Realism Iraq War Analysis

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.

Schmidt and Williams use the elements of the neoconservative Bush Doctrine to show the direct contrast between realists and neoconservatives. The authors use the Bush Doctrine as an anchor to demonstrate realists’ anti-war views as the Bush Doctrine “provided the key rationale for the Iraq War.” This is the main theme of the paper and the authors express this throughout the paper in a fascinating, enthralling

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

Foreign policy decision-makers are not omnipotent enlightened individuals who can calmly evaluate all available information, assign relative values, and reflectively consider options. Instead, foreign policy is determined by individuals, as a collective, attempting to comprehend a bewildering array of information sources while influenced by personal emotion, relationships, and a subjective understanding of history. Theory, henceforth, is simplification of reality predisposed to emphases certain facts while degrading others. In explaining the reasons for Australia’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, neoclassical realism and constructivism will be applied in deepening the rationale exploration. The systemic, national, and individual facets of this decision are examined supported discussing surrounding social rules, identity, perceptions, and the US-Australian alliance. Neoclassical realism combined structural realist theories with a deep unit-specific analysis to inform understandings of foreign policy where it is assumed states seek increases in relative power. Constructivism, however, is as social science allows for analysists to drill down into relationships and individuals to determine the its socially formatted nature.

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

United States policy towards the Iran-Iraq war was interesting to say the least. While the United States claimed to be a neutral party, they supported Iraq for the majority of the war, supported Iran for a brief period, then went back to only supporting Iraq. Both sides committed numerous atrocities and war crimes, and for the most part received little to no American condemnation. Through this essay, I will explore the reasons for the US involvement, and their responses to a number of war crimes, particularly Iraq’s use of chemical weapons throughout the war.

Carl Von Clausewitz was a Prussian Military Theorist in the early eighteen hundred`s who focused on the moral implications of war. He once said “War is the mere continuation of politics by other means”, a statement that has become all too relevant in the twenty-first century. This paper will serve to analyze why the US invaded Iraq in 2003, discussing the underlying agenda of the Bush administration at the time compared to what information was given to the public. First, evaluating how the Bush administration used propaganda to vilify the Iraqi regime as terrorists and convince the US public that invading Iraq was clearly for pre-emptive self-defense. This section shows how the US government at the time framed the Iraq war as

In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.

The grievances emerged from 9/11 required to eradicate Saddam's regime due to the threat of Saddam's connections with Osama bin Laden (Thakur, 2004). The geopolitical presence in the region of US, oil, and fear of weapons of mass destructions were another reasons strongly emerging that also contributed to militarily intervening in Iraq (Thakur, 2004). These were some of the reasons that enabled US to consolidate their position to intervene in Iraq. However, it is argued these are the true reasons that highlights the urgency of endorsing the language of R2P on the grounds that US wants to protect Iraqi civilians from Saddam's cruel treatment. However, the mains reasons of intervening in Iraq for US were for their own self-interested power politics which, are barriers from applying R2P's objective to protect human

Realism tends to focus on the struggle for power between states in an anarchic international system. The major actors of realism are the states themselves. Realism presents a realistic view of international relations and focuses primarily on how the world is literally, rather than how it ought to be. Realist believes that states are rational, unitary actors whose aim is to enhance their power and security by all means. There is evidence that Iraq was a unitary actor who, just as the realists believe, fought in order to enhance its power and security. Though, some could argue that the Persian Gulf War was justified, there is sufficient evidence that concludes otherwise. Whether or not the public considered the Persian Gulf War justifiable, the main issue is that it was a battle that resulted in the death of thousands of lives, both soldiers and civilians.

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created

This paper reads someone like a court debriefing on two major ideas of the intelligence and invasion of Iraq in 2003. With evidence from both sides of the argument shown in the paper of George W. Bush’s reasoning, along with Colin Powell’s concerns for invasion. Also, the paper looks at events leading up to the invasion with Saddam Hussein and why George W. Bush sees him as a threat/ loose end. And finally, I give my judgment of the situation.

The IR textbook outlines three fundamental levels of analysis: The individual, the state, and global system. These levels of analysis help people understand how world politics work.

Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush