The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives vs. Realists - Review

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.

With numerous opinions regarding whether the United States should continue airstrikes, re-send troops, or go another route, it is difficult to resolve the situation. Former Michigan representative Kerry Bentivolio’s thoughts that the removal of the United States’ troops from Iraq allowed the militant group easier access to overthrow the government is shared by many conservatives. Bentivolio (2009, para. 10) said in his address to congress

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

As Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone was walking to the Senate floor on October 2nd, 2002 to give what would be one of the most momentous speeches of his career as a statesman, he recognized the harm he was doing to his reelection campaign. A resolution, backed by the George W. Bush Administration and supported by the majority of Congressmen and Senators, would allow the President to use military action against Iraq to topple the nation's regime. Wellstone, a progressive Democrat, had long been vigorous in his opposition to entering foreign wars, but at that time he found himself engaged in a difficult and close campaign for reelection--a campaign that could likely be swayed in his challenger's favor by a vote against the popular resolution. Yet on that day, instead of joining the bipartisan chorus for war, Wellstone chose to stand as a "monument of individual courage" and voice his strong objection to consenting to military action against Iraq (Kennedy 223).

Zunes, Stephen. "A U.S. Invasion of Iraq Is Not Justified." The Nation 275 (30 Sept. 2002): 11. Rpt. in Is Military Action Justified Against Nations Thought to Support Terrorism? Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document

Following the attacks in America on September 11, 1999, there was a public outcry for justice throughout the country. Even with significant public support to wage war against Iraq, there was not enough reason to persuade congress. Over the course of two years, President George W. Bush proved that there was a purpose in the war, not only seek vengeance against terrorism; but, gift a people freedom from dictatorship. Yet, there were still downsides to war including inevitable loss of American life and damaged reputation for our country. For that reason, the United States of America should not have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 due to the extensive federal funding for undesirable warfare which took away from domestic prosperity, the preventable injury to veterans as well as violence against civilians, and the country’s damaged reputation achieved due to the illegitimacy of the war.

In “One World, Rival Theories,” Jack Snyder argues classic international relations theories cannot singlehandedly explain U.S. foreign policy decisions. Rather, modern academics and politicians understand foreign policy through an “adjust[ment] of existing theories to meet new realities.” George W. Bush is often labeled realist based on his aggressive response to 9/11 terrorist attacks through hard power while Barack Obama champions a liberal worldview and utilizes soft power through multilateral institutions to employ joint air strikes and economic sanctions. While Snyder’s dialogue conveys that Bush’s foreign policy decisions in Iraq combine realist and liberal viewpoints, I maintain the Bush Administration did not successfully combine IR

Since the end of the Cold War, a large number of neoconservatives had risen in influence in Washington. With a very hawkish, realist outlook, these “neocons” advocated America using its full military might to preserve its role as the sole hegemon in the international system.

The Bush administration's National Security Strategy was a product of America’s belief in American interventionism and exceptionalism, and marked a dramatic shift in the United State's foreign policy. In addition, it showcased the Bush administration’s push to find answers to 9/11. In the few years after the tragedy, the US would seek to strike a blow in the war on terror in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist regime had supposed ties to terror groups such as Al-Qaeda. The nation quickly moved to war, and invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003. However, even though the war was quickly declared over, the continued deaths of American troops in Iraq gave rise to powerful protests. Artist Joe Wezoreck’s collage War President, critiques the continued stay of American troops in Iraq. Once Iraqi accounts of the war, such as Wendell Steveanson’s collection of stories “Dispatches from Iraq” surfaced, the American public truly began to question the real purpose behind the Iraq war. These sources initiated the changing perception of the American identity as a bastion of freedom and democracy as a result of the Iraq war. In the end, the Iraq war ultimately failed to provide answers to a post 9/11 nation, and instead revealed the flaws of interventionism and muddled American foreign policy to the disillusioned American

“Democracy and Liberalism” as the first pillar of the Bush Doctrine, a policy component that has challenged scholars in their attempts to classify the Bush Administration’s grand strategy as realist, liberal or neoconservative (Jervis 2003: 366). The Bush Doctrine has an unmistakably ideological component

William Kristol was born in New York City in 1952. Upon earning his PhD from Harvard University, he taught politics at both the University of Pennsylvania (1979-1983) before returning to Harvard (1983-1985). Later he served the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations. Today, he is the editor of The Weekly Standard and makes regular appearances on FOX News. Mr. Kristol co-authored, The War Over Iraq: America’s Mission and Saddam’s Tyranny as well as several other books. Additionally, he is actively involved in many organizations that promote the neo-conservative agenda in foreign policy. In short, Mr. Kristol’s views on contemporary issues include regime change in Syria and Iran, rejection of the Iranian nuclear deal, staunch support for the defense of Israel, and the annihilation of ISIL.

The Bush Doctrine vastly expanded what the United States deems a “vital interest”—dragging preëmptive action, unilateralism, and anti-terrorism under its umbrella. Democratizing nations plays a critical role in the strategy as well. A spirit of liberalism flows through the Doctrine, as it attempts to depose tyrannical dictators to ease relations between nations and foster democracy. It

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.

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

     This I’ll admit was a very interesting book that looked at what could have really caused the Iraq war and whether we really had to go to war. The book talks about the flaws with the reasons that Bush proposed for going to war with Iraq and why we haven’t had a fuller victory yet. The book basically goes into details about the four observations that arise from examining certain aspects of the war and afterwards. In the next few pages I’ll be summarizing the book then stating my analysis and opinions about ideas presented in the book.