Theories surrounding the War on Terrorism shouldn't be so be Term Paper

Theories surrounding the War on Terrorism shouldn't be so be complicated-Critical Analysis - Term Paper Example From a Foucauldian perspective, it could be argued that no theorization is ultimate and all theories are essentially characterized by the presence of existing power structures and power balance within. International relations theory too is a field of discourse which corresponds to existing power structures and modes of knowledge production. When we challenge the unity, coherence and self-evidence of such theories from the perspective of actual sufferings and miseries of people who come in contact with the war on terror, the central postulates of these theories begin to collapse. The purpose of the paper is to critically examine the dominant theories in international relations against the context of the ongoing war on terror. The paper would give a general overview of the major theoretical assertions by different schools in a nutshell and would try to show that how limited and dogmatic they are in characterizing the war on terror. Moreover, an attempt to have a glance at the ways thro ugh which dominant international relations theories reproduces the prevailing schemas, power structures an inequalities is also the aim of the paper. Besides, some of the Gramscian tool will also be used in paper for deconstructing the actual forces behind the war on terror. II. ... At present, many theorists from across the leading schools support war on terror based on many dubious arguments. In classical realism, order and stability are the determining factor of any global order based on nation state system. Change is considered as the accumulation of more capabilities and resources. The classic realist analysis of Iraq War is seen as a powers struggle between Saddam’s regime and American empire for establishing hegemony in the Middle East. The War on Terror, from a classic realist point of view, is nothing but geopolitical strategic game. The neorealist theories see hegemony as the product of the increasing concentration of power and capabilities with a single state or a coalition of willing states. Such a situation is marked for the ability of that single state or coalition to manipulate the whole global system for the protections of their narrow geopolitical interests. Neorealism therefore would see the war on terror as a result of growing unipolari ty in the post cold war world where the United States and the NATO could attack any dissident countries at will. Moreover, the war on terror would be seen as an attempt by the hegemonic powers to maximize their control of raw materials and flows of capital and goods. Especially, war on terror was waged for protecting the American interests on the gulf oil. Structural realism is of the view that no amount of power is enough in securing stability and order in a chaotic international system which is characterized by the absence of legitimate global governance structures. Great powers have to deal with the emerging powers that could potentially challenge their powers from the very beginning itself. The notion of pre-emptive strike is