The War in Iraq: A Look at How Domestic Politics Impact Foreign Policy

When accounting for the causes and factors that contribute to war, international relations scholars often understate the impact of domestic politics on the decisions of leaders to engage in military conflict. The Iraq War serves as a prime example as to how United States internal politics shaped our foreign policy.

After the attacks of September 11, 2001, the American people felt both frightened and vulnerable. With these new insecurities, there was also a surge in patriotism as we came to view the existence of our nation as threatened. On September 21, 2001 Gallup measured President Bush’s approval ratings to be at 90%, largely due to the “rally around the flag effect.” Americans viewed the president as someone who could protect them, and for that reason, they were willing to give him their support. When the Bush administration presented the American people with the “evidence” that the United States had the capabilities to produce nuclear weapons, Americans first reaction was not to question the president and his actions, but to offer their support.

President Bush was able to force Democrats who would otherwise not have supported the war into doing so through rhetorical coercion. Anyone who opposed the war was considered unpatriotic, and on occasions, a terrorist sympathizer. By creating a dichotomy of being either “with us” or “with the terrorists,” Bush essentially made it so that it was politically inadvisable to vote against the war. Something that is often not discussed today is the fact that the Democratic Party actually controlled the Senate by a narrow majority when the first votes for authorization occurred.  President Bush could not have started the war without Democratic support, thus he needed to frame the debate in such a way that Democrats would vote in favor of authorization. The way in which the president framed the debate is completely independent of the actual existence of the weapons in Iraq. In other words, the reason for originally invading Iraq was because they possessed weapons of mass destruction, but the debate about the war was shaped more by strong and emotional language than solid and concrete facts. If the president had not successfully rhetorically coerced the Democrats into going into war, we may not have invaded. Therefore, the influence of domestic partisan politics played a significant role.

The effects of United States politics on the Iraq War were not limited to the initial invasion. In November 2006, the Democratic Party won control of both houses of Congress in the midterm elections. Shortly after the elections, Nancy Pelosi wrote an article titled “Bringing the War to the End is my Highest Priority as Speaker.” One of the ways the Democrats attempted to achieve this goal was through withholding funds for the military operations in Iraq until President Bush agreed to a timetable for the withdrawal of troops. Republicans again effectively framed the debate so that such actions were equivalent to not supporting the troops. They argued that by not supplying funding, the Democrats were putting the lives and safety of American ground troops in jeopardy, as they would be denied medical supplies and ammunition. Ultimately, the efforts of the Democrats failed, and it was not until December 2008, the “lame-duck” period in President Bush’s time in office, that the U.S.- Iraq Status of Forces Agreement was signed and a plan for withdrawal of combat troops was formed.

In conclusion, there is much more to foreign policy decisions than the realist ideas of power and security and the liberalist notions of economic interdependence and international institutions. Instead, some of the greatest influences on foreign policy can stem from a country’s own internal political system. This understanding is key to explaining different countries’ behaviors.

Sources:

Krebs, Ronald R. and Jennifer K. Lobasz, “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: 

            Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq,”Security Studies 16:3 (July 2007)

Shirk, Mark, Lecture 9: War (October 2014)

Tonner, Robin, “In Trying to Steer the War in Iraq, Democrats Drive in Fits and Starts.” The New York Times (March 2007)

Economic Peace Theory vs Democratic Peace Theory

Economic Peace Theory vs Democratic Peace Theory

            The democratic peace theory is a better theory than the economic peace theory because it is more stable.

The general idea of the economic peace theory is that states that trade with each other do not go to war with each other; and a common indicator that two or more states are going to going war is when they call off trade with each other. (Peace Lecture, Professor Shirk)  However, if evaluating this theory from a realist point of view if one of the states involved in the trade relationship is stronger economically that state could potentially take advantage of the “weaker” state since it would not hurt the stronger state as much. However, if the “weaker” state is providing a natural resource that is necessary for survival and they are the only state that has that natural resources the stronger state is least likely to go to war. Also, since three measurements of power are military strength, reputation, and economic strength, and in order to maintain a strong, effective military strength in war that strains economic strength. The McDonalds theory (Peace Lecture, Professor Shirk)   is absurd because most probably have McDonalds and still declare war on each other having something as small as a fast-food restaurant in common is not going to keep states from going to war with each other.

            The democratic peace theory is more stable because based on history democratic states tended to unite for the common goal for example during the cold war there was the “red scare” and although the United States was the main democratic state involved. World War II The allied powers were mostly democratic states that united for the common goal of spreading democracy and preventing Nazi Germany from being a major power. Also, the Vietnam War United States went to war with Vietnam in an effort to prevent South Vietnam from becoming Communist similar to Korea in the aspect of being half successful because both North Vietnam and North Korea are not democracies but South Vietnam and South Korea are both democracies? War tends to happen because of terrorism which usually occurs because of some type of difference especially cultural differences. Therefore, because the democracies have that in common and have the same agenda of spreading democracy they are more likely to see each other as teammates and therefore will be less likely to go to war with one another.

            Democracies do tend to be stronger than non-democratic states and therefore tend to have different outcomes with audience cost depending on their choices. If a democratic state’s leader publicly announces that they declare on another country and they pull back the public is less likely to revolt? However, with an autocratic state if the leader declares war and the either pull back or even worse lose the war that will make the leader look weaker and more likely lead to uprisings and that leader being overthrown because seeing another state defeat their leader who oppressed them can take away their fear of that leader. For example, after President Obama announced that United States was going to war with ISIS, if he decided to announce that we are leaving there is a fifty fifty chance that the public will be outraged for dropping out on what is seen as our responsibility however, there’s are others who may be fed up with United States jumping into every other states’ affairs.

Great Power In Numbers? A View At The True Strength of the European Union

          The struggle for power is a reoccurring theme in international relations. States want to establish themselves as a strong state both domestically and in the eyes of other states. However, few countries fit the criteria of being great powers. In discussion, the consensus criterion of what constituted a great power was a strong military, strong economy, and vast reaching cultural influence. We look at the world and see few great powers that exist. I believe that it is extremely improbable that any nation of the European Union, with the exception of Germany and maybe the United Kingdom, possess the capabilities of being a great power in todays world or in the future. Other than Germany and the United Kingdom, none of the 25 other nations have all three criteria that would make them a great power. I plan to focus on each area and show that although these states may be strong as an entity, individually their power is weakened. 

            The first area that I will focus on is the lack of strong militaries. One indication of a strong military is based on military spending. A recent pole conducted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranked the top 15 countries in the world when it comes to military spending. Only four countries in the EU made this list: Germany, the UK, France, and Italy. This may seem probable because these countries are among the largest in the EU. One might argue that the reason so few nations in the EU spend large sums of money on their military is because they do not see that it is needed. Europe has been relatively stable over the past 60 years and theorists do not see that changing any time soon. Rather than invest their resources in building a meaningless large military, many of these nations focus on maintaining economic security.

            The second criterion that many of the EU nations fail to meet is economic strength. The European Union formed in part as a trade union to boost their economies. The Union has grown to be one of the most formidable economic entities in the world. This being said, I do not believe that any country, with the exception of Germany and the UK, could be able to have a thriving economy standing apart from the Union. These countries thrive on the ability of being able to work in tandem with one another, which raises their status as a trading power on the international stage. Without this, many of these nations would not be as successful and in turn lose economic strength. If the EU were to dismantle (hypothetically), I feel that few countries in the EU would maