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

Nicholas J Klein KLNNIC004 POL1005S

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).

Password

Confirm Password

I agree to the terms of service and privacy policy

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

Another point of interest surrounding the US invasion of Iraq is that despite claiming victory after a mere 21 days, the all the armed forces have still not pulled out of Iraq. Moreover, the motives for invasion had been clear from the outset – Saddam's Iraq posed a terrorist threat. Yet according to Hinnebusch (2007:11), “these claims have not only been discredited but, additionally, there is strong evidence that the war party in Washington deliberated exaggerated unreliable claims and knew Iraq was no threat to the US.” Hinnebusch (2007:12) continues by implying that the USA's goal was to capitalize on the huge oil reserves in the region. US control, he continues, of oil reserves in the Persian Gulf is a key ingredient in what makes the USA so powerful as “oil is a strategic commodity that everybody needs and is crucial to military power while assuring its flow to the world economy makes US power globally indispensable” (Hinnebusch, 2007:10). Therefore, the USA's control of, “Iraq, with the world's second largest known oil reserves, and right at the heart of the world's major energy supplies” (Chomsky: 2005), put the USA in good stead to gain further dominance of the world economy.

Another theory regarding the explanation of the US invasion of Iraq is presented by Jim Lobe (2008), who suggests that Bush perhaps desired to complete the job his father (Bush Sr.) had failed to do during his presidency of the USA. While this theory is not one that has been taken up by many theorists, it must be considered as the USA, under Bush Sr., did fail to take control of Baghdad in 1991 (Lobe, 2008).

Whether some, or all of the above reasons played a part in the decision taken by the USA to invade Iraq, it must be noted that the USA subordinated the UN by invading Iraq. According to a BBC article (2004), UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said that “the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.” Instead of remaining true to the stipulations of the UN Charter, Bush (2003) clearly stated in his state of the union address that despite the decision of the UN, if Saddam did not comply with UN demands, a US led coalition would invade Iraq.

In relation to the aforementioned factors explaining the US invasion of Iraq, theories of classical realism are suitable to understand why these factors lead to the ultimate invasion. Dunne and Schmidt (2008:92-93) argue that classical realism holds that the lust for power is an intrinsic feature of human characteristics – they are self–centered and self-interested. Therefore given that international relations is decided upon solely by human beings, it is in essence, a battle for power.

Given that these are the characteristics of realist theory, it is important to realize that the implication is that world politics revolves around greed and the accumulation of power due to self-interest. The actions of the USA are in many way founded on this principle when considering the invasion of Iraq. Right from the outset, it is a fitting theory to apply to the situation as Dunne and Schmidt (2008:92-93) state that “like the pursuit of power, the promotion of the national interest is, according to realists, an iron law of necessity”.

Moreover, the key assumptions of realism, known as statism, survival and self-help, all correlate with the causing factors of the invasion of Iraq. Statism holds that states are the most important actors and “sovereignty [the authority to make and enforce laws] is its distinguishing traits” (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008:100). Realism goes further to claim that in the international realm, power and security are objects that are fought for (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008:100). Furthermore, power can be related to “size of population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength and political stability and competence” (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008:101). As is evident, the USA stood to gain many of the above be invading Iraq; namely resource endowment, economic capability, and proof of their military strength.

Another feature of classical realism is Survival, which holds that the international system is anarchic and that the main goal of a state is the pursuit of survival and security. A principle tool in securing these things is the acquisition of power, defined mainly in military terms (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008:102). Given that Iraq was believed to have weapons of mass destruction (Nuruzzaman, 2005:3), they posed a threat to US survival and security as the alleged link between terrorist organizations (which were enemies of the USA) and Saddam placed the USA at risk of attack. Therefore, in a typically realist manner, the USA sought to neutralize the threat before it could have impacted on US survival.

Moreover, by gaining control of Iraqi oil, the USA would also have increased its security and survival chances as oil is an extremely important resource for the globe, and having control of large portions of it would augment America's scope of influence on world politics.

Self-help, the last key assumption of classical realism, according to Dunne and Schmidt (2008:102), holds that no moral or ethical code exists in international politics and does not believe in multilateralism such as that which is presented by the UN. Additionally, the use of force is a legitimate instrument of statecraft and the thought that the strong can do whatever their strength allows them to do, and the weak have to accept it.

This links to many of the previously mentioned factors for the US invasion. One such way is that the USA had no qualms about waging war against significantly weaker nation with a suffering economy (Nuruzzaman, 2005:3). Moreover, the George Bush explicitly conveyed that he would not submit to the demands of the multilateral body (UN) if they prohibited an invasion of Iraq, notwithstanding the fact that he UN had no power to stop the USA despite the obvious suffering of the Iraqi people. In addition to this the USA cited spreading democracy as another reason to invade Iraq and the Iraqi people had no say in the matter; this is a case of the strong doing what they desire, and the weak having to comply. Lastly, the USA – as theorized by classical realists – adopted military action as a legitimate method of statecraft by invading Iraq with a fully equipped army that was more than ready to kill.

Lastly, the theory posed by Lobe (2008) regarding Bush wanting to “finish the job of his father” by finally conquering Iraq, also applies to classical realism, as the latter holds that human emotion and lust for power is an intrinsic feature of realist theory. This is due to the possibility that by doing what his father failed to do, Bush Jr established himself as an individual who possessed much power and influence – the pursuit of which, is a key feature of realism (Dunne and Schmidt, 2008:92).

In conclusion, classical realism is clearly a theory that lends itself to the explanation of the US invasion of Iraq. It very accurately seems to provide reasoning for many, if not all of the factors, that theorists claim, motivated Bush to make the decision to invade. The inherent tendencies of human beings such as lust for power aptly describes Bush's motivations for for invading Iraq. The portrayal of international politics as a power struggle, also describes the US wanting to invade a country who supposedly possessed arsenal that could threaten their scope of power and influence in the world. This also links with survival as the US saw Iraq as a threat to their security and therefore sough to eliminate the threat. Lastly, self-help describes the absence of moral and ethics in international politics, and the decision for a powerful state (with questionable motives) to invade a significantly weaker one certainly shows lack or morals. Lastly, the decision to ignore the UN Charter and invade Iraq accurately vindicates the realist theory that there is no belief in multilateral institutions.

Bibliography:

BBC News, 2004. Iraq War Illegal, says Annan. (Accessed 15 October 2010)

Chomsky, N. (2005). It's Imperialism, Stupid. Available from (Accessed October 15 2010).

Bush, G.W. (2003) State of the Union Address. Available from (Accessed October 15 2010)

Dunne, Tim and Schmidt, Brian (2008) “Realism” in John Baylis, Steve Smith and Patricia Owen (eds.) The Globalisation of World Politics 4th ed. (London: Oxford University Press), ch. 5.

Hinnebusch, R. (2007). The American Invasion of Iraq: Causes and Consequences. (Accessed 15 October 2010)

Khong Yuen F. “Neoconservatism and the domestic sources of American Foreign Policy: the role of ides in Operation Iraqi Freedom”, Smith S., Hadfield A and T. Dunne (eds) in Foreign Policy. Theories, Actors, Cases, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2008.

Nuruzzaman, M. (2005). Beyond the Realist Theories: ‘Neo-conservative Realism’ and the American Invasion of Iraq. (Accessed 15 October 2010).