Causes of 2003 Us Iraq War

Invading Iraq was—and remains—a highly debated and controversial decision within both world politics and the academic disciplines of politics and international relations. With a growing number of deaths, rising tensions in the Middle East, and a failure to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the voices condemning the Bush administration have been increasing ever since the decision to go to war was announced. While many scholars have traditionally argued against the war, this paper will argue that the Iraq War can be justified.

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

Democratic Peace Theory is another example of how liberals prove that the spread of democratic principles is beneficial. M.W Doyle and R.J. Rummel came up with this theory in the end of the 20th century, which posits that democracies are hesitant to start a conflict with other democracies. “When the citizens who bear the burdens of war elect their governments, wars become impossible” (Doyle, 1986, p.1151). The reason of this theory is that liberal state that individuals, without the help from the government, are naturally very similar. Democracies are favourable in the setting environment where ideas of progress and liberty are common. Peace has to be established through diplomacy and war only used against authoritarian and undemocratic states in order to maintain the peace in the state system. The main example of the relevance of the theory is Europe Peace. Europe was the bloodiest continent on Earth for many centuries, but since 1945 because of the increased integration and cooperation there were no general wars between European states themselves. Liberals also mention the importance of the creation of collective security – institutions, which would be a legal framework for interaction in order to promote democratic values. Neo-liberals, such as Joseph Nye or Robert Keohane argue that

Wars have impacted the United States greatly on both beneficial and detrimental standards. Throughout the history of the United States this idea of war has played a significant role in the emergence of this prominent country. A politician’s standing policy on the concept of war has held great impact on the political spectrum, many voters hold strong views on war. Some argue we should enact a policy of isolationism, through this we can focus more on the issues within United States instead of other nations. On the other hand many claim being in war is beneficial because we can hold impact on surrounding countries and though wars recreate revenue and jobs

Liberalism was previously a projection of how international relations ought to be; now, liberalism is a modern theory towards peace attained with a state’s ambition for dominance. “Self-interest” has two definitions in accordance to liberalism and realism. Liberalism considers the measure of power within states through stable economies, the possibility of peace and cooperation, as well as the concepts of political freedoms (human rights). Realism believes states are driven by competitive self-interest; international organizations hold little to no real influence because states are self-preserved. International relations is governed by states acting in their self-interest through liberalism; states act in their self-interest by cooperating with one another through international organizations, transnational advocacy networks, and non-governmental organizations. International organizations, normative values, and terrorism are all examples of how international relations is progressing into liberalism.

The idea that democracies do not fight each other can be traced back to the writings of Immanuel Kant over two hundred years ago in essay ‘On Perpetual Peace’, however, only in the early 1980s and with the writings of Michael Doyle was the idea consolidated. According to Doyle and other advocates of the democratic peace theory, liberal democratic states have been able to maintain peaceful relations amongst themselves, but are prone to wage war against non-democratic regimes. In order to prove this theory, vast databases have been constructed of historical dyadic relationships between states as well as detailed breakdowns of incidents of inter-state war. The conclusions reached are best shown in the work of Bruce Russett who has argued that

In the article, author John J. Mearsheimer highlights that a state’s main objective in their actions were meant to survive and take any measure to ensure their safety. The state will focus on surviving and will plan around that objective. However, the safest possible position is to be the hegemon of their region. States aim to achieve this whilst still maintaining a secured surviving status. A state that has potential and holds a respected status may be safe now but is still exposed to downfall corresponds to the idea that states will search for opportunities to gain power over rivals. The author supports the notion of creating alliances and absolute power. In reality, states are not seeking equilibrium, rather they seek hegemony. With a regional hegemony

However the main reason behind that, is because so many countries have such strong nuclear warfare, that if any state chose to attack, it would be the complete and ultimate end of our world as we know it. In a way, the strength of modern warfare has created an almost cooperation between states to not go to war with another. We are well aware of the power we all hold. However this “cooperation” only stems from the competitive, modern technology of our warfare. In Peter Liberman’s article The Spoils of Conquest, he explains the liberalists argument that “rulers have no economic incentive to expand and are thus less covetous of neighboring real estate” (126). However our international economy lacks a centralized authority- creating an anarchical society. And when there is a lack of a centralized authority, states more or less tend to do what they please- creating a strong distrust amongst states that inherently leads to an overall lack of cooperation. Even if certain states in no way have any intention of conquest and are perfectly content with the power they currently have, does not mean that the other states want to let their defenses down. This leads to the creation

This dissertation intended to investigate the unintended consequences of the U.S. approach towards Iraq in the invasion of 2003. To attain this objective, aspects including the reason for invading Iraq were analysed by the use of realist and liberal theories. The theoretical discussion aimed to provide a combination of a neo-conservative theory in which represented the emotion of fearing a threat and the willingness to intervene to democratise Iraq for the purpose of homeland security. As a result with the help of neo-conservative theory, it showed that the policy of pre-emption determined the whole path for the Second Gulf war. In addition, the root causes of terrorism were analysed, to provide an understanding for the rise of ISIS, despite

This belief faced significant criticism, however, since free trade between states of different stages of development can result in a relationship in which the less developed state is dependent on the more developed state ( global South to North dependency). Many beliefs related to Liberalism actually face criticism as a result of an imbalance of power and influence between states. The Democratic Peace Theory, for example, suggests that conflict between two democratic states is unlikely – less likely than conflict between two non-liberal states or conflict between a liberal and non-liberal state. While history would suggest this to be true, there are multiple factors that contribute to this truth. For one, liberal states tend to be wealthier than non-liberal states. This means that they have less incentive to start war than a less wealthy state. Additionally, liberal states tend to have amicable relations with other liberal states – take Canada and USA for

The issue of whether or not states should be pacifistic is a question that causes controversy among states that appear to be in conflict with each other. Liberal Pacifism is a theory that claims states should be non-violent in order to resolve differences. This theory argues that war can be avoided and that there are better, longer lasting solutions to disputes, and offers insight to how conflicting countries may be able to be at peace with each other. The two states Turkey and America have conflicting cultural backgrounds. Both states have different understandings of politeness, gender roles in society, and have different cultural and political meanings behind their words. Liberal Pacifism is an excellent theory for this issue because since the USA and Turkey are intense trading partners and are involved in the world economy, they will not go to war.

A liberalist has an optimistic view on the world; precisely human nature. Although instability exists in today’s society, a liberal attempts to restrict this instability. Liberalists believe, “Humans are, by nature, good; they are only led astray by fear and uncertainty” (Class notes, 9/21). They believe that every individual has good qualities, however they sense that fear and uncertainty serve as an obstacle in growth as a human being. Liberalism seeks progress and liberty, unlike realism, which pursues power and security . Liberalism realizes that warfare is not inevitable. However, with all the relations among states, one would assume war is a lot more frequent especially when states do not see eye to eye. Clearly war is

Realism became a political ideology in 1648 with the signing of the Peace Treaty of Westphalia. Liberalism became a political ideology during the French Revolution with the storming of the Bastille in 1789. Both Realism and Liberalism believe that the state is anarchical, but Realism focuses on self-help, while Liberalism focuses on self-determination. Realism states that wealth is power, while Liberalism states that power is only one factor in the international system. Realists believe that the state does not encourage moral behaviour, while liberalist believe conscious moral decisions lead to prosperity in the international system. Realists believe that the state is the most important part of the international system, while liberalists see the state as one of the many important actors in the international system. One could assess that Realism is more pessimistic towards the international system, while Liberalism takes a more optimistic approach. Realism and Liberalism can be contrasted and compared within the study of International Relations, given the similarities of conservative theories and yet the differences between the realists practical world and the liberalist idealist

Before one may enter an analysis of the liberal and realist interpretations of the periods between 1815 and 1914 one must define what a hegemon is. Hegemony is when “the predominance of one nation-state over others” is present. (FLS 8) In the eyes of liberals hegemonic powers are public goods as long as the hegemonic nation-state is a liberal

In 1983, Michael Doyle compiled a list of international wars between 1816 and 1980, as well as a list of liberal states, and concluded that "constitutionally secure liberal states