Foreign Policy Analysis and the Iraq War - Essay Example

Foreign Policy Analysis and the Iraq War By Student’s Name Code+ course name Instructor’s Name University Name City, State Date Foreign Policy Analysis and the Iraq War Introduction What pushed the United States to invade Iraq for war was quite distinct from whatever led to the Saddam Hussein’s war. However these two sets of motivations for war happen to be similar at some point along the way. This is the core of describing foreign policy analysis in and out of the Middle East. Saddam was pushed by the fact that he put into consideration security regimes in his war mission. On the other hand Bush’s revenge mission was mainly due to the political regimes of the domestic states which happened to be the core of getting to know more of the respective foreign policy analysis. The only thing that would bring to an end the terrorist attacks on the United States by the Arabs was the democratic wave in the region. Saddam also knew that the threats posed to his security emanated from his home country and were also accelerated by foreign forces who had to be dealt with before they could take advantage of this to torture him in his own country. George Bush at the same time had a strong belief that the threats posed on him too and his homeland were as a result of the local politics of individual countries such as Iraq. Therefore to sustain his security, Saddam thought it was better to attack the foreign sources that were responsible of his domestic threats. On the same note also, to maintain his nation’s security, George Bush saw it better to deal with domestic sources that were a threat too. The Iraq war happened to be the Third Gulf War that was started on March, 2003, as a result of the military invasion into Iraq. The main cause of Iraq war was the revenge initiated by George W. Bush to curb terrorism. One of such cases of terrorism was the attack that occurred in September, 2001 and other cases of terrorism that took place in several United States embassies across Africa. As a result an alliance was formed by the United States to get rid of the Baath party that was led by Saddam Hussein at that time. Bush planned to start a war and by the year 2002, he started pushing for change because his government had all the reasons to carry out this mission. Iraq had also started coming up with strong weapons for extensive destruction and at the same time did not work hand in hand with the United Nations in a mission of weapon inspection (Hampton, 2008). This is what convinced Bush that he went ahead to tell his friends that the war was real and would not fail to take place at any cost. This war revenge was so severe that it involved several dollars or it to be successful. In the process, the Iraq army was defeated as things turned out to be more brutal. At the same time Saddam Hussein was executed in the process. As Acton (2013) puts it in his book, revenge mission forced the United States to invade Iraq and even went ahead to try and come up with another government apart from the one that existed before (Harvey, 2012). In order to clearly get the link between foreign analysis (Yetiv, 2011) and the art of individualism as in the case of Iraq war, all forms of decision making have to be put into consideration. Leading scholars in international relations in the United States made an advertisement in the year 2002 concerning the military forces. It concluded that United States should only make use of this type of force once it exceeds the states interest. However these standards did not match the state of Iraq. Iraq thought that the United States should major on wars that target the al Qaeda rather than putting much concentration on Iraq. The United States defied such orders and invaded Iraq just a year after the renowned International relation specialists came up to put up their signatures regarding the Iraq war. In 2002, the United States got a letter from the foreign policy regarding Bush’s policy. The foreign policy comprised of several experts specialised in International Relations and security issues. It was thought that the action took by Bush could impact negatively on the United States security. Among the experts in the foreign policy included the previous presidents of the Political association of the United States. They also agreed that Bush’s mission would not end up anywhere given that Saddam Hussein’s religious state was dangerous for his rule by the big threat it posed. The importance of foreign policy initiation has been realised for a long time now (Smith, Hadfield, & Dunne, 2012). The experts have been known to be great in their opinion and type of leadership. They greatly shape and define opinion development from the public while at the same time merging responses from public with Foreign policy (Walker, Malici, & Schafer, 2011). At the time when Bush was campaigning as the President of the United States, he promised to take the economy to greater levels by strengthening relationships especially in the political arena (Neville, 2013). His target was also to work hard in getting rid of engaging his military force in minor engagements. Back in the year 1998, the United States through Bill Clinton, enacted a law whose aim was to bring change in Iraq (Holsti, 2011). This was followed by the implementation of this law in order to fully remove President Saddam Hussein. The mission was to be achieved by coming up with a coalition with the Iraq National Congress. The war mission started in March 2003 despite the fact that there was no initial agreement by the United Nation’s Security Council to push forward the mission. Capturing of Baghdad led to the deposition and hiding of Saddam Hussein. The United States forces present in Iraq were attacked by the Iraqis causing more deaths that actually exceeded the real war. Despite all this, Bush still had much hopes that they will win the war in the end. The Iraq war brought in a lot of criticism in the United States and other parts of the world. Bush got all sorts of weird responses from wide range of observers