The Causes of the 2003 Iraq War by Means of Realism and Liberalism Theories - Coursework Example

IRAQ WAR by of the of the Introduction On the 20th March, 2003, the US President George W. Bush officially declared the start of the “Iraqi Freedom Operation”, which is also known as the 3rd Gulf War. The alliance forces under the leadership of the United States attacked Iraq at lightning speed. The rapid invasion led to the quick defeat of the Iraqi forces (Bassil 2012, p. 29). In December, 2003, the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was captured and further, 3 years later, on the 30th December, 2006, he was executed (Miles 2006). After the execution of Saddam Hussein, the US government declared the war against the Saddam’s Baath Party as successfully over. After 2006, the US attempted to form a new democratic government in the country. However, the power vacuum and chaotic situation in the country after the war triggered continuing violence and regular clashes between the radical militants, the US forces, and the new Iraqi regime, dragging the country into the endless asymmetrical war (Bassil 2012, p. 29-30). After the Vietnam War, the 2003 Iraq War has been characterized as the longest, costliest, and largest war in the history of the United States (Lieberfeld 2005, p. 1-2). The war provoked a massive controversy and debate in the global political and academic spheres concerning the motives of the Bush administration behind the decision of invasion of Iraq (Heinrich 2015). It is necessary to understand that the events leading up to the war only partially explain the causes of the US government’s this war campaign, and in order to trace the multidimensional and complex factors contributing to the invasion of Iraq, it is necessary to examine the hidden politics and the US policies towards Iraq over the years. This can be done with the help of realism and liberalism theories which effectively evaluate the official and unofficial goals and factors that influenced the US government’s decision to attack Iraq (Lieberfeld 2005, p. 1-3). The purpose of this paper is to examine the causes of the 2003 Iraq war by means of realism and liberalism theories. Defining Theories in International Relations Theory of Realism Realism is one of the principle theories in international relations, which emphasizes conflicting and competitive side of global politics. The theory of realism claims that states are the major actors in the sphere of global politics, which tend to struggle for power and give priority to state interests in order to preserve own sovereignty and security (Korab-Karpowicz 2013). According to the theory of realism, the global system is anarchic and state power is the only key that ensures the survival of state in chaotic international system. The theory discourages moral behaviour in global politics as it is considered to be threatening to state’s capacity to protect itself. The harsh nature of global system forces states to exercise their military power or to war. The political leaders may be moral, but their moral principles must not influence the foreign policy of state. According to the theory, the international laws and international organizations possess no power as their survival depends on states’ approval and support (Slaughter 2011, p. 1-2). The theory is divided into three sub-theories, namely, classical realism, neo-realism, and neo-classical realism (Newmann 2003). Classical realism is mainly a state level theory. According to it, acquiring power is the only motive of state behaviour. Each state continuously tries to enhance its power and simultaneously, they try to lower their enemy’s power. People are insecure, aggressive, and greedy in nature. Consequently, these characteristics will be identified in the states they govern. Neo-realism is a system level theory which is almost an extension of classical realism. However, the theory claims that the global political system is responsible for the major conflicts and power struggles rather than the nature of states. On the other hand, neo-classical realism is the combination of both the classical realism and neo-realism. The theory argues that there are many triggers and causes that provoke states to seek power or feel insecure from other states. The conflicts emerge from the combination of international political scenarios and characteristics of states (Newmann 2003). Theory of Liberalism In contrast to the theory of realism, the theory of liberalism is more idealistic and focuses on values, like peace, cooperation, human rights, and non-violence. The theory argues that the extensive nature of bond among states have both made it complicated to evaluate state interest and lowered the value of military power (Jumarang 2011). According to the theory, the rapid development in modern technology, increased global trade and globalization have lowered the