Iraq War and International Relations - Article Example

Iraq War and International Relations The Iraqi politics and its international relations over time have become significantly influenced by the war in Iraq; these are in terms of internal displacement and also international migration. The political thunderstorm and the long periods of war that Iraq has endured over the last decade represent a clear example of the conflicts, international relationship and migration of the Iraqis to other countries (Grotious 26). It is crucial to note that the instability in Iraq is not a product of the operations of the US and its allies’ coalition forces. The instability has its roots during the decades of Saddam Hussein lethal regime; it is also due to the long term tensions among the different ethnic communities in the country. The tension is because the Sunni Arabs, who are the minority group, have ruled the government for the past half a century. These tensions erupted again in 2003 after the war, which left a temporary power vacuum, and consequently triggered an embarrassing power struggle between the different groups (Urry 65). The United States of America rejected the continuing inspections of weapons in Iraq by the UN even after Iraq had agreed to allow inspectors in the country. The US legislation passed the Iraq liberation Act, whose aim was to hamper the Iraq government ability to produce biological weapons, and weaken Saddam Hussein control over the region. The UN proved that the information the United States had about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was false and rejected its call for their support during the war. However, American administration decided to use force after gaining public support to go ahead with the war (Bamford 30). After the 2003 attacks, the international community predicted a system of reconstruction that becomes completed in the next 10 years. However, since the war, killings and incidents of bombing are a normal daily occurrence in Iraq. This proves the fact that fighting the Iraqi war was much easier than fighting its peace. This is proven in cases of Afghanistan and Haiti where the US undertook similar operations. Studies show that governments built in this way have been unsuccessful, and solutions have taken long to attain (Grotious 29). Significance of the Iraq War The Iraq war showed a change in the strategic and military alliances in the Gulf region. Iran had opposed the British and American interest and because of this, the British and Americans supported Iraq by offering equipments. The war eventually ended, and the two nations have maintained respectable, if not perfect, relationships with each other since then. The United States has managed to oust the Saddam’s regime and create a democratic government to lead the region. It has also secretly taken control of oil in the region which, according to critics, was the major reason for the Iraq war. The wars have also exposed the terrorist behaviors in the region and have significantly led to the decline of their activities globally and in Iraq (Richard 46). How liberalism & realism, account for the Iraqi war. Realism The theory of realism helps us understand the aspects of the foreign policies that remain constant over a long time. From the realist views, the decisions by the states to fight are all products of the governments’ involuntary participations in the quests for security and power due to the created international political environment, where the nations fear the potential hostility of other countries. Realism states that the global, international system is anarchic, and composed of states that have rational governments. It argues that these states fear one another, and they will always try to solve this insecurity through the use of force. Realism enables us explain various aspects of foreign policy that will remain consistent over a long stretch of time. Bush administration had been straight forward on its goal of attaining global hegemony. Bush claimed that America has, and still intends to maintain, its military superiority beyond challenge. Given his objective, overthrowing Saddam Hussein regime became understood as a way of enhancing the United States reputation and its power far from challenge, majorly after the September 11, 2001 attack that could have made the US appear more vulnerable (Limbered 4). Once Bush had declared that the regime change in Iraq was the United States top priority, the United States would have looked weak if it had accepted any compromise that would leave the Baathist government intact. By placing the United States reputation on the line for the willingness to employ force on achieving the wanted regime change, Bush had made war inevitable due to the perceived national security interest in protecting and maintaining that reputation (Limbered 5). The realists’ perspective is that the leaders prefer war believing that it is best for the countries national security, but the majority of administrations exaggerate the magnitude of security threat posed by Iraq. The governments’ warnings that Iraq could unleash nuclear attacks, and its insistence on Iraqis acquisition of aluminum tubes and uranium for nuclear weapons, end up raising the queries on how Iraq could be seen as threatening to warrant an invasion. This is even after one former administration policy maker (in the US government) later admitted as a complete lack of evidence of any possible attacks by Iraq (Grotious 26). Strengths and weaknesses of Realism It is easy for the traditional, international activities like war and power politics to make realism appealing. However, this concept is best when dealing with the super powers like the US on their own terms, observing the world from their angle and focusing on the crises and conflicts that occupied the attention of their security analysts and diplomats during the Cold War (Limbered 4). According to realists, individuals must act selfishly to preserve