“Balancing Act: Realist and Domestic Politics Theories in the Decision-Making of the Iraq War”

Question. The Iraq War is costly for the United States, just as any war is costly for any state. Critics argue that the United States fought the war to satisfy influential domestic interests. In the meantime, President George W. Bush argued that U.S. national interests would be furthered by bringing democracy to the countries of the Middle East. He saw the invasion of Iraq and other policies designed to encourage democratization as vital to bringing stability to that region and reducing threat of terrorist attacks on the United States.

Evaluate the debates regarding the decision making of the Iraq War by using the following two theories. On the one hand, the realists argue that foreign policies are selected to further national interests, taking into account the resources and power of the state relative to others. On the other hand, the theories arguing that domestic politics matters suggest that foreign policies are collectively determined by the interests of specific individuals or groups within society or by the private interests of individuals who occupy positions of power in the state.

Be sure to offer concrete examples and illustrations to support your arguments wherever possible, referring to course materials such as readings, lecture notes you have taken, and the film. In other words, you must make and support your argument with logical explanation and empirical evidence referring to course materials.

No matter how you answer this question, your discussion should at least include the following points:

1. What are the main points of disagreement between Pollack and Mearsheimer/Walt? To what extent are they relying on different theories, different evidence, or different assumptions? Holding aside what you now know about the Iraq War (that is, trying to put yourself in the position of authors writing before the war), which argument do you find more convincing, and why? Also, discuss how you think Brands would evaluate the debate between Pollack and Mearsheimer/Walt?

2. Read the transcript of Bush’s remarks on Iraq: “We Will Finish the Work of the Fallen” (posted on Canvas under “Short Paper Assignments”). How is the democratic peace theory evident in Bush’s view? Evaluate the main theoretical arguments and empirical evidence for and against the existence of the democratic peace. [Note: A good answer will cite both FLS, pp. 175–187, and Russett, Grasping the Democratic Peace.]

3. Read the article by Krugman, “Waggy Dog Stories” (posted on Canvas under “Short Paper Assignments”). Was the Iraq War a result of leaders “wagging the dog”? How do politicians

1

evaluate the rally effect (and diversionary incentives) and the political costs of war? How do elections affect use of force? [Note: A good answer will cite FLS, pp. 152–162.]

1. Read Zaller, “Elite Leadership of Mass Opinion: New Evidence from the Gulf War,” and watch the documentary film, “Buying the War” (available at the Hamon Arts Library AV Collection: call number IDD03283; also available at: http://vimeo.com/33033186). Discuss how public opinion influenced the decision-making processes and outcomes in the Iraq War.

   To answer this question, evaluate the following statement: “The United States is hampered in its foreign policy by the fact that its leaders must be responsive to a public that has no understanding of the realities of international politics. Public opinion constrains the United States from using military force effectively when it is in our interest to do so. And public opinion compels our leaders to use military force where we have no interests at stake. American foreign policy failures are thus due to the ignorance and inattentiveness of its people.”

2. Read the article by Kramer, “Deals with Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back” (posted on Canvas under “Short Paper Assignments”). Did the United States fight the Iraq War for the oil companies? To what extent do you think the Iraq War was caused by the attempt to satisfy a military-industrial complex or special interest groups? To avoid the fallacy of inferring influence from gain, what counterfactual question (i.e., “would policy have been different without the interest group?”) would you establish? [Note: A good answer will cite FLS, pp. 162–175.]

While discussing the above points, you should clearly link your discussions to your overall argument how the decision making of the Iraq War could be explained with the realism and the “domestic politics matters” arguments.

You have to discuss at least FIVE of the following terms and their significances in international relations:

Accountability
Coercive diplomacy
Democratic peace
Deterrence
Diversionary incentive
Elite cue
Incomplete information (uncertainty) Interest groups
Military-industrial complex Preemptive war
Preventive war
Public opinion
Rally effect

Please underline these terms every time they appear on your essay.

2

In writing these essays, you should remember that a good essay has several features:

1. a)  Make sure that your essay has:

   • a logical structure, including introduction, body, and conclusion,

   • a summary statement of your argument, which should appear in the introductory

     paragraph, and

   • clear, direct sentences and coherent paragraphs.

2. b)  Your essay should make a clear, coherent argument. While the question asks you to consider several points shown above, your treatment of each point should support the overall argument. Your argument should be clearly stated in the first paragraph.

3. c)  When you have to summarize the argument that an author has made in the readings, we do not want a blow-by-blow (e.g., “first he says this, then he says that…”) or extensive direct quotations from the author. Rather, we want you to put the author’s main argument in your own words. A brief summary of the author’s argument generally involves:

   • stating the main question that the author is posing or the main issues the author confronts,

   • indicating the primary answer advocated by the author, and

   • spelling out the most important reasons why the author thinks his or her view to be correct.

4. d)  You should support all your claims by evidence. An effective analysis will juxtapose your claims with passages from relevant readings, lectures, and films. Avoid unsupported assertions.

Notes:

1.  When citing from a reading, a short citation giving the author’s last name and the page number is sufficient. For example:

2. States follow the rules of the WTO because “the wider system of free trade that the WTO supports and promotes is of great benefit to them” (FLS, p. 80).

   Powerful states use institutions to constrain actions of less powerful states, but those institutions often benefit both more powerful states and less powerful states (Mearsheimer, “Bound to Fail,” pp. 10–11).

3. Because you have plenty of time to complete this essay, we expect that spelling, grammar, and punctuation will all conform to standard practice. Be sure to proofread your work!

   
   

   ONLY USE SOURCES I HAVE PROVDIED:

   FLS, chapter 4 (pp. 144–193) – https://ipfs.io/ipfs/bafykbzacearh34fenqe5sqmg5hqb6nkxuggg6dfrvuha47rjj6rxkb6nw5qqk?filename=Jeffry%20A.%20Frieden%2C%20David%20A.%20Lake%2C%20Kenneth%20A.%20Schultz%20-%20World%20Politics_%20Interests%2C%20Interactions%2C%20Institutions-W.%20W.%20Norton%20%26%20Company%20%282021%29.pdf

   * Bruce Russett, Controlling the Sword: The Democratic Governance of National Security (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990): pp. 20–51. 

   * Arthur MacEwan, “Is It Oil?” Dollars & Sense (May–June 2003): pp. 20–24. 

   * Bruce Russett, Gasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993): pp. 3–42.

   * Kenneth M. Pollack, “Next Stop Baghdad?” Foreign Affairs 81(2) (March/April 2002): pp. 32–47.

   * John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, “An Unnecessary War,” Foreign Policy 134 (January/February 2003): pp. 50–59. 

   * John Zaller, “Elite Leadership of Mass Opinion: New Evidence from the Gulf War,” in W. Lance Bennett and David L. Paletz, Taken by Storm: The Media, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy in the Gulf War (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1994): pp. 186–209. 

   * Hal Brands, “Blundering into Bagdhad: The Right—and Wrong—Lessons of the Iraq War,” Foreign Affairs 102(2) (March/April 2023): pp. 176–184. 

   Required film

   “Buying the War” (available at the Hamon Arts Library AV Collection: call number IDD03283; also available at: http://vimeo.com/33033186Links to an external site.).