Explain the essential elements of the realist and liberalist perspectives on International Relations. To what extent is the current US policy stance towards Iraq consistent with either of these paradigms?

States wishing to arm themselves against attack may be seen as mobilising for war. This happens because there is no distinction between offensive and defensive weapons. In such a case a “security dilemma” is raised. Such a question has been raised over Iraq; is Saddam Hussein arming for war against the West or for defence against the West? This is difficult to show because of the lack of distinction between offensive and defensive weapons.

The mutual distrust of Iraq and the United States of America can be explained by the fact that under the realist paradigm power is a chief aim. This power is achieved by defending themselves against possible aggressors and also at the expense of their rivals. In the current climate, the United States is defensive and aggressive towards Iraq and vice versa.

With the struggle for power, or at least a balance of power, it is inevitable that there will be a number of small wars that ensue. The realist viewpoint proved this pre-1914 when the intricate alliance systems of the Ententes of France and Britain, the Dreikaiserbund of Germany, Russia and Austria-Hungry. These two alliances produced several minor wars that helped maintain the balance of power. However, this soon ended with the outbreak of World War I. Therefore a small and minor skirmish with Iraq would help to maintain the balance of power. A statement by George W Bush said “As a matter of common sense and self defence, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed,” which has proves that he is standing by the realist stance.

The use of these minor, small wars is to show not only to Saddam Hussein, but also to the world that America is the only super-power. The policy being followed is one of realism, having an effect of “containment and deterrence” to Iraq. The best example of the deterrence that the United States has placed on Iraq was the Gulf War. The threat of nuclear weapons by America and Israel deterred Saddam Hussein from using his.

Opposite to this stance is that of the liberalist or pluralists, which arose after World War I and the advent of the League of Nations. Prominent supporters of this were Woodrow Wilson, Lloyd-George and other international statesmen. They believe that there is a possibility of a world that is war-free. Liberalists believe that their main aim is economic success and that priority must be give to the liberal values. It generally uses international organisations to achieve its aims. With the end of the Cold War the liberalists thought that the new cooperativeness would lead to a peaceful world. However, its main limitation is that it ignores the role of power balance. It does accept the role of the state as important, but it also says that other actors such as multi-national corporations have a larger role to play.

The American policy towards not only Iraq, but also the Middle East in general, accepts this view. One of the causes of intervention after the invasion of Kuwait was the fact that with Iraq having such large quantities of the worlds oil reserves. Therefore has the power to dictate to the rest of the world, notably the United States and the West, the price that it will cost.

Furthermore, oil is directly related to military capability. Different factions of oil are needed to run machinery; from tanks to planes, vehicles to weapons. So should Iraq have such a massive economic capability, it would vastly detrimental to the West. The value of oil means that it must be perceived in terms of both state and economic factors.

Liberalists also believe that there are other factors that accompany international-corporations and the state actors. Also there are religious affiliations that affect International Relations. This was proven on September 11, with the attack on America. It was important for two reasons; first, it shows there are “perceived dangers posed by tyrant states and terrorist networks.” Secondly, it was also attack on American soil against the American economy, thus proving that the policy of the United States follows a liberalist view.

The religion that should be considered is that of Islam, particularly the extremists. It is they who attacked America’s World Trade Centre. Liberalists believe that militant movements are not just tools of the state but also actors in their own right. Proven by the attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the Pentagon in Washington last year. The American foreign policy recognises this by supporting modern and moderate Muslim governments. 

To conclude I think that the US policy stance towards Iraq aims towards a liberalist aim of a war-free and peaceful world, but it realises that it must do so using realist methods. These include maintaining military superiority and by doing so a balance of power in favour of the United States. Other states do pose a very real danger to the United States, such as china who has openly declared America as an enemy. Terrorist networks also pose a danger that America has yet failed to eliminate. I do think that the deterrence of other nations that hold the United States as its enemy is a viable action. This is because should either Iraq or China attack the West then it would have catastrophic consequences. It would mean global annihilation.

Should the United States attack Iraq, trying to topple the regime, I think that a war of attrition would follow. Forces such as the Republican Guard, who are loyal Saddam Hussein, would fight to the last man. America could not easily defeat Iraq alone. This raises cause for multilateralism, which I think will prevail. Recent events have also shown that the United States will act multilaterally. The new United Nations’ resolution to force Hussein to allow inspectors into Iraq, or the consequences would mean war.

What would America do if a unilateral war were won? They must be willing to station at occupational force foe up to 50 years to prevent a vacuum of power. Therefore a shared responsibility brought about by a multilateral action would be preferable to the US. To leave such a vacuum would cause ruptures politically in Iraq causing civil war and the possibility of somebody more extreme gaining power. Also the world oil market would be in turmoil should such a war be fought. This is another argument for deterrence rather then a pre-emptive war.