who claimed that he had not planned well for the war. The anti-war protestors were against this particular mission even before the actual war. This was clear with the rate at which the war was proceeding and the state of Iraq post-war. Countries present in the United Nations Security Council went further to claim that this war had not met all the international law standards. In curbing this, the United States government gave out the names of the countries that supported its stand on the revenge mission despite the number of Iraq civilians and United States soldiers killed since the war begun (Donovan, 2011). Bush administration gave out other evidence including the terrorism attack of September 11 and Iraq’s possession of weapons meant for mass destruction. This was a major proof that Iraq was a threat to most target livelihoods. But this one did not also come to pass as the United States administration failed to get the said weapons. It was therefore concluded that this information was vague and was just meant to mislead other countries. For instance, Bush had claimed that the British intelligence had found out that Iraq was planning to get uranium from Africa. Here a document presented to the United Nations Security Council claiming that Iraq was planning to get the uranium from Niger was found out to be false. This actually led to more criticism and embarrassment after all this was disputed. The United States was readily available to support the decision to invade Iraq for war. According to Lieberfeld (2005) theories on international relations rejected such move on the basis that such thought on Iraq war may have been pushed by some external forces. It was believed that some section of community that was highly influential and knowledgeable might have played a bigger role in pushing for the same. Previously such experts would determine policy initiation and implementation and direct this to the leadership depending with the issue at hand. It has also been established that such groups have in the past determined all forms of outcomes on several issues. Theories on international relations did not manage to change the United States policy on Iraq war (Lieberfeld, 2005). At the same time their views did not get sufficient attention from the media sector as well. This even worsened the situation as the media was the one to push for such reforms. Therefore the United States administration had all what it takes to start off the Iraq war. Most experts on theories of international relations had ideas that were so much different from those of the foreign policy analysis. As in the Iraq war situation, theories on international relations did not appear clearly either in the media or the foreign policy of the United States (Badie, 2010). Also as majority of the experts in theories of international relations try their very best to make their findings available and useful for the foreign policy analysis, they also have to ensure that they are well presented in the process itself. Several theories of international relations overestimate the relevance of a good number of foreign policy initiators in a variety of ways (Badie, 2010). This is possible by the way the two merge with each other in any individual government. However the norms of an individual government is not considered at all as what matters a lot is the universal mission to address security issues as required. These theories on international relations also believe that all form of foreign policy analysis is based on individual interests instead of overall views of the world. Foreign policy analysis considers opinions made collectively as opposed to individual ideas. In this case the Iraq war comes in with a major issue for such theories of international relations. Almost all decisions that arose in the war came from individuals and their respective environmental beliefs. Iraq President Saddam Hussein knew that the United States and Iraq government have been good friends for some time. He therefore thought that the United States President George W. Bush would notice this and in turn seek assistance when it comes to attacking the Al Qaeda. Although Bush was sure that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was even ready to get other such weapons (Hinnebusch, 2006). This actually led to the Iraq war that was initiated with a lot of misperceptions from all sides. Policies on Post wars also come in with a lot of issues for several theories on international relations. It is therefore so difficult to come up with an explanation theory on international relation as to why the United States government would just decide to abruptly invade the Iraq government and set up their own type of rule. The United States made this progression with orders from General Jay Garner who led the troop that invaded the Iraqi government. While replacing Garner, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, had his own way of leadership and how things should be managed during their administration in Iraq. Another official of the pentagon, Douglas J. Feith, claimed that Bremer did not listen to anything that he was told concerning administration policy before the Iraq invasion and this actually caused a policy fault. These are types of interactions among foreign policy makers in an individual government that are not easily accepted by the theories on international relations. As invasions continued across Iraq and the war going on for several years, the United States government was not ready to act as an example as required by most of the theories of international relations. Something came up as a result of President Bush’s policy and that one initiated by Secretary of Defence. After invasion, Bush wanted to remain in Iraq, carry out his major defeats, came up with his own type of democracy. Rumsfeld on the other wanted him to come out with his troops, which Bush thought of as a forced action and happened to pass a message that both the Iraqi and United States politics were not meant for each other. In real sense Bush’s aim was to become a victor and felt that