When discussing Arquilla's argument of whether or not IR scholars will resist the concept of networks when trying to understand what's happening in the world, there are multiple avenues of approach. First we would have to keep in mind that which defines how IR scholars view what makes the world work.

As we have learned in prior lessons, Realists primarily consider states as playing a role in the functions of government and international relations.

However, Constructivists may actually allow for roles involving non-state actors, because if those non-state actors actually begin to have tangible results identifying with the name of a state movement then the constructivist would quickly point out how a non-state actor played a role in the change. Keeping both of these arguments in mind, I would have to say Arquilla has a valid point from a Realist point of view, but not necessarily from the Liberal point of view, and definitely not from the Constructivist point of view.

Considering which parts of his argument are most and least compelling we have to go to the second portion of this week's discussion about Arquilla's suggestion that ignoring the rise of networks will lead to more military interventions and states focusing on confrontation and co-optation, specifically as a majority of the readings focused on this week, the terrorist networks.

From the readings we learned that "[t]he term network is used by sociologists and anthropologists to describe individuals or groups one interacts with regularly" (Arquilla 2007, 199). Obviously, for a terrorist organization to be effective, they must interact on a fairly regular basis.

As the readings have shown this week, the internet has made that contact much easier. People from around the globe who have never met each other, can stay in contact and interact with ease using the internet. On some internet sites, they don't even try to conceal their objectives.

People looking to learn how to make bombs simply post something on the internet and openly receive guidance from others, "[t]he exchange was not encoded or concealed but was published completely openly on the website of...the military faction of Hamas" (Weimann 2010, 45). History has shown that failure to be aware of this activity has resulted in catastrophic attacks on innocents and resulted in governments having to react militarily, so Arquilla's argument in that regard is quite compelling.

In the long run I feel like his overall argument is not compelling however. It may be due to the fact that this article was written over 8 years ago, and in that time span the major global governments have become much more aware of the power and influence of the internet and how networks in the IR sense are using the internet to spread their "gospel".

The spread of ISIS both geographically and ideologically in such a quick timeframe has brought that clearly into perspective. Governments around the world are very much aware of the spread of networks and non-state actors, and the impact they have on the world.

As a result, there are departments in every major government that focus on using the internet to their advantage, both in monitoring these non-state actor networks and in using it for their own means. I have no doubt that governments around the world are embracing networks (both the internet "network" and groups of people "networks") to reach a larger audience to spread their version of reality and bring more people into their way of thinking.