Theoretical Perspectives on Iraq War 2003

Schmidt and Williams use different methods throughout the article to reach their conclusions. They state and evaluate the arguments that realists adopted in order to defer America from invading Iraq. They also demonstrate the tactics used by neoconservatives to undermine and defeat realists in the lead up to the war in Iraq. The authors engage in these different methods to reach conclusions as to why realism ultimately failed in the Iraqi debate. The subjects in this article are visibly neoconservatives and realists.

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.

In the days surrounding president George W. Bush’s address to the United Nations regarding the political climate in Iraq, Washington had become a whirlpool of two different approaches: unilateralism and multilateralism. After an attempt to appeal to both sides in Washington with his initial address to the UN, George Bush’s action of waging an arguably unjustified war against Iraq without assistance from the United Nations can ultimately be explained using realist theory.

United States military was moving into Iraq, the American economy was taking the first assault of a long and expensive fight. Victory was declared several years ago, and many are content to leave the story at that point. Advocates of the war have hailed its expediency and relatively minimal cost to the United States and its allies. The facts support a different conclusion. The truth lies in the economical devastation that the war in Iraq has left in its wake. The only accurate summation of the war is to say that the United States’ invasion of Iraq was not economically responsible.

In 2003 the USA attacked Iraq. Washington’s official account of the reasons to invade Iraq was centred on the argument that Iraq is a threat to its neighbours as well as to the USA. This was due to Iraq supposedly having WMDs and seeking for nuclear weapons and Saddam being unpredictable and irrational actor. Furthermore, it was argued that Saddam supports terrorists and could give WMDs to them. It was USA’s mission to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people (Hudson, 2005: 298-299). Some scholars support the official account as the real reason for the invasion, but there are many critical scholars. Some of them advance the theory that behind the attack was the urge to protect Israel or the effect that pro-Israeli voices have in

One of the founding fathers of political realism, Hans Morgenthau [1948], states that mankind exists to quench its thirst for power. Realism believes that any political action is determined by the pursuit of power of any state- whether for self-preservation or simply, expansion of the existing power- as was the case in the 2003 war. ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ involved a U.S.-led coalition which sought to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Iraq has withstood a multitude of adversity, suffering, and catastrophe throughout the previous eras. A battle over turf with Iran started in 1980, and in a short time, in 1990 Iraq attacked Kuwait, which started the Gulf War. Also, a result of Iraq’s unstable history is their inconsistent administration. This paper will highlight some interesting information in regards to Iraq’s economy, the government corruption, and how the United States Army Air Defense Systems played a part in the Gulf War.

Throughout this analysis one has been presented with three different arguments that are that of Realism, Liberalism, and Constructivism. Each of the arguments proposes to have the best way to look at world politics. However, this analysis has demonstrated that it is not possible for one of the three arguments to stand alone and for that reason this analysis has attempted to demonstrate the best aspects of each ideology in an attempt to combine the three into an idea that builds off of the strengths of all three ideologies. The reason for doing

Unfortunately, the hawks’ views and previous actions in which they prevented the U.S. from agreeing with or joining multilateral groups triggered a firestorm among foreign and domestic critics. To differentiate, the pragmatists, or ‘constructive realists,’ believed that the U.S. goals would be better achieved by working within the “post 1945 institutional framework” that they had helped to build. They knew that a unilateral military campaign would do irreparable damage to U.S. long-term interests, and that the results would be problematic. The United States would be in a stronger position to deal with Iraq if it had carefully built up international support – the pragmatists accepted that institutions such as the United Nations, if combined

Realists focus on the arrangement of power in the world as the influence of international politics. If this specific event was explained in a realist’s point of view, two main concepts would

using his conclusions and theory to discuss the implications of the argument for the current occupation of Iraq and future potential

After examining both Liberal Internationalist and Realist perspectives, the best interpretation is a combination of the two. The way in which Bush used weapons of mass destruction, as well as open critiques of Iraq’s non-democratic nature to justify the invasion exudes resemblances of Liberal Internationalism. Bush’s actions are similar to nineteen and twentieth century imperialism, as he forced a head of state out of office and dismantled the government using hard power. While Bush and several members of Congress believed America was invading for the right reasons, his justification as well as his execution of the mission lacked the depth of foreign policy knowledge to have positive outcomes for both parties involved. This can be seen in Iraq

The Debate over the U.S. invasion of Iraq continues to foment dissension among international relation theorists. While the invasion can be evaluated through different IR theories, majority suggest the invasion can be assessed through two popular IR theories: Realism and Marxism. Also, I found another useful theory, which will fit in the case if this invasion is security dilemma. There is always controversial among international politics scholars, which discussed the theories that were most likely providing comprehensive and insights regarding accounting for this invasion.

Media analyzes claiming that there was no planning for the continuation of the war in Iraq should address the public record. The reality is that extensive plans were made for post-war reconstruction but failed to take into account humanitarian and social problems of any importance, with emphasis on maintaining the authoritarian structures of the brutal Saddam regime after its abolition while upgrading the infrastructure, structure of Iraqi oil to benefit foreign investors.

In order to fully interpret the nation of Iraq’s holistic condition during and after the Saddam Era, Social, Political, and Economic factors must be weighed accordingly and in contrast to each other. In order to do this, the span of years leading up to 1989, and