states’ ability to depend on mere power politics. The theory claims that even though the world is a dangerous and brutal place, the overall negative consequences of war and application of military power often exceed the benefits. Therefore, global corporation is in the interest of all states (Slaughter 2011, p. 3-4). The theory considers the application of military power against enemy or threatening states as the outdated approach, rather than it, exercising social, political, and economic power has considered to be more effective and practical measure in today’s modern world (Jumarang 2011). Each state has its own basic interests and international organizations and international laws can help in growing cooperation, prosperity, and trust among states (Slaughter 2011, p. 3-4). Basically, liberalism considers in many cases cooperation is a better and more viable strategy than conflict. Neoliberalism is a system level sub-theory which is quite an extension of liberalism. The theory focuses on the ways in which international organizations can influence the state behaviour by promoting values or developing law-based behaviour (Newmann 2003). Causes of the Iraq War Realist Approach The theory of realism argues that the US aggressive policies towards Iraq were highly influenced by factors such as, power, essential resources, and security. According to the realist perspective, maintaining hegemony and unipolar global power system, eliminating a threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the United States and its allies by destroying the visible enemy in the form of Saddam regime, and dominating the region and its vast oil reserves were the principle motives behind the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (Lieberfeld 2005, p. 2-5). Global hegemony. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US was the only remaining superpower in the world. In the early 1990s, the global power system transformed from bipolarity to unipolarity. The 2002 National Security Strategy, drafted in response to 9/11 terror attacks and the Bush doctrine explicitly stressed on “full spectrum domination”, a strategy of unchallenged control and complete dominance over crucial lands, air, sea, space, cyberspace, global economic and political systems by relying on traditional approach of military power or by means of “preventive wars” based on the principle of unilateralism (Hinnebusch 2007, p. 9-12). The Bush administration consistently supported the idea of maintaining the US hegemony with the support of extraordinary military power of the country (Hinnebusch 2007, p. 9-10). Middle-East has always been important in the US foreign policies mainly due to its vast oil reserves. The US domination in global economy is directly associated with the control over the Gulf oil. However, the economic interests of the US had been regularly challenged by the Gulf countries, like Iraq, Iran, and Syria over the years. The oil-policies of these countries to favour the rival state of the US, like Russia and China were inferred as the threat to the US domination in the Middle-East (Parasiliti 2003, p. 153-158). The US global hegemony was significantly challenged in 2001 when terrorists targeted the World Trade Center to convey their anti-US sentiment. Senior military officials had consistently lobbied the Bush administration to attack Iraq well prior to the 9/11 attacks because the Gulf War of 1991 was considered as the “unfinished business” (Heinrich 2015). In the Gulf War, the US made huge mistake of not fully supporting Shia rebels, allowing Saddam Hussein to reacquire the power. Therefore, the senior US officials were strongly determined to finish the Saddam ruling once and for all. After the 9/11 attacks, the US’ War on Terror policy put these officials in strong position to link the new aggressive policies against terrorism with their agenda of destroying the Saddam regime which they had been pushing on the US government for years (Heinrich 2015). Besides, the implementation of power dynamics theory in Iraq war suggests that Iraq was comparably in decline after the Gulf War. On the other hand, Syria and Iran, which were also considered as the anti-US states, were steadily rising. Due to Iran’s and Syria’s suspected nuclear and chemical weaponry programs, traditional Iraqi forces were considered as easy target (Ozdemir 2011, p. 105). It was assumed that if the Saddam regime would be overthrown and established democracy in Iraq, people from Iran and Syria would also be inspired to begin pro-democratic movements in their countries which would ensure the collapse of authoritarian regimes in these countries. In a way, the Iraq war would ensure the victory of the US on three fronts which would naturally ensure the dominance of the US in the region and protect the interests of its ally, Israel, in Israel-Palestine conflict. The Iraq war was