The Australian Invasion Of Iraq 2003 : Power, Identity, And An Uncertain Future

Foreign Policy has long been at the center of heated international and domestic debates. Statements that serve as the catalyst for these debates are often labeled as blatant lies. For example, President George W. Bush believed the Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. When President Bush’ claim could not be substantiated opponents suggested the President was a liar. Henry R. Nau asserts this label may be an oversimplification. Nau separates the existence of facts and the interpretation of said facts. People from different cultures interpret the same facts differently (1). It is human nature to simplify the world into black and white terms. In “Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy” Nau explores the common bases of interpretation

The major event resulting in the USA becoming such a prominent figure relationship-wise to Australia is what is known as the Battle of the Coral Sea. In May 1942 Japan’s naval force tried to take Port Moresby, the last line of defence before Australia itself. However the United States naval force in conjunction with the Australian ships, Australia and Hobart, forced the

The ANZUS treaty provided Australia with a “protector” especially from communism as it states in article 4 of the ANZUS treaty, “Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific Area on any of the Parties would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.” This clearly states that if Australia or New Zealand, being in the Pacific were attacked the United States would come to their aid.

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

Australia’s presence in the ANZUS and SEATO alliances has been very important in our past. The ANZUS agreement which involved Australia, New Zealand and The United States said that they would “*come to one another’s aid in the event of an attack*” (Retro Active 2 p166 paragraph 1). This was formed in 1951. The SEATO alliance (South-East Asia Collective Defense Treaty), which was the one our involvement in Vietnam was based around involved Australia, Britain, United States, France and New Zealand. They all agreed that they would help protect Laos, Cambodia,

Another major aspect this limb deals with is that of Australia’s relationship with the United Nations and other major international organisations .

The discipline of international relations (IR) is one that has witnessed a multitude of variations and shifts. It has produced a fair amount of debate between academics within the international relations scholarship. Due to a plethora of circumstances scholars have subjected the traditional rationalist theories of neorealism and neoliberalism to critical re-evaluations. As a result, constructivism is a concept that has emerged as an alternative approach to dominant IR theories. It focuses on the importance of state identities in defining and gaining knowledge of state interests, actions and goals. There are theorists who purport that the rise of constructivism allows for a further understanding of another international theory, feminism.

Though Australia is a powerful country and is considered a main player in the surrounding area yet it is does not hold a primary rank in the global environment. Australia's contribution in military interventions beyond the Asia Pacific is smaller and follows the lead of another country such as the United States. The Australian Defense Force (ADF) has the capability to tackle with the crises in its neighborhood, because of emergence of security concerns constantly from Indonesia and many other smaller states. Australia has adopted a strategy to support and strengthen the presence of United States in the region. This mutual cooperation is very important for Australia as regards economy and security. Its alliance with United States has been due to many reasons.

This essay will be arguing that Australia’s historical fear of invasion does continue to influence Australia’s foreign policy today. This essay believes that the fear of invasion in Australia has evolves and changes over time from a traditional realist perspective that focused on states, to one focused on individuals and non-state actors. Firstly, this essay will briefly discuss the previous fears of invasion, from the introduction of the White Australia Policy to the War on Terror, and how events in Australia’s past shaped foreign policy. Secondly, this essay will discuss the current, evolved fear of invasion Australia experiences. How it has evolved away from the threat of invasion of another state or foreign political system to the invasion of individual people and conflicting ideologies. Lastly, this essay will briefly discuss foreign policy and the relation it has to the new fear of invasion. The policy that will be discussed is immigration restrictions and the treatment of people who have attempted to enter Australia informally.

Following America’s entry into the war, almost 1 million American service men passed through Australia, including 100,000 African- Americans (The American army,2015). On the Australian home front, the presence of all the American troops caused a huge boost in rural production as industries rushed to keep up with the increasing need for food supplies. In March 1942 the American president with agreement of Australian president John Curtin ordered General Douglas McArthur to form a defence plan with Australia for the Pacific. McArthur was in charge of all and became the Supreme Commander, South West Pacific (American Army, 2014). McArthur moved his headquarters to Melbourne and began massing the American and Australian force together. The forming of ANZUS, The Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty, in 1951 also greatly impacted on Australia as nation. It suited Australia to have the treaty with the United States as they were a large power within the world. As a result of the treaty Australia supported America in many conflicts following WW2 including the Korean War 1950-1953, Vietnam War 1962-1975 and Desert Storm 1990-1991. The presence of the American soldiers in Australia had significant impacts in shaping Australia as a nation through the forming of the

Australia 's US alliance is unquestionably its single most important security relationship. The security relationship between Australia and the U.S. was sealed with the introduction of the Australia New Zealand United States treaty (ANZUS) which was signed in 1951 (Taylor, 2016). The ANZUS treaty was instigated by the three nations to protect the security of the Pacific. Although New Zealand no longer holds security ties with U.S., the treaty is still in place and was the first of many formal alliances between Australia and the U.S. (Taylor, 2016).

The Iraqi invasion and advance into Khuzestan during phase one surprised Iran. The Iraqis captured several villages and small towns in the provinces of Khuzestan and Ilam and, after brutal hand-to-hand combat, captured the strategic port city of Khorramshahr. The nearby city of Abadan, with its huge oil-refining complex, was besieged; Iraqi forces moved their offensive lines close to the large cities of Ahvaz and Dezful.

In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.

The study of international relations rests on the premise that there is always a sensible way of explaining a nation’s grand strategy, for they would not survive otherwise. From the Classical Period to the Middle Ages, from the Renaissance to the twenty-first century, historians, statesman, and political theorists have attempted to provide reason and understanding behind the decisions made by nation-states. More often than not, whether through realism or liberalism, through social constructivism or even Marxism, the theories of international relations have been able to define the guidelines for decision-making. Yet, there are times when those choices are rather questionable, and a new explanation may be called for, one that

Unlike many of the major IR theories, Constructivism doesn’t seek to mold International Relations in a certain way, or provide a specific way states should act. Instead constructivism is an analytical tool that can be used to empirically analyses and understand not only International Relations but also the world around us. It has been