th century philosopher Immanuel Kant was probably the most popular Idealist. Idealism in a basic sense is trying to further a more unified and peaceful world. Idealist believed that governments should work together by forming large international organizations such as the UN and promote trade and democracy. They believed that all states should give up selfish short-term views in favor of the bigger picture in peace and morality. Idealism also states that war is almost always found between two autocracies, or a democracy and an autocracy, never between two democracies. It is for this reason they also believe that the world should become more democratic in order to achieve “perpetual peace”. It is for this reason that President Woodrow Wilson decided to fight imperial Germany, whose actions were in the opposition of peace and stability in Europe.
Now to what to do about Syria, many of you reading this might say that it would be a Realist position to intervene in Syria, and the Idealist would not intervene. This is actually untrue. Just because a state is a realist state does not make them a war mongering state, they simply use war as a means of consolidating power. A realist would actually not want to intervene. There is no gain to be had from Syria. Intervention would result in a potential loss in American lives and no benefits whatsoever. In the Iraq war, a main reason we intervened was for oil, and the “threat” of WMDs; there WAS a benefit from intervention. Now an idealist would want to intervene. Idealists think that international law should be upheld and enforced by an international organization such as the UN. But ironically the most idealist organization in the world does not want to intervene. An idealist would overthrow Assad and install a democratic government in his place. The west is seen as a very idealist place, but in reality that is a lie. We did not intervene in the war between Iraq and Iran when chemical weapons were also being used, we didn’t intervene in Darfur where an ethnic cleansing was being carried out. In this writer’s humble opinion, we should have intervened, not just the United States, but Germany, France, Britain, Russia, any country in the UN, in order to lessen the economic burden on any single country. I am pleased with the diplomatic solution that has been presented to us, but if that deal was not followed through, Assad should have been punished. In order to succeed as a society we must create, and uphold international law and further progress to become one international state, where democracy will reign supreme.
This writing was inspired by our Political Forum discussion on October 3rd and if you made it to the end of this article you will probably be interested in joining in on the discussion, held every other Thursday in room 310. You might also enjoy philosophy forum, held every other Tuesday in room 306.
