Take one contemporary event and explore the event from the lens of the realist, liberal, and identity perspectives. How would the realist perspective explain the event? How would the liberal perspective explain the event? How would the identity perspective explain this event?
There are many ways to viewing an event because everyone has different perspectives, views, and outlooks on life. The events of 9/11 have significantly changed our country's way of life drastically and how some individuals view of the world. With the attack, our views on foreign policy changed and the need to step up our security and protect our country became the number one priority. The realist perspective is defined as, "a perspective that sees the world largely in terms of a struggle for relative power in which strong actors seek to dominate and weak actors seek to resist (14-15)." The U.S. was looking to be able to dominate Al Qaeda since they were the weaker link in the equation but what ended up happening was way worse than ever expected. A professor from the University of Southern California by the name of Ronald Steel, described the terrorist attacks as "a war in which the weak turned the guns of the strong against them, showing that in the end there may be no such thing as a universal civilization of which we all too easily assume we are the rightful leaders (14-15)." The realist perspective could potentially cause more harm than good. Due to the ignorance of the stronger forces thinking that they are untouchable to the weaker forces.
As for the liberal perspective, this is a perspective that emphasizes strong relationships and negations, establishing patterns or institutions for resolving international conflicts (16). In simpler terms, these individuals with the liberal perspective look to solve their issues by communication rather than going straight to war. The United States of America and Al Qaeda had many unsolved issues and one day by not resolving these issues, the whole 9/11 terrorist attack blew up in the United States face and caused a major attack on our nation. A journalist by the name of Caryle Murphy stated that "if we want to avoid creating more terrorists, we must end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a way both ways see as fair (16)." Murphy is basically saying that nations should act like adults and be able to have a conversation that can benefit both sides. If the two sides were able to meet in the middle about the American presence in the middle east, this how situation could have been avoided.
Lastly, the identity perspective is defined as a perspective that emphasizes the casual importance of the ideas and identities of actors, which motivate their use of power and negotiations. The importance to change one's cultural and identity to a more agreeable set of values is the way to create peace and understanding. With the example of the 9/11 attack, if we would have changed the whole country of Iraq, got rid of the dictatorship that were in Iraq, and changed the country into having more democratic ideas, we could have had more peace as two nations and avoided all of the turmoil that became of it.
Thoroughly compare and contrast the realist, liberal, and identity perspectives. What makes these perspectives similar or different? Make sure to discuss the key concepts of each perspective.
The way these perspectives are similar is due to their give and take relationships. The way that the realist and identity perspective are similar are that a more power force causes a less powerful force to change in some aspect because both know the culture and world position of one another. A way the identity and liberal perspectives could be similar is if there is a mutual respect and understanding that lead into a negotiation. The realist perspective can be used as a bargaining chip in the liberal perspective, meaning the threat of force could be used as a negotiated tactic. All of these perspectives are similar in that they all play roles in power sharing in the balance of power when dealing with two different actors. Balance of power in a realist perspective is lopsided towards one party, whereas balance of power for the liberal perspective is of equals for sharing the power. Viewing the balance of power through the lenses of the liberal perspective, the balance of power is more equal to that perspective. For the balance of power, the identity perspective would be the cultural understanding of each nation to have a similar mindset in negotiations when the situation arises.
The way that these perspectives are different is how the countries and/or actors interact with each other. The realist perspective is one that has a power struggle with a more powerful economy or military and uses it as a force for change or security on the worlds stage. Power struggles in the realist perspective can between two powerful countries that use a military or an economic strength to provide a protection again each other. An example of this would be the United States of America and Russia due to both of these countries militaries are their strengths and can be used as a force to avoiding conflict with each other. The liberal perspective is one that is primarily built of institutions and tools of the international community for the purposes of negotiation for two countries (11). An example of the liberal perspective would be the United Nations and how the countries of the would come together to create peace with each other and to avoid conflict. The identity perspective is an understanding of cultural and ideas for the purposes of working out conflicts and partnerships and to have a better understanding of what is important to each other. The free exchange of ideas and possible shared cultural allows for an easier relationship with each country. An example of the identity perspective would the United States and Canada. The reason for this is that the two countries have a shared culture, border, and ideals. These are not always separate, you can have two of the perspectives or all three in one situation. An example of all three perspectives used in one situation would be the United States and Japan in World War II and that the relationship between the two countries started out within the liberal perspective in which it collapsed into the realist perspective with Pearl Habor. After WWII, turned into the identity perspective when the United States and turned Japan into a democracy.
According to the realist, liberal, identity, and critical theory perspectives how did the Cold War start? 

The Cold War started from the realist perspective due to the remaining two powers after World War II getting in a nuclear arms race. The strong man approach from the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the USSR, is the definition of the realist approach of a power struggle between two powerful nations. The realist perspective was also made worse by the spread of communism and communist fears in the United States. These two countries want to act dominant and powerful to the other with the hopes of one country giving into the tactics therefore taking the weaker role within the situation.
According to the textbook, the liberal perspectives view of the Cold War is "emphasized through the role of institutions, interdependence, and diplomatic negotiations (189)." When the United States formed NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, they did so to create a sense of security and protection against the USSR. NATO was a shared security plan due to the incoming threats from the Soviet Union. Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State for Congress, stated this about NATO, "It is not aimed at any country; it is aimed solely at the aggression (192)." From the liberal perspective, the sole purpose of NATO was to be a force to back up the integration of economic and political views of the integration in Europe, especially in the western part of the continent.
The identity perspective has a very different take on the Cold War than the previous two perspectives. Through the view of the identity perspective, highly ranked individuals with theses views feel that two nations wouldn't be their nations in jeopardy to have an all-out nuclear war but would rather as an opportunity to shape their values and to have a common humanity from the Cold War. According to the textbook for some identity perspectives, "it was a struggle between good and evil, the free would versus totalitarian societies, democracy versus communism (179)." For example, a couple of the reasons why the Cold War was started according to the identity perspective came from two factors within a domestic level of analysis and a focus on interal factors, which was Marxism-Leninism. The Soviet Union that Marxism-Leninism was apart of their nations future and would get rid of capitalism. This was something the nation heavily believed in and thought it was the best route for the country (180).
The critical theory shifts from individual acting to the historical forces in a unified manner. The textbook states that the critical theory "highlights the dialectical process of social change, driven by a combination of material, institutional, and social that lead to a more just and peaceful future (200)." Marx's critical theory, which was said that the United States was the leading representatives for the capitalist forces while the Soviet Union was the leading representative for the communist forces, was found to be wrong in which capitalism was the driving force that moved history along (202).