also meant to pressurize Syria and Iran to end their nuclear programs (Heinrich 2015). Security threat. In 2002, the US President George Bush claimed that the Iraqi regime has been involved in development projects of nerve gas, anthrax, and nuclear weapons since the early 1980s. The regime had already used chemical weapons in its war against Iran in the 1980s. Also, during the Kuwait invasion, Saddam Hussein approved the use of chemical weapons (Milders 2012). The 9/11 attacks proved that despite being superpower, the US was equally vulnerable to large scale terror attacks. It also showed that the will of terrorist organization was to cause as much destruction and devastation as possible. Further, it became clear that the intensity of destruction would have increased by 1000 times if such organizations had acquired weapons of mass destruction, and in today’s modern world it doesn’t seem impossible as it was once (Milders 2012). Saddam’s old rivalry with the US, his support to terrorist organizations, and Iraq’s history of violating UN resolutions regarding nuclear weapons and other WMD made Iraq the topmost security threat for the US (Bassil 2012, p. 31-32). From the US perspective, the defeat of the Al-Qaeda and Taliban in Afghanistan wasn’t a substantial warning of potential punishment that the Axis of Evil could expect to receive for challenging the security and stability in the US. Bush’s war policies were highly based on classical realism, aiming to eliminate security threats by attacking the weakest among all enemies and control others via ample warning (Heinrich 2015). In this situation, compare to others, Iraq was an easy and effective target to send the message to others, and also, it was an opportunity to eliminate the visible enemy in the form of Saddam regime once and for all under the justification of self-security (Sanchez 2015, p. 13-14). Hidden politics. Power is the most prominent factor in realism and Bush administration’s strategy was closer to the quest for power than for security (Sanchez 2015, p. 17). It is evident though hidden oil politics in Iraq war. Oil had remained the crucial commodity in global economy. The control over global oil market directly signifies the control over the global economy. Controlling the Gulf oil and preventing rival countries, like China and Russia from taking over control of the Gulf oil have been priorities in foreign policies of the US towards the Middle-East (Jones 2012, p. 215-218). By the late 1990s, Iraq with more than 110 billion barrels of oil reserves and the world’s 2nd largest oil producer emerged as an effective swing producer, controlling the oil market by increasing or decreasing the oil production. Saddam regime was accused of using oil revenues for its WMD development programs, terrorist activities, and lavish spending of national leaders (Paul 2003). Also, over the years, Saddam Hussein made sure that Iraqi oil wouldn’t become accessible to the US and its allies. The claim is supported by the official report of National Energy Policy Development. According to the report, in 2001, 40 oil companies from 31 countries were offered contracts in Iraqi oilfields, but not a single contract was given to any US or UK based Oil Company (Paul 2003). The growing Russian and Chinese intervention in Iraq was a serious threat to the US hegemony in the global oil market. The invasion of Iraq allowed the US to eliminate this threat and have a direct control over the Iraqi oil (Hinnebusch 2007, p. 15). Liberalistic Approach According to the theory of liberalism, democracies always fear the security threat from dictatorship. The authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussein was considered as an immense threat to the global peace. Also, numerous cases of oppression and human rights abuse of Saddam regime led to the “Iraqi Freedom Operation” under humanitarian justification. Also, in order to preserve the global peace and fight against global terrorism, the war against one of the major hubs of terrorism became inevitable (Lieberfeld 2005, p. 2-8). Threat of Saddam’s authoritarian regime. According to the liberalistic perspective, being one of the powerful democracies in the world, the US has always promoted universal moral values of democracy and human rights. The Bush administration had regularly condemned human rights violation in Iraq and oppression of civilians by the authoritarian regime of Saddam Hussein (Heinrich 2015). Even though political transformation in the Middle East wasn’t the primary objective of the US invasion, it was certainly one of the long term goals of it. Rather than just fighting against the symptoms of nuclear proliferation and global terrorism, the US government sought to hit the root causes of these issues which lie in the dictatorial governing system of conflicting states (Heinrich 2015). The brutal and oppressive Saddam regime