Levels of Analysis, Realism, and Liberalism - Essay Example

?Levels of Analysis, Realism, and Liberalism Levels of Analysis: 2003 Iraq War According to D’Anieri, there are three key levels of analysis in explaining or interpreting certain event or phenomenon in the field of the international politics: individual, state, and system (18). In the individual level, it is posited that a particular war -- which is a form of an international phenomenon -- is caused mainly by an individual, generally or specifically. Further, the factor at the individual level is substantially an immediate one (Cashman and Robinson 4). It is widely believed that the immediate cause of the 2003 Iraq War was primarily in the individual level. More specifically, U.S. President George W. Bush was the mastermind on why America went to war against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. His personality or belief system was an important factor in realizing the war. If Al Gore had been the U.S. president, Levy and Thompson assert that America would probably have not invaded Iraq in the post-9/11 era (212). In the state level of analysis, war -- such as the Iraq War -- is significantly caused by the nature or form of the state, government, or political party. Hallenberg and Karlsson contend that the 2003 Iraq War had materialized due essentially to the Republican Party’s neo-conservative stance (233). Also known as neo-imperialism, the Republican Party believes in the so-called “manifest destiny” in which America is tasked to free the “savage” countries from fascism, terrorism and others. It must be noted that Iraq, in the pre-Iraq War, was dominated by a dictatorial leader. To free the Iraqi people from bondage and oppression, America via the Republican Party went to war against terrorism. In the system level of analysis, the cause of the war is based largely on the characteristics of the international politics (D’Anieri 19). Hallenberg and Karlsson say that the war in Iraq can be generally viewed in the system level (233). Using the theory of hegemonic stability, they argue that the powers-that-be has the “right” to suppress the autonomy or sovereignty of other nation-states. Being the superpower, the U.S. has the capacity to use its military power in order to quell the preemptive strike by Hussein’s Iraq. To the writer’s (author of this paper) mind, the best level of analysis in reading or interpreting America’s war on Iraq is the system level. Particularly using the realist paradigm, scholars and people are able to view this war phenomenon in a more objective fashion. Perhaps it is true that the individual level is somewhat compelling in saying that it is immediate cause of the Iraq War; nevertheless, the whole picture elucidates that there are bigger forces or factors that greatly shaped the realization of war: power politics. In the pre-Iraq War period, the U.S. arguably felt threatened, real or imagine, with Iraq’s rising military power under Saddam Hussein. Based from the realist framework, the logical action for the superpower U.S. to do was to invade Iraq in order to secure America’s survival. The system level provides a much bigger picture in analyzing why America went to war. Compare and Contrast: Realism and Liberalism D’Anieri differentiates the two popular paradigms prominent in the field of international politics: between realism and liberalism. These two theories or praxes differ markedly on how they generally view the world politics. On the one hand, realism sees the international political arena in a more pessimistic way (D’Anieri 60). As its fundamental precept, the praxis of realism stipulates that states or nation-states greatly vie for power. D’Anieri notes that realism highly considers the theories of hegemonic stability and balance of power. Their similarities basically define the concept of realism: (1) anarchy is the major condition that constrains state action and/or policy, (2) rational/unitary states are the fundamental actors in the international political scene, (3) distribution of power defines and confines the system, among other things (D’Anieri 60). On the other hand, liberalism views the world politics in a more optimistic manner. Liberal scholars adhere to the idea that cooperation among states is possible (D’Anieri p.60). Unlike realism, as liberal thinkers claim, the notion of liberalism believes in the progress of international relation among rival states or countries. Meaning to say, states and other institutions have ways to escape the dilemma characterized in anarchy. Kegley and Raymond remark that theories or paradigms, such as realism and liberalism, essentially provide the scholars or people the map or frame of reference in which they can make the complex world more intelligible (29). As theories, realism and liberalism are frameworks or lenses that give the viewer a much clearer perspective in viewing the world. Using the realist paradigm, for instance, scholars are able to see the “big picture” on the causes and/or outcomes of certain international/political phenomenon. After the 9/11, in particular, political scholars are able to fully understand the importance of security amidst the volatile and insecure world environment. Employing the realist optic, people view the international politics as a struggle for survival and, thus, for power. And using the liberal paradigm, scholars are able to see the need for cooperation in the middle of uncertainty. The theory of liberalism allows viewers to perceive the world as a place of cooperation, progress, and prosperity. The establishment of the United Nations, among other international organizations, paved the way for all states or nation-states to join together for a much higher purpose or aim -- D’Anieri names this as the international economy. In terms of a bigger picture, the realist paradigm does perform a better job in comprehending the nature of international politics. It is true that cooperation is feasible, if not practical, to occur between or among rival nations. In the Cold War era, for example, the United States and Russia -- two opposing powerful forces -- “cooperated” or agreed, at certain point in time, on particular issues concerning nuclear armaments. This may seem a triumph of liberalism; however, realists still assert that such cooperation only transpired in order for these two rival nations to maintain their supremacy as world powers. Conversely, some critics argue that realism is amoral (Gismondi 4). Nevertheless, D’Anieri says that realists are “moral” when certain unethical action or probably inaction prevents a war “costing millions of lives” (46). Works Cited Cashman, Greg, and Leonard Robinson. An Introduction to the Causes of War: Patterns of Interstate Conflict from World War I to Iraq. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Print. D’Anieri, Paul. International Politics: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print. Gismondi, Mark. Ethics, Liberalism and Realism in International Relations. New York: Routledge, 2008. Print. Hallenberg, Jan, and Hakan Karlsson, eds. Iraq War: European Perspectives on Politics, Strategy and Operations. New York: Routledge, 2005. Print. Kegley, Charles, and Gregory Raymond. The Global Future: A Brief Introduction to World Politics. 3rd ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 2010. Print. Levy, Jack, and William Thompson. Causes of War. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print. Read More