Australia Involvement in Iraq War - Example

Australia Involvement in Iraq War (Name) (Course) (Institution) (Instructor’s name) (Date) Introduction Australia involvement in the Iraq war is surrounded by controversy with individuals, experts, government officials as well as the international community questioning the decision. The then Prime Minister John Howard is largely perceived as the rationale behind Australia’s participation in the war. Nevertheless, Australia’s decision to participate in the 2003 Iraq conflict can be well comprehended by exploring the three levels of analysis which entail the individual, state and the system approaches. These levels will be analyzed independently in order to understand the main reason behind Australia’s involvement in the unpopular Iraqi war. Nevertheless, analyzing these levels individually does not rule out their relationship, but it is through extensive critic that a person giving his or her own opinion and that of the government can be highlighted as in the case of John Howard, the then Australia’s Prime Minister. In addition, this essay will use various political theories to explain the decision by Australia to join the United States in the fight against Saddam Hussein’s regime. Reasons for Australia involvement in Iraq war At the individual level of analysis, personal character and leadership traits of an individual leader are brought forward. John Howard’s decision to pre-deploy Australia’s troops to Iraq without the consent of the of the relevant government bodies is a concise picture of the extent at which an individual can perpetuate personal interest at the expense of a state. When the former PM John Howard met with the Labor party in March 2003, he proposed four major reasons for Australia to join the United States of America and Britain in war against Saddam’s regime. The reasons included; curbing further terror attacks, stopping Iraq from harboring terrorists and providing them with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), discouraging other states from supporting terrorists and to stop the humanitarian crisis in Iraq. This decision was not accepted by the labor Party as they did not perceive any genuine reason to get Australia involved in the war. The Australia’s Foreign minister by the time kelvin Rudd concurred that, at no given point did the Labor party entertain the decision by Howard to go to war with Iraq. These remarks were made during ministerial statement by the minister during question time. Rudd further explained that, there was no substitutable reason that linked weapons of mass destruction and terrorism in the Saddam regime (Howard Out, 2008). By engaging in Iraq war, John Howard violated the United Nation’s charters. The UN had disapproved Iraq invasion by Australia. This violation undermined the authority of the international system (Howard Out, 2008). To understand the reason behind Australia’s invasion to Iraq, it is critical to look at the reasons that led the US to invade Iraq. Bush’s government had laid down main issues that purported his decision to attack Iraq. Among these issues include political manipulation of evangelical Christian extremism, ideological fantasies of US dominance, Bush’s desire of a “War President” with the political capital he believed his father (Bush senior) had squandered during the Gulf war and finally irrational military logic of the pro-Israel lobby (Howard Out, 2008). With these issues, Bush was able to convince his government and Americans to support Iraq invasion. In contrast, reliable evidence such as documentations that have been exposed over the years and revelations by those that were engaged in decision making and unbelievable logistics on the ground in Iraq proof otherwise (Howard Out, 2008). The primary reason for the US to invade Iraq was what has always been anticipated by anti-war campaigners; oil. Having explored the reasons for Iraq invasion by the US, the question emerges, whether there was any reason for Australia to join the war. The then PM, John Howard announced on the 20th of March 2003, that Australia’s troops were joining the US in the war against Iraq. His support for the US was based on the idea that, his government believed that it was lawful, right and was for the best interest of Australia as a country. He went ahead to defend his decision by saying that, in spite of the of the amiable relationship between the US and Australia, the main factors remained the threats posed by Saddam’s leadership and weapons of mass destruction, and threat of nuclear armed Iraq and the main threat of terrorism sponsored by Saddam government (Kelton, 2008). All these claims remained elusive. The majority of Australians were opposed to the decision as exhibited by polls. It was established that, only a quarter of the interviewed population were for the invasion without UN support (Howard Out, 2008). The bombing of the World Trade Centre by what was believed to be a terrorist act, had given John Howard solid grounds of supporting the United States in whatever military action they were to undertake against the perpetrators. Howard categorically stated that Australia would offer any support that might have been required from them by the United States in connection to fighting terrorism (Kelton, 2008). In his 20th March 2003 he emphasized that, what had happened to the US was not exceptional to other nations including Australia given the extent of globalization. Such utterances clear the doubt hovering the misunderstanding that Australian involvement in Iraq war. The former PM John Howard had a share of the cake. Records speak for themselves on the issue of invading Iraq. The PM paid several visits to the White House with Media people being made to believe that the meetings discussed the Free Trade Agreement between the two nations. Howard’s first visit to the White house was in September 9th 2001, which was followed by another meeting on 13th June 2002 (Paul, 2006). During these meetings one can only speculate the debate that went on from what conspired thereafter. Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq and needed to gunner support from Australia as Britain had already committed their support for the US in the war. The topic of discussion can now be understood that it all dwelt on invasion of Iraq. While supporting his hasty decision to go to war, the then PM, chose his words very carefully to avoid disapproval. During his address to the nation on 20th March 2003, Howard laid down his substantiation against Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction in a putative manner. In his evidence, he concentrated mostly on Saddam’s previous actions rather than his current ones (Howard Out, 2008). Another facet that he stressed about was the cordial relationship between Australia and USA and this had to be maintained by supporting the USA incursion in Iraq. On the other hand, Howard maintains that he was not aware of the intentions behind US invasion to Iraq, which were basically economically (oil) and military ambitions (middle east dominance), during his commitment of the Australian troops to Iraq. If that is the case, then he was tricked into engaging Australia’s troops into war which led to bloody dilemma that resulted to loss of over a million lives, displaced 4 million and destabilized the entire region of Middle East. Despite opposition from the public, he went ahead to commit Australia’s troops to Iraq war. This is seen as deception of the highest