the United States should not withdraw its troops until the mission was done. On the other side Rumsfeld thought that it was better for the troops to leave Iraq. He believed that it was the responsibility of the Iraqi government to shape its own state for a stable future. These were views that were perceived separately although neither of these opinions was taken into action. A disagreement arose that was later on settled in 2006 when Bush finally decided to order the removal of Rumsfeld and changed their strategy of invading the Iraq. Most theories of international relations are forced and created in a way to form conclusions that tend to give hope and light into complex events but presented in a simpler way. As evidenced by the way decisions were made and implemented throughout the years in Iraq, it is clear that the theories on international relations that were in place do not match peoples grand theories that actually force them to accept in real sense. Most experts dealing with international relations and politics of the world opposed the Iraq war with the strongest terms possible. Despite what was put across by the international relations experts, other groups were not presented properly and this lead to the start of the war. It was clear that the United States administration was not well aware of such opposition towards this war. It was not clear why the opinions made by the international relations did not get an upper hand from the social sector. Media actually tried to balance opinions made by the experts. International relation scholars ( Long, Maliniak, Peterson, & Tierney, 2013) remained mum on this issue but other influential experts decided to use the media to pass their message. They were highly against revenge planned by the United States against Iraq. This was simply because the Americans were planning to use extra force on Iraq in their revenge mission and it was at the same time thought to be sort of a policy without any authenticity. Scholars found it later impossible to try to convince the United States policy to change its mission. They stopped all their campaigns on what was to help stop the Iraq war. They decided that they may not be able to change what the British administration had not planned whichever way they approached the matter. Academicians also thought that the agreement made internationally on ozone depletion and its subsequent reduction had not been put into consideration by the Bush administration while planning for the war. It is also believed that international relation theories are more useful when it comes to policy making. At the same time the international theories draw information to the existing foreign policy analysis. So in real sense the foreign policy experts at times do not get any ideas from the theories of international relations. However the Iraq war has led to the greater links and merging in the relevance of foreign policy for the sake of theories of international relations. Conclusion A lot of effort has been made to improve both the foreign policy and the theories of international relations. Scholars are struggling for higher capacities within the foreign policy while at the same time making sure that they are recognized internationally on a number of security issues nationally. To conclude, leaders especially those in the political scene determine the decisions of their respective nations in a number of ways depending with the case at hand. Foreign policy analysis and decision making process can be carried out in such a manner that will be able to rule out the issue of individualism in the end. It is therefore necessary to carry out foreign policy analysis appropriately depending on the circumstance and the context under which the decision making process has to take place. Circumstances vary a lot and cannot therefore be approached in the same way. Bibliography Long, J., Maliniak, D., Peterson, S., & Tierney, M. 2013. U.S. Foreign Policy, and the Iraq War. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from International Relations Scholars: https://www.wm.edu/offices/itpir/_documents/trip/ir-scholars-iraq.pdf Acton, A. 2013. Issues in Geopolitics and International Affairs. Atlanta: Schorlarly Editions. Badie, D. 2010. Explaining US Policy Shift toward Iraq. Foreign Policy Analysis, 277–296. Badie, D. 2010. Groupthink, Iraq, and the War on Terror: Explaining US Policy Shift toward Iraq. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from Foreign Policy Analysis: http://www.politics.ubc.ca/fileadmin/user_upload/poli_sci/Faculty/price/Iraq_War_Groupthink.pdf Donovan, J. 2011. The Iran- Iraq war: Antecedents and Conflicts Escalation. NewYork: Routledge. Hampton, L. G. 2008. Justificatiobfor the Iraq War: An Analyais for the Government's public Case for war, 2001 to 2003. NewYork: Prquest LLC. Harvey, F. 2012. Explaining the Iraq War. NewYork: Cambridge University Press. Hinnebusch, R. 2006. The Iraq War and International Relations: Implications for Small States. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from Cambridge Review of International Affairs,: https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/school-of-international-relations/mecacs/workingpapers/iraq_war_ir_theory_implications_small_states.pdf Holsti, O. 2011. American Public opinion on the Iraq War. New York: University of Michigan Press. Lieberfeld, D. 2005. Peace Studies. Retrieved July 26, 2016, from Theories of Conflict and the Iraq War : http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol10_2/wLieberfeld10n2IJPS.pdf Lieberfeld, D. 2005. Theories Of Conflicts and the Iraq War. International Journal of Peace Studies, 4-12. Neville, P. 2013. Historical Dictionary of British Foreign Policy . Lanham: Scarecrow Press. Smith, S., Hadfield, A., & Dunne, T. 2012. Foreign Policy: Theory, Actor, Cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Walker, S., Malici, A., & Schafer, M. 2011. Rethinking Foreign Policy analysis:. NewYork: Taylor & Francis. Yetiv, S. 2011. Explaining Foreign Policy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. . Read More