themselves. Realism emphasizes on global political systems which organizes human beings in groups that can defend their members through providing more emphasis on power. However, realists cannot explain the fall of states in the eyes of multinational corporations and international organizations in the economic sphere. There is totally no attention given to how different states internal make up leads them to having different policies. Realism also has little to say about the continuing war on terror, which is between America on one side and non terrorist states on the other side (Limbered 7). Realists view history as cyclical and not progressive, this is a complete failing since even if we assume the nature of beings to be immutable, the systems by which beings interact do change. Realism can explain how we got to where we are now than what is happening most of the time. Realists reject the idea that there exist moral facts. They argue that a good understanding of moral thoughts shows that no appeal needs to be made to moral facts. They claim that moral judgment should not be viewed as being false or true. Liberalism Liberalism or idealism became considered the second most fundamental theory in the modern international politics. This theory incorporates the ideas of the Americans neoconservatives who view the mission of the United States of America as the spreaders of democratic systems around the world. According to the liberalists, the decisions on war come from the internal characteristics of the states, mostly, their administration and also the influence of the international law. Similarly to realism, liberalism uses several theories of international relations. Kantian idealism bases its theory on the idea that increased democracy leads to more peace among global countries (Urry 42). While developed countries do not fight among themselves, they are likely to go to war with non democracies. This is because of the fear that democracies have that since non democracies lacks accountability and governmental checks on its use of lethal force, are able to take commanding advantage of democracies that mobilize slowly by attacking first. The decision to attack Iraq is understood in terms of, the government fear of Iraqis deception of weapons inspectors and deploys weapons of mass destruction to the United States and its allies. From the liberalists’ views, the 9/11 attacks carried by nationals of the non democratic countries in the Middle East, though not Iraq, provided an enormous reason for the States to use its strength to foster democracy. However, the liberal motives, and the governments’ conversion to the global principles of democracy do not explain why Iraq got targeted in particular, rather than key government members of the pre 9/11 fight for the regime change in Baghdad (Bamford 32). Strengths and Weaknesses of the theory of Liberalism Liberalism is the leading international theory to focus nakedly on the issue of war and peace on the global front, with the aim of implementing new reforms to end the war and develop a democratic world peace. Liberalism provides a powerful theoretical body that enables the analysis of non state participants like social movements and corporations. The strongest claim to the truth in the entire international relations theory is the democratic peace theory. Administration officials and corporate organizations called for peace and pledged to help in nation building if the war ended (Berman 39). However, critics believe that liberalism suffers from theoretical incompetence and a more Western centric view. According to the realists, the liberals are foolish to think that it is possible to achieve world peace, and it is totally wrong to comprise social movements and corporations in international politics. It becomes argued that liberalism ignores the rampant, violent foreign policies of the Western powers, mostly the British and the US. Liberalism also depends too much on the government, bureaucracy and high taxes to solve a country’s problem. It also lacks clear directions and solid stances because the liberalists believe the society is constantly in a fluctuation state and growth. According to liberalists, morality takes forever (Bamford 37). In conclusion, realism is the theory that explains the Iraqi invasion in the most effective way. This is because the United States government felt threatened by the rise of terrorist activities in Iraq. According to realism, each country is rational, and their goal is survival. The US pursued this by exercising its military power over Iraq. According to realists, there exists no morality in the global politics, and this is the concept that drove the US to invade Iraq (Berman 35). The invasion of Iraq was also the best way for America to obtain its primary goal of showing of it power to competitors and allies, and avoiding the appearance of the post 9/11 decline. America intended to prevent Iraqis potential use of dangerous biological weapons and its vast oil resources to threaten America and its allies. It also wanted to prevent Iraqis collaboration with Anti America terrorists groups. America’s national interest in ensuring the flow of oil during the period of declining domestic reserves and increased global demand could only be achieved by the military control of Iraqis oil reserves, which would have otherwise been exploited by Americas competitors (Limbered 3). Works Cited Bamford, James. A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies. New York: Doubleday, 2004. Print. Berman, Paul. Terror and Liberalism. New York: W.W. Norton, 2003. Print. Clarke, Richard. Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004. Print. Grotius, Hugo. On the Law, of War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Print. Limbered, Daniel. "Theories of Conflict and The Iraq War." The International Journal Of Peace Studies 50 (2005): 3-7. Print. Urry, John. Global Complexity. Cambridge: Policy Press, 2002. Print. Read More