ISIS -as explained in the first blog post- and private contracting are evidence that realism is the seed of unconventional warfare. A realist focuses on military security, war, and power with the primary concern of all states being survival due to the antagonistic nature of worldly affairs. A conventional military/ organization has many objectives and techniques to go about their occupations and they have more varied interests than just the survival of the state and their military capabilities. On the other hand unconventional warfare techniques such as terrorism and private contracting have the sole focuses of survival and the capacity to operate as a paramilitary force to achieve their objectives.
The debated issue of terrorism and private contracting is in regards to the effectiveness and morality of both on the international stage. Terrorist, and specifically ISIS, believe that the most effective way to inflict change on the current world order is to carry out operations of terror. “While nation-states apply the threat of economic sanctions and conventional firepower as a means of coercion, terrorists increasingly use suicide terror as the instrument of choice,” (X). The reasoning behind this choice is clearly a neo- realist ideology in that the best way to secure national interests or an organizations interests is to gain power through military endeavors. Terrorists are actually pretty effective in coercing populations to come under their control by use of fear. They use this massive use of fear to their advantage to control entire regions or even entire states; which a neo- realist believes is essential to their ideology.
The war in Iraq was certainly a different war with certain objectives that could only be attained through unconventional means. The Congressional Budget Office stated that 1 out of every 5 dollars spent in Iraq went to private contractors for military purposes. In fact, the number of private contractors outnumbered American troops (X).
The purpose of a private contractor (mercenary), “according to the Brazilian geostrategist De Leon Petta, [is] far from meaning a possible weakening of the national state power and its monopoly on violence, these PMCs will actually serve as alternative forms of power application abroad through irregular means, without violating international law, causing troubles in the domestic or public policy, or too much international repercussions,” (X).
Private contractors do not have their own agenda but rather work for another country’s. The issue of morality is extremely apparent in the debate regarding the use of private contractors (X).
A essential neo- realist thought is that the state is self interested and will not subordinate their interest to the interests of other states. Understandably neo- realists mean this to apply to the state as a whole but when looking at the application of this idea by the state, it fits the usage of private contractors perfectly. When a private contractor fights for another country they are indirectly fighting against the interest of their own state, for their own state is most likely not involved in the same war or if the state is involved, they are still involved through a different entity completing different objectives other than what is in the direct interest of the state. The way this becomes a neo- realists ideology is because the state who hires the contractor has no issue of morality by hiring the contractor, they just want them to work for their particular interests.
Realism, although it is able to explain the sustainment and usage of unconventional warfare, does not offer a solution to the possible disintegration of unconventional warfare. Realism is based off of the idea of the security dilemma. Realism states that there is a lack of trust between international actors which therefore requires them to be defensive against relative losses of power which would essentially threaten their survival which is referred to as the security dilemma. The existence of this dilemma and the inability for states to overcome this distrust is what will always keep the world in a constant state of war and what will keep unconventional warfare as a prominent aspect in worldly affairs. Terrorist, for example, will stay convinced that the use of terror is the best way to inflict change and to gain the capability to coerce and control populations. And private contracting will always be a self- interested endeavor as an “alternative [form] of power application abroad through irregular means, without violating international law, causing troubles in the domestic or public policy, or too much international repercussions,”(X).
(X)
(X)
unconventionalwarfare 
