Department of Political Science Spring 2005

Lund University STV003

Department of Political Science Spring 2005

Supervisor: Martin Hall

US Foreign Policy and the Iraq War

An empirical study of realism?

Camilla Hansen

Abstract

This BA-thesis examines whether realism can be empirically tested on the Iraq war in 2003. I am inspired by Mearsheimer’s offensive realism, which holds that all states are aggressive because of the structure of international politics. Realism has a lot of theories about power, which I examine extensively and then apply empirically. Realism states that there are two strategies for a states’ survival. One for gaining power, and one for checking aggressors. The Iraq war can be analysed as a way for the US to gain power, or as a way of checking Saddam Hussein as an aggressor. I analyse the American foreign policy using offensive realism, which holds that all states want to become hegemons. I analyse how realist theory predicts that the US should behave as a state, and compare this with the empirical evidence. I also analyse the behaviour of Saddam Hussein using realist theory, which holds that all state leaders are rational.

Keywords: Realism, the 2003 Iraq War, Hegemony, Power, Geopolitics.

Table of Contents

1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………... 4

1.1Purpose and Research Question………………………………………………………………. 4

1.2Methodological Considerations………………………………………………………………. 5

1.2.1 Methodological Discussion………………………………………………………………. 5

1.2.2 Material…………………………………………………………………………………… 5

1.2.3 Operational Discussion…………………………………………………………………… 6

1.3Disposition…………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

2 Realism…………………………………………………………………………….. 7

2.1 The Common Elements of Realism…………………………………………………………… 7

2.2 Power and Realism……………………………………………………………………………. 8

2.2.1 The Balance of Power…………………………………………………………………… 10

2.2.2 Why States Struggle for Power…………………………………………………………. 10

2.3 Strategies for Survival……………………………………………………………………… 10

2.3.1 Strategies for Gaining Power……………………………………………………………. 11

2.3.2 Strategies for Checking Aggressors……………………………………………………... 11

3 Realist Theory and the Iraq War………………………………………………….. 12

3.1 Balancing…………………………………………………………………………………… 12

3.2 US Foreign Policy………………………………………………………………………….. 12

3.3 Continuing American Hegemony………………………………………………………….. 13

3.3.1 Strategies for Gaining Power and Checking Aggressors……………………………… 14

3.4 The Rationality of Saddam Hussein……………………………………………………….. 15

4 Theories about the Iraq War……………………………………………………… 18

4.1 The Clash of Civilizations…………………………………………………………………... 18

4.2 Securing the Continuation of Israel…………………………………………………………. 19

4.3 Gaining Control over the Oil Production……………………………………………………. 19

4.4 Continuing American Hegemony…………………………………………………………… 20

4.4.1 Buffer States…………………………………………………………………………….. 24

5 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………... 25

5.1 Supports Realism……………………………………………………………………………. 25

5.2 Complicates Realism………………………………………………………………………... 26

5.3 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………. 27

6 References………………………………………………………………………... 28

6.1 Literature……………………………………………………………………………………. 28

6.2 Internet Sources……………………………………………………………………………... 29

1 Introduction

When the US government decided to invade Iraq in 2003 a lot of state leaders were appalled, which made a lot of people wonder why the US decided to make such a seemingly unpopular decision. The US is by far the most powerful nation today, which made the invasion of Iraq seem unnecessary, when the US does not seem to be threatened by any state. Considering the fact that the US decided to ignore the UN it seemed even more irrational for the US government to invade Iraq.

1.1 Purpose and Research Question

In this thesis I want to take a closer look at the foreign policy of the US government today. I am especially intrigued by what made the US government decide to invade Iraq in 2003, when they did not have the support of the UN or the world opinion in this decision. I believe that there must have been other reasons that made it seem necessary for the US government to invade Iraq in spite of the enormous opposition and reactions it caused. Therefore, in this thesis, I am examining what these reasons were.

I am using realist theory, especially inspired by Mearsheimer’s theories of offensive realism in this thesis in order to examine whether it can explain empirical evidence as the Iraq war. So, the purpose of this thesis is to examine if realist theory can explain the Iraq war in 2003. The thesis has two aims. To examine whether realist theory can be used in reality, and to examine why the US invaded Iraq. I am using realist theory to try to get a deeper understanding of why states act the way they do, and if this can be explained in a rational way. Can the behaviour of state leaders like Saddam Hussein and George W. Bush be interpreted as rational using realist theory? Can realist theory explain why the US decided to go against the world opinion and the UN by invading Iraq in 2003? In order to get a deeper understanding of why the US acts in ways that sometimes seem irrational, I am using offensive realism to analyse the US government, and how their role as a unipolar hegemon affects its actions. So, this thesis is a testing of realist theory and an examination of the Iraq war.

I have decided to use realist theory because it is the dominant theory in international relations, and therefore it seems appropriate to test this theory empirically on the Iraq war. Also, realist theory focuses on power and survival, and has extensive theories about hegemons, which makes this theory useful for an analysis of US hegemony. I have focused on Mearsheimer’s theories of offensive realism, because he focuses on the role of states and hegemons like the US, which he has analysed a lot. Therefore, I have chosen offensive realism as the basis of my thesis.

The research questions, which I have formulated and intend to answer in this thesis, are:

Does realist theory explain the 2003 Iraq war?

Why did the US invade Iraq in 2003?

1.2 Methodological Considerations

1.2.1 Methodological Discussion

This thesis has a theoretical approach, meaning that I want to examine whether the empirical evidence from the 2003 Iraq war corresponds to what realist theory predicts. This type of method is suitable for a study that seeks to test the usefulness of a theory. I will be testing realist theory first by explaining realist theory, and especially offensive realism. After going through a thorough study of realist theory I will apply it to the empirical evidence of the Iraq war. I will then go on to examine the literature in the field of the 2003 Iraq war, which are mainly case studies and theories about US hegemony and the Iraq war.

Writing a BA-thesis has its limitations when it comes to time and money. Therefore I have had limited ways of obtaining knowledge about the 2003 Iraq war. I have chosen to deal with this by gathering as much literature about the Iraq war as possible during the writing process. By examining and comparing this literature I believe that I have been able to have as diverse views on the 2003 Iraq war as possible.

1.2.2 Material

This study is based on the empirical evidence gathered by writers and theorists, who have gathered information about the Iraq war and analysed it according to their point of view. I have used this material to gain knowledge about the Iraq war, which I have used as empirical evidence to test realism. I have also used this literature in chapter four to get an overview of the theories that exist about the Iraq war. I have gathered as many books as possible about this, because I believe that gathering as much literature from credible writers is the best way to gather as many views as possible.

Because of the fact that I am empirically testing realism, the foundation of my thesis is the literature about realism. In order to get diversity I have used textbooks about theories, international relations, and literature by realists. By incorporating textbooks I believe that I am able to get a more critical examination of realism, and I have used the literature by realists when I have wanted to get a closer look at certain aspects of realism. This was necessary when I needed to get more knowledge about offensive realism, and its theories about power and hegemony.

The literature I am using can be divided into three different categories: Literature about realist theory, literature about the 2003 Iraq war, and literature about the theories of clashes between civilizations.

1.2.3 Operational Discussion

When writing a thesis, validity is of the essence, but it is also one of the hardest things to accomplish. Esaiasson et al. defines validity as the absence of systematic faults, which means the agreement between the theoretical definition and the operational indicator (Esaiasson et al. 2003: 61). The problem with validity occurs, because theories are formulated on a theoretical level whereas they are tested on an operational level. Therefore, the question of validity is: Am I studying what I am claiming to study?

Since my thesis is actually a testing of realist theory, I am testing the validity of realism when it is tested on empirical evidence. I do this by taking a close look at realist theory, and its explanations of international politics, and then compare them with the empirical evidence, which I have gathered about the Iraq war. I believe that I have overcome the problem with validity, because I have taken the explicit theories about power, hegemons etc. and compared this with the information gathered about the Iraq war.

1.3 Disposition

My intention for this thesis is to test realist theory empirically. Therefore, chapter two is an extensive overview of realism and offensive realism. I focus on the common elements of realism, but also on realist theories about power and the offensive realist theories about strategies for survival. In Chapter three I test realism empirically by applying the theories I have explained in chapter two to empirical evidence on balancing, US foreign policy and the rationality of state leaders. Chapter four is an overview of the theories that exist about the Iraq war, which I have selected from the literature I am using. These include theories about the clash of civilizations, theories about geopolitics, theories about the continuation of the state of Israel and theories about continuing American hegemony. In chapter five I will sum up my thesis by stating what evidence that supports realism and what evidence that does not support realism, and present some concluding remarks.

2 Realism

I am examining whether realist theory can explain the 2003 Iraq war, and in order to fully understand this, I will explain the characteristics of realist theory. I am focusing on the common elements of realism, but I am also influenced by offensive realism and John Mearsheimer’s theories.

2.1 The Common Elements of Realism

Realists believe that states do what they can to survive, and that the survival of the state is above all other things i.e. ethics. Realists believe that some moral principles do not exist (Baylis & Smith 2001: 142), and do not believe that states should act according to moral or ethics.

Dual moral standard is one of the core elements of realism. It states that there exists one moral standard for citizens living inside the state, and another for the state in its external relations with other states. These two moral standards exist, because the condition of international politics often make it necessary for state leaders to lie, cheat, kill etc. even though this is completely unacceptable to do for an individual (Ibid: 143).

All realists agree that outside the boundaries of the state anarchy exists (Ibid.). This is rooted in the fact that realists believe that international politics has no central authority that controls the behaviour of states. The use of the word anarchy is used to emphasise the lack of a central authority in this realm. Realists believe that the state is the key actor in international politics (Ibid.: 142).

Statism is the centrepiece of realism. Realists believe that states are the main actors in world politics, and that sovereignty is its distinguishing trait. Within the state sovereignty means that the state has supreme authority to make and enforce laws. Realists believe that there is an unwritten contract between the state and the individual in which the individual trade liberty for security. For realists power is the absolute basis of the state; the community simply cannot exist in the absence of power. Realists believe that within the state, the problem of order and security is solved. However, among independent sovereign states there is insecurity, danger, and threats to the existence of the state. This is because the existence of a sovereign – which is the condition for order and security – is missing in international politics. Because realists believe that anarchy exists outside the boundaries of the state, they compete for security, markets, influence etc. Realists believe that this competition is viewed in zero-sum terms, meaning that if one state gets more security, markets etc. another will get less, which evens out each other out. Because of this it is hard for states to agree on certain principles (Ibid.: 150).

Most realists agree that survival is the primary goal for every state in international politics. This is because survival is a precondition for attaining anything else; no other goals can be attained without survival of the state, which makes it essential. Besides survival, the goals of states can vary immensely.

I am supportive of Mearsheimer’s theory that the ultimate goal of all states is to achieve a hegemonic position in the international system. According to Mearsheimer, states are always in pursuit of more power, and are willing to alter the existing distribution of power even if it jeopardises their own security. This means that there is always competition, because revisionist states and aspiring hegemons will always be willing to take risks with the aim of improving their position in the international system (Ibid.: 151-152).

“Three features of the international system combine to cause states to fear one another: 1) the absence of a central authority that sits above states and can protect them from each other, 2) the fact that states always have some offensive military capability, and 3) the fact that states can never be certain about other states’ intentions.” (Ibid.: 3).

Since there is no higher authority in the international system, there is no one to prevent or counter the use of force in international politics. Therefore security can only be obtained through self-help, but this will inevitably make other countries more insecure. The paradox of this is that military preparations of one state make the other countries uncertain, and insecure, which will turn the other countries to match the military preparations. The spiral of insecurity is called the security dilemma. States do not trust each other and tend to think that other states have bad intentions, which causes states to react very strongly to the actions of other states, because they always assume the worst. Ironically, the attempt to enhance security always worsens it in international politics (Ibid.: 153).

Realists do not believe that international organisations have any significance in international politics (Baylis & Smith 2003: 1), and they do not believe that the state should entrust its safety and survival to anyone else, because tomorrow they might be enemies. Therefore it is not wise for a state to trust in the UN, EU etc., because everything is uncertain.

2.2 Power and Realism

In realism power is defined as the ability to control outcomes (Baylis & Smith 2001: 158). According to realism, international politics is a constant balance of power, where some will gain more power, while other states will lose power. Because power is in equilibrium, the loss of power will always equal the gain of power. Power is mostly defined in military capabilities, because war is such an important factor in realist theory. Realists believe in the ubiquity of power (Ibid.: 142). Realism has its roots in the US, and it taught that leaders should focus on interests rather than ideology, to seek peace through strength, and to recognise that great powers can coexist even if they have antithetical values and beliefs. Because of this, realism can actually be seen as a manual for maximising the interests of the state in a hostile environment (Ibid.).

Power is essential to realists, because they believe that politics is a struggle for power, and that power is and its pursuit by individuals and states is ubiquitous and inescapable (Rengger 2000: 41). However, there is a clear distinction between domestic and international politics. For example, realists believe that domestic politics is able to channel the power-seeking ambitions of individuals in a less violent direction, but international politics is not (Baylis & Smith 2001: 143). This is due to the difference in structure of domestic and international politics. Power is also essential, because realists believe that states with more power stand a better chance of surviving than state with less power. Realists generally define power in military strategic terms as the ability to get what you want either through the threat or use of force (Ibid.: 144).

Great powers aim to be wealthy, and preferably wealthier than their rivals, because military power demands an economic foundation. Great powers also seek nuclear superiority and to have the mightiest land forces (Mearsheimer 2001: 138).

Realism holds that every state is fundamentally a power state i.e. the community can only function when power had been organised. According to realist theory the first move of the state is to organise power domestically, and then afterwards to accumulate power internationally (Baylis & Smith 2001: 150).

I am supportive of Mearsheimer’s theory that the ultimate goal of all states is to achieve a hegemonic position in the international system. Therefore states always desire more power and are willing to gain more power even if it jeopardises the state’s own security. Because of this, competition is always keen, because revisionist states and aspiring hegemons are always willing to take risks with the aim of improving their position in the international system (Ibid.: 152).

Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism states that “The overriding goal of each state is to maximize its share of world power, which means gaining power at the expense of other states. But great powers do not merely strive to be strongest of all the great powers, although that is a welcome outcome. Their ultimate aim is to be the hegemon” (Mearsheimer 2001: 2). Because of the fact that all state leaders pursue this, international politics is always dominated by every state trying to gain more power. However, there are several ways to gain power.

Mearsheimer’s theory states that the unrelenting pursuit of power means that great powers are inclined to look for opportunities to alter the distribution of world power in their favour. Simply put, great powers are primed for offence.”. Mearsheimer argues that the structure of the international system forces states who seek only to be secure nonetheless to act aggressively toward each other, and therefore international politics will always be aggressive (Ibid.: 3).