Around 1:20 into the speech, what does the President say the Iraq war was all about? Is this a good Realist reason to take military action?
At the beginning of his speech,President Obama says the Iraq War “began as a fight to disarm a state, then turned into a fight against an insurgency.” Because realism is a very broad term, it is difficult to simplify it using a“Realism says this” type logic. Sure there are certain characteristics that are present in each realm of realism, however, “each will have very different implications when considered as the basis forprescriptive policy.” (Williams 27)
In short, taking military action in Iraq can be considered good realist reasoning, because the disarming of a state could be framed as means of national security. Whenyou consider the original intentions proved false (i.e. turned into a fight against an insurgency) the answer becomes more complicated for realist perspective. The purpose of the counter insurgencycan be interpreted in many ways, thus there are many different answers that can be given using the six variants of realism.
What did American military intervention do according to the President(approx. 2:20)?
President Obama states that U.S. intervention in Iraq toppled a violent, oppressive regime and helped defend Iraqi sovereignty from insurrection. It also helped prepare Iraqi forceswith the means to defend themselves. The president feels the U.S. involvement has paved the way for Iraq to become a strong democratic state.
Between 3 and 4 minutes in, President Obama discussesthe changes in Iraqi security that happening now. How would a Realist evaluate what is happening to Iraq's security? What are the primary challenges to Iraqi security?
A realist would likelyevaluate Iraq’s security based on how the country fares after U.S. withdrawal. The primary challenges to Iraqi security would be building and maintaining political stability. This all depends on the...