was not only considered threat to the US but also global security. Therefore, the US being one of the leading democracies and only superpower in the world, it was reckoned as right decision to overthrow the Saddam regime and set innocent Iraqi civilians free from its chains (Ozdemir 2011, p. 106). Also, on a broader aspect, it was seen that promotion of democracy in Iraq would inspire people from other radical states like, Iran, Syria, Libya to overthrow dictatorial regimes and adopt democratic governing system that would ensure the prosperity and development of their states. Integration of democracy in the Middle-East was also seen crucial for solving perennial Israel-Palestine conflict and for ensuring energy security on a global level (Heinrich 2015). War on terrorism. After the 9/11 attacks, the US government declared global war on terrorism and states sponsors of terrorism. The Saddam regime was regularly criticized for politically and financially supporting international terrorist organizations. The US intelligence agency found various pieces evidences that showed direct connections between Al-Qaeda and Iraq (Bassil 2012, p. 30-31). In 1998, Iraq offered Taliban a shelter after bin Laden’s declaration of jihad (religious war) on the US and its allies. According to the Czech Intelligence reports, Mohamed Atta, the Egyptian terrorist pilot of one of the aircrafts that crashed into the World Trade Center, had met an Iraqi intelligence officer in April, 2001 prior to the attacks (Bassil 2012, p. 30). After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration adopted “better safe than sorry” policy while dealing with potential terror threats, and therefore, destroying potential and major sponsor of terrorism, i.e. the Saddam regime, became topmost priority of the United States, leading to the Iraq war in 2003 under the justification of “war on terrorism” (Heinrich 2015). Conclusion The Iraq war is one of lethal and devastating wars in the modern history. The war marked the end of the long period of Saddam’s dictatorial regime in Iraq. Also, it created the power vacuum that led the country further into political, social, and economic instability. The Iraq war was justified by the US government on the basis of both the realist and liberalist arguments. Mainly, liberalist reasons, like self-security, war on terrorism, and threat of Saddam’s authoritarian regime to global peace were promoted as the official justification for war, however, unofficial realist reasons such as, maintaining global hegemony, security threat, oil and geopolitics were also identified as the major causes of the Iraq war in 2003. Reference List Bassil, Y 2012, ‘The 2003 Iraq War: Operations, Causes, and Consequences’, Journal Of Humanities And Social Science (JHSS), vol. 4, no. 5, pp. 29-47, viewed 4 June 2015, . Heinrich, MN 2015, One War, Many Reasons: The US Invasion of Iraq, E-international Relations Students, viewed 4 June 2015, . Hinnebusch, R 2007, ‘The American Invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences’, Perceptions, vol. 12, no. 1,pp. 9-27, viewed 4 June 2015, . Jones, TC 2012, ‘America, Oil, and War in the Middle East’, Journal of American History, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 208-218, viewed 4 June 2015,. Jumarang, BK 2011, Realism and Liberalism in International Relations, E-international Students Relations, viewed 4 June 2015, . Korab-Karpowicz, WJ 2013, Political Realism in International Relations, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 4 June 2015, . Lieberfeld, D 2005, ‘Theories of Conflict and the Iraq War’, International Journal of Peace Studies, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1-21, viewed 4 June 2015, . Milders, LV 2012, Deconstructing the Causes of the Iraq War, E-international Relations, viewed 4 June 2015, . Miles, D 2006, Saddam Hussein Executed for Crimes Against Humanity, U. S. Department of Defense, viewed 4 June 2015, . Newmann, B 2003, A Brief Introduction to Theories on International Relations and Foreign Policy, people.vcu.edu, viewed 4 June 2015, . Ozdemir, R 2011, ‘Invasion of Iraq: A Reflection of Realism’, Turkish Journal of Politics (TIP), vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 103-115, viewed 4 June 2015, . Parasiliti, AT 2003, ‘The Causes and Timing of Iraqs Wars: A Power Cycle Assessment’, International Political Science Review, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 151-165, viewed 4 June 2015, . Paul, JA 2003, Oil Companies in Iraq, Global Policy Forum (GPF), viewed 4 June 2015, . Sanchez, DR 2015, ‘The Iraq War (2003-2011): An approach to International Relations Theories thought the conflict’, academia.edu, pp. 1-51, viewed 4 June 2015, . Slaughter, AM 2011, ‘International Relations, Principal Theories’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, pp. 1-7, viewed 4 June 2015, . Read More