Essay prompt on Iraq War...

(1)
Apply the system-level, state-level and individual-level of analysis to the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq. Which do you believe is the best level for analyzing why the US went to war with Iraq?


Racing on the interstate are semi-trucks that carry messages from the companies they represent. Sometimes these semi-drivers are traveling so fast that other drivers on the road find it impossible to read the messages written on the side of their trucks. This leaves other drivers only guessing what the messages on the trucks said. Just like these speeding semi-trucks, the clear message to why the United States decided to go into war with Iraq in 2003 is diluted by speculations and mixed messages sent by the President and Congress. What is the real reason the United States entered into war with Iraq? This question can be answered by applying system-level, state-level, and individual-level analysis. Is one better than another for uncovering the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq? The purpose of this essay is to discover as much.
In terms of individual-level analysis, it has often been questioned whether President George W. Bush’s push for an invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein stemmed from rage over Hussein’s alleged attempt to assassinate his father, George H.W. Bush, in 1993. Along with his father, Bush’s mother, Barbara, and his wife, Laura, could have been killed. In an interview with CNN, President George H.W. Bush explained that he hated Saddam Hussein: “I don’t hate easily, but I think he is – as I say, his word is no good and he is a brute. He has used poison gas on his own people. So, there’s nothing redeeming about this man, and I have nothing but hatred in my heart for him.” Shortly following his father, Bush “mused” at a Texas Fundraiser, that “there’s no doubt he can’t stand us. After all, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad at one time.” (Baker, Peter) Upon hearing this, White House officials “quickly issued assurances that the president did not mean to ‘personalize’ his campaign to depose the Iraqi dictator.” (Rourke and Boyer 56)
Inevitably, Bush did bring his bitterness and natural, yet justifiable, hunger for revenge into his decision to invade Iraq; however, he did not allow his family’s past with Hussein to overshadow his vision to bring the chance of democracy to an oppressed nation, dismantle weapons of mass-destruction (WMD), and topple Hussein. On November 8, 2002, the United Nations passed Resolution 1441 which decided that “Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions…[and] to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council; and accordingly decides to set up an enhanced inspection regime with the aim of bringing to full and verified completion the disarmament process established by resolution 687 and subsequent resolutions of the Council.” (U.S. Department of State) At a joint news conference with Bush in January 2003, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that Hussein was not complying with Resolution 1441, and “the international community comes together again and makes it absolutely clear that this is unacceptable.” Acting on power dictated in Resolution 1441 to respond to Iraq without a second resolution passed, Bush announced that he would not hesitate to act in attempts to disarm Iraq. (Bush, Blair: Timing running out for Saddam)
Bush’s seriousness was seen when alongside Britain and smaller regimes from Australia, Poland, Spain and Denmark, the United States invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. (U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait) While the offensive was launched because it was believed Iraq was harboring WMD, the CIA released its final report in 2005 providing that no WMD had been found in Iraq. “‘After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,’ wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group…‘as matters stand now, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.’” (MSNBC) After this report, the United States’ motive for invading Iraq, especially Bush’s, came into question.
Nearly six years later, President Barack Obama is promising to withdraw troops from Iraq. With Hussein having been captured and killed, no evidence of WMD found in Iraq, and the Iraqi government struggling, but making slow progress towards being self-sufficient, why does America remain in Iraq? An even bigger question has been asked to why Americans, including Congress, supported Bush in the first place? The appropriate answer to the latter of the questions is in the term coined the “rally effect.”
State-level analysis “emphasizes the characteristics of states and how they make foreign policy choices and implement them.” (Rourke and Boyer 57) In this system of analysis, the “rally effect” is the likeliness of the public to follow their leader during a time of crisis, especially a leader who proved to be strong and firm in his response to the September 11 attacks. Even current Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton voted in approval of the 2003 invasion on Iraq, although she later admitted her mistake.
Additionally, looking at the United States’ “missionary impulse” might have contributed to one of its reasons behind entering the war with Iraq. This “missionary impulse” is described as “zeal to reshape the world in the American image(Rourke and Boyer 59) This ideal of spreading the American-system of democracy is explained in a Harvard Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs discussion paper, “Why the United States Should Spread Democracy,”: “The United States should attempt to spread democracy because people generally live better lives under democratic governments. Compared to inhabitants of nondemocracies, citizens of democracies enjoy greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence, enhanced quality of life, and a much lower risk of suffering a famine. Skeptics will immediately ask: Why should the United States attempt to improve the lives of non-Americans? Shouldn’t this country focus on its own problems and interests? There are at least three answers to these questions. First, as human beings, Americans should and do feel some obligation to improve the well-being of other human beings. The bonds of common humanity do not stop at the borders of the United States…Second, Americans have a particular interest in promoting the spread of liberty…Given its founding principles and very identity, the United States has a large stake in advancing its core value of liberty…Third, improvements in the lives of individuals in other countries matter to Americans because the United State cannot insulate itself from the world…The growing interconnectedness of international relations means that the United States also has an indirect stake in the well-being of those in other countries, because developments overseas can have unpredictable consequences for the United States.” (Lynn-Jones, Sean M)
In perspective with Iraq, the invasion was likely, by system-level analysis, a result of four factors. Firstly, the injustice seen in Hussein’s deplorable treatment of thousands of Iraqis was reason enough to respond. With American philosophy based off of the freedoms of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, Americans throughout the decades have made a point to liberate the oppressed. Secondly, the United States “missionary impulse” to spread the American way of democracy is done out of an underlying desire to not only help the oppressed, but further America’s power and influence in the international community.
Thirdly, with growing hatred towards the West, especially the United States and Europe, America and its allies acted in defense to try to dismantle any effort that could harm the United States in the future. With other countries increasing their influence in the world, the United States struggles to maintain grasp of its dominating position. Bush did not have the United Nations Security Council approve the invasion because he knew the combined veto powers of France, China, Russia, and Germany, all of whom were against the United States’ request to invade Iraq, would cause his request to fail. ““The urge to escape the U.S. orbit also may help explain why France, Germany, Russia, and China were all opposed to U.S. action against Iraq in 2003. Certainly those countries objected to the war as such, but it was also a chance to resist the lead of the hegemonic power.” (Rourke and Boyer 65) And fourthly, Bush’s handling of 9/11 so inspired trust in the American people that they supported his decision to invade Iraq.
Whether or not Bush had personal reasons behind entering the war are now coupled by questions to whether oil played a large role in his decision to invade Iraq. To answer this question, system-level analysis is used. System-level analysts propose that a state’s economic realities often contribute to its foreign policy decisions. The United States depends heavily on foreign oil. “As U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III explained to reporters, “The economic lifeline of the industrial world runs from the Gulf, and we cannot permit a dictator… to sit astride that economic lifeline.” (Rourke and Boyer 66) With the United States depending heavily on imported oil from the Middle East, constant negotiations and meetings are held with major oil-controllers like Saudi Arabia. When gas prices rose to four dollars a gallon in mid-2008, Americans were outraged at the high price of gas. Alongside gas tank costs, food prices and electric bills soared. This outrage only glimpses America’s level of dependency on foreign oil.
Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, in his autobiography The Age of Turbulence, proposes that he thought the excuse of WMD was “utterly beside the point.” In an interview with the Guardian, Greenspan said that he thought the purpose of the Iraqi invasion was to protect Middle Eastern oil reserves. (Adams, Richard) Was the war really over oil? Evidence exists for both positions; however, oil cannot be looked at as the single defining reason behind the United States’ decision to invade Iraq. In fact, neither individual-level analysis nor state-level analysis is sufficient to accurately predict the reason behind the invasion. Rather, looking at the big picture is the best way to predict the reasons behind the invasion. This big picture intertwines the arguments from all three levels of analysis. Individual, domestic, and international reasons are all evident. While the United States made critical errors in its invasion of Iraq, it is comforting to know that many factors, rather than revenge on the side of Bush or selfishness on the side of America in its desire for oil, contributed to the invasion rather than one underlying factor. Unlike an absolute government, the United States has such a system of government that many spheres agreed on the war in Iraq. Bush cannot be solely blamed for his decision. Rather, there is a community to either praise or blame.
WORKS CITED (1)
Baker, Peter. "Conflicts Shaped Two Presidencies: U.S.; Iraq Continue to Experience Aftereffects of Their Confrontations." The Washington Post 31 Dec. 2006. The Washington Post Company. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000663_pf.html>.
Rourke, John T., and Mark A. Boyer. International Politics on the World Stage. 7th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
United States. U.S. Department of State. Text of UN Security Council Resolution on Iraq: November 8, 2002. By Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei. 8 Nov. 2002. United Nations. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/15016.htm>.
Bush, Blair: Time running out for Saddam. 31 Jan. 2003. CNN. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/31/sprj.irq.bush.blair.topics/>.
"U.S. has 100,000 troops in Kuwait." CNN.com 18 Feb. 2003. Cable News Network LP, LLLP. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/18/sprj.irq.deployment/index.html>
"CIA’s final report: No WMD found in Iraq." MSNBC 25 Apr. 2005. The Associated Press. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/]>.
Lynn-Jones, Sean M. "Why the United States Should Spread Democracy" Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Mar. 1998. Harvard University. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:0aZpwysvP6MJ:belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/2830/why_the_united_states_should_spread_democracy.html+The+United+States+should+attempt+to+spread+democracy+because+people+generally+live+better+.&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us>.
Adams, Richard. "Invasion of Iraq was driven by oil, says Greenspan." The Guardian [London] 17 Sept. 2007, sec. International: 18. Guardian.co.uk. 17 Sept. 2007. The Guardian. 21 Jan. 2009 <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/17/iraq.oil>.