The Realist and Liberalist Perspectives on International Relations and US Policy Stance Toward Iraq

It focuses on the state and international level of analysis to understand the rationality behind the war. Iraq posed an imminent and significant threat to the United States with its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The United States under the governing of the Bush Administration saw it fit to eliminate the threat while also striving to ensure a stable oil supply in the Persian Gulf. This first explanation coincides with the realist phenomenon of “security dilemma”, The United States saw Iraq compilation of weapons as a viable threat, but instead of building up their military in response to such threat, they decided to go to war. Although, the U.S. invasion does not follow the security dilemma to a tee. It can be argued that the United States acted as a unitary and rational force perusing their national interest which was to destabilize the weapons and ensure a sense of national security by launching a preemptive strike. By striking first the U.S. practice a form of asymmetric warfare which from a realist perspective The U.S. exercises a balance of power during the Iraq conflict. In order to balance power in the international system, the U.S. wanted to eliminate Iraq of their weapons since they posed too much of a threat against their own relative power and therefore were strong enough to dominate other states if possible. This philosophy explains the fundamental of realist

The doctrine of United States foreign policy has changed significantly during and after the Cold War, as the United States redefined its foreign policies during each of these eras. Although inarguably United States promotes liberal democracy, how it goes about doing so currently, could not be necessarily categorized as a liberal approach. During the Cold War United States had a more liberal approach towards promotion of democracy. Yet this approach has since changed as it did not emphasize enough the importance of other states materialistic needs and its impact on their international behavior, thus leading United States to adopt a more constructivist perspective toward its foreign policy.

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation.

This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.

Maximist Foreign Policy is who advocates extremist views or radical action to secure a social or political goal. United States as the most powerful economic power, changed its foreign policy dramatically after The World War II. United States maximized by taking the lead in founding the United Nations. It invested billions of dollars through the Marshall Plan. It created a system of alliances, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organizations (NATO). In otherwise minimizing is to reduce to the smallest degree or represent at lowest importance. World War I engaged the United States in European affairs, but after the war, a wave of isolationist feeling swept the county. As WWI as WWII United States was in “the turtle” minimizing, now that, U.S. needed to be in the war.

The containment policy established by George Bush Sr. after the Gulf War is the most viable option for the United States when deciding how to stabilize the Middle East. A political strategy of containment strictly sustains the status quo, and is inexpensive in terms of blood, money, and political capital. Furthering the United States’ containment policy in the context of Iraq will halter the making of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, ensuring the free flow of oil from the Gulf, while preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors. For this reason, a political strategy of containment is comparatively advantageous to the alternative. This essay will begin by examining the effect of no-fly zones on the Iraqi government, moving to discuss weapons inspections, discussing the strategic viability of sanctions and their effect on the Iraqi economy, finally explaining the advantages containment holds over intervention.

The US had hoped that once democracy had been established in Iraq it would open the way to a far more stable and peaceful region. Those who fortified the imposition of democracy on the nation argued that a prosperous and democratic Iraq would cause a reduction in interstate antagonism and would be a beacon for liberal democracy in the middle-east that would inspire and pressure nearby states into liberalising, bringing further democratisation of the region. However, this credence has been criticised for being dangerous to the domino theory on the spread of international communism in the Cold War and the objective has faced, and is argued to face, many challenges. Alina Romanowski, a senior US regime civilian official in the Middle East argues

Charles Beard once described the US’s security policy as one built by perpetual war to ensure perpetual peace. The United States is regularly involved in confrontations between nations. Even though quelling disagreements is the primary purpose of getting mixed up in disputes between countries, at times the US strategically benefits through its peace initiatives. Moreover, such interventions promote global stability and make sure that the world is a peaceful place. The US should be involved in conflicts between countries because it provides weaker nations with a line of defense, prevents civilian casualties, promotes beneficial ideologies, expands the US’s influence, and protects the US from potential confrontations in the future.

In the months leading to March 2003 invasion of Iraq there was significant debate between actors, domestically and internationally, over if and how the US should overthrow Saddam Hussein and his oppressive regime. The two main camps on how to negotiate the issue were realist and liberal views on international policy making. For realists the view was held that decision making should be made in the interests of the nation with or without international consent. Contrary, for liberals the ideology was held that policy decisions should be made based on what will benefit the country while also working through and with international partners. The ideology of the two main groups, realists and liberals, focused on to what extent, if any, the US should seek international approval from the UN Security Council in its endeavors to invade Iraq.

The goals and norms of American foreign policy can be traced over a number of centuries. Starting in 1776, foreign policy in the United States (US) has gone through a rollercoaster of competing strategies and schools of thought. Two competing strategies of Isolationism and Internationalism have taken their turns headlining the foreign policy principles of various American governments. Importantly, the reasons for the to and fro movement between these two extremes can not be linked to a single source but to a multitude of elements both internal and external shaping American thinking.

Due to their desire to gain economic assets and spread their ideals, the United States has obtained a reputation of forcefully administering their beliefs and attempting to mediate relations to their preference in other nations. Even if these endeavors were reasonable in the late 20th century, financial and international developments in the world and in the U.S. have made them increasingly unfavorable to undertake in recent years i.e.- they have led to a gradual withdrawal of national allies and universal beginnings of anti-Americanism. It is written in the Opposing Viewpoints Online Collection that “The U.S’ military has been severely stretched by its commitment in Iraq” and that “The U.S’ reputation in the world has been tarnished”(Iraq Wars).

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

“The American experience supported the assumption that peace was the natural condition of humanity, prevented only by countries’ unreasonableness or ill will” (Kissinger, p. 241). The United States, like President Wilson, thought that “international peace required the destruction of every arbitrary power anywhere that can separately, secretly and of its single choice disturb the peace of the world; or, if it cannot be presently destroyed, at the least its reduction to virtual

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