Using your understanding of classical realism, explain the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Authors Avatar

Nicholas J Klein        KLNNIC004        POL1005S

Using your understanding of classical realism, explain the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.

The September 11 terrorist attacks on the American World Trade Center placed the USA in the hearts and minds of millions of people throughout the World. It was a tragedy from which, came much support and sympathy. However, the succeeding actions taken by George W. Bush – then president of the USA – managed, slowly but surely, to turn support into resentment. The main action was the USA invasion of Iraq.

Beginning in March 2003, the invasion of Iraq was presented by the Bush administration as a subsequent step in the post 9/11 war on terror. His justification for the Iraq invasion were that American intelligence organizations had reason to believe Iraq was producing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) and that Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator that had links with terrorist organizations -mainly with Al-Qaeda- that threatened American ideals, values and interests (Nuruzzaman, 2005:3) While alleged WMDs were never found, there is still much debate amongst political theorists as to why the US invaded Iraq; theories of classical realim, however, explain US motives quite well. This essay aims to explain how classical realism is a good way to explain the US invasion of Iraq. Firstly, this essay will give a more comprehensive background into the controversy surrounding the US decision to invade. Subsequently, the key assumptions of realist theory will be related to the invasion.

After garnering support from Great Britain and other allies such as Australia and Poland, the USA invaded Iraq. 21 days later, it was declared that they had successfully toppled the evil dictatorship of Hussein. However, the war was in the media spotlight and the whole world was watching the USA by means of the news crews that were present in Iraq; no WMDs had been found – later it would be discovered that no WMDs would ever be found.

It then became pertinent by political theorists to reassess the situation that had caused the invasion. Firstly, the fight was unequal to begin with, the USA was the strongest military and economic super power in the world; in contrast, Iraq's military had limited technology, training and resources and the country's economy was in tatters. Yet, the USA still secured allies to pursue an enemy they could have defeated alone (on paper at least). Additionally, as previously stated, Bush explicitly identified Iraq's possession of WMDs as the primary reason for mobilization against them. Moreover, Saddam's links to terrorist organizations, in conjunction to WMD possession, threatened US ideals and interests (Nuruzzaman, 2005:3). Furthermore, Bush implied in his 2003 'state of the union' address, that the USA – as the superpower of the world – had a responsibility to combat a threat that endangered other states as well as US itself (Bush, 2003).

Join now!

In his 'state of the union' address, Bush (2003) also spoke directly to the Iraqi people, suggesting that that the  removal of Saddam and his regime would liberate them. This point presents another form of motivation for the Iraqi invasion, democratization of a land that had been dictated by a tyrannous leader. By placing democracy as a reason for invasion, Bush attempted to portray the invasion as an act of necessary morality. Khong (2008:257) states that “if one's ends are noble and good, one would be morally derelict if one did not use all the means at one's ...

This is a preview of the whole essay