order to Australians. What John Howard did was committing Australia to a passive military and economic role that entirely depended on US decision-makers, without prior-consultation of the Australian people or his government. His personal ambitions indulged the nation to a policy of illegal pre-emptive invasions and immoral practice that go on destabilizing the globe with no significant gain except for the US military industrial machines and their big oil friends. Even though the decision to engage in the war in Iraq has been largely sidelined to the Prime Minister John Howard, the Australian government as a whole had a hand in Iraq invasion. The Australian government has for a long time been an ally of the United States. Its involvement in the Vietnam War and the Iraq war has been perceived by political scholars as a form of strengthening the ties between these two countries (Lloyd & Brendon, 2012). Australian government overlooked other national interests while supporting the US in the Iraq war. The perceived long term benefits were weighed against short term risks of Iraq war. Both Australia and the US believe that, relationships founded on values are stronger than relationships founded on coincidence and economic grounds (Lloyd & Brendon, 2012). Theoretical Perspectives of Australia’s Decision in Iraq Offensive The invasion of Iraq by Australia can be explained through various political theories, since there are diverse reasons given by these states in their involvement in Iraq war. Realism theory that was dominant during the Cold War portrays international affairs as a tussle for power among selfish states and is basically pessimistic concerning the prospects for eradicating conflicts and war. Realism provides simple but potent explanations for alliances, obstacles to cooperation, war, imperialism, and other phenomena (Walt, 2000). It emphasized on competition which is consistent with the features of the American/Australia-Middle East rivalry. Realists such as Reinhold Niebuhr and Hans Morgenthau perceived states as human beings with an inherent desire to control others, which leads them to war. This is one of the hidden agenda of Australia, joining forces with the United States to show dominance and might in the Middle East and consequently the rest of the world. Consequently, offensedefense theory offers a refined explanation to realism on Australia’s participation in the Iraq war. As laid out by George Quester, Robert Jervis and Stephen Van Evera, wars are more probable when states could conquer one another easily (Walt, 2000). When defense becomes easier than offense, nevertheless, security is more plenteous, incentives to expand reduce and corporation could increases as in the case of US-Australia alliance during Iraq war. According to these ‘defensive’ realists, countries merely seek to survive and great powers can guarantee their security by practicing balancing alliances and picking defensive military postures for instance, retaliatory nuclear forces. This is one of the reasons why the United States remained relatively secure for most of cold war. For this reason, Australia participation in the Iraq war can be seen through realism theory, whereby Australia is seeking dominance through alliances with stronger America in an offensedefense perspective against the Middle East. In addition, the involvement of Australia in war against Iraq can be seen through liberalism theory. One of the reasons why the U.S and Australia invaded Iraq was to put to an end the autocratic leadership of the Saddam regime. According to liberals, democracy is central to global peace, based on the history that, democratic states are more stable than authoritative states (Walt, 2000). Liberalism perceives states as the key players in international affairs. Australia and the U.S invasion of Iraq are thus perceived as a genuine pursuit of international peace, through liberalism political theory. The process of liberalization seeks to reduce state control over people’s lives to the authority of state. Political liberalization extends the liberty and rights of the individual including the right to speak liberally against state authorities and to collaborate with others to oppose those powers. This explains the efforts by the U.S and Australia to perpetuate democracy of the Iraq people by dismantling the Saddam regime (Bertrand, Dirk, & Leonardo, 2011). On the other hand, constructivism theory of international relations explains the involvement of Australia in the Iraq war in a varied perspective. Constructivism is the notion that, substantial elements of international relations are historically and socially dependent, rather than inescapable consequences of human nature or indispensable characteristics of international politics (Brown, 2005). In the case of Australia’s involvement in the Iraq war, it was to show support for the United States. Having previously supported the U.S in the Vietnam War, Australia and America have had a great history in fighting their enemies. Besides, the two states believe that, they share strong values and are thus great allies an idea echoed by Guzzini (2000). Conclusion The decision to participate in Iraq war by Australia raised more controversy from the populace, the international community as well as from some government organs. It is seen as a personal decision by the then Prime Minister John Howard who had close ties with the Bush administration. Nevertheless, Australia has had a special relationship with the U.S which previously saw them support the US during Vietnam War. The involvement of Australia in the war is explained in a multifaceted ways involving analysis of individual, state and system analysis. The three political theories of constructivism, liberalism and realism have well explained Australia’s decision to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, the involvement of Australia in the Iraq offensive is filled with flaws and controversies. This led to the setting up of a commission of inquiry to look at ‘Howard’s’ decision to engage Australia in the Iraq war. References Bertrand B. Dirk B. and Leonardo M. 2011, International encyclopedia of political science. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. Brown, C. 2005, Understanding International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Publishing. Curran, J. and Ward, S. 2010, The Unknown Nation. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press. Guzzini, S. 2000, “A Reconstruction of Constructivism in International Relations”, European Journal of International Relations, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 147-182. Howard Out, 2008a, A Good Long Look At John Howard’s War In Iraq, retrieved < http://howardout.blogspot.com/2007/07/good-long-look-at-john-howards-war-in.html> Howard Out, 2008b, Demand a Royal Commission in Australian war Crimes in Iraq, retrieved < http://www.howardout.blogspot.com/> Kelton, M. 2008, ‘More than an Ally’? Contemporary Australia–US Relations. Aldershot: Ashgate. Lloyd C. & Brendon O. 2012, Australia, the US, and the Vietnam and Iraq Wars: ‘Hound Dog, not Lapdog’, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol.47, no.2, pp. 173-187. Paul, E. 2006, Little America: Australia, the 51st State. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto Press. Walt, M.S. 2000, International relations: One world, many theories, no.110 pp. 29-35. Retrieved http://www.columbia.edu/itc/sipa/S6800/courseworks/foreign_pol_walt.pdf Read More