National interest, while predominant, was no longer the only consideration.
One of the problems with a constructivist understanding of the war though, is to what extent the international system allows for freedom of choice. If constructivism were true, then there were no "real" constraints on the actions of Bill Clinton during the crisis. Yet sending ground troops in for example, would have been politically infeasible, not only due to American public opinion, but because Russia might have seen that as a threat to its interests in the region and moved to act in a provocative way. The point is then, that if there are external constraints to our actions, then we are not really free to "construct" the world as we see fit, neither in our personal lives, or in the international arena. This does not mean that realism is right in its specific assumptions, but it may suggest that there are some fundamental truths to international relations that force states into particular courses of action.
In conclusion, it seems that realism provides us with a good picture of why the United States was involved in the region in general, and why it Clinton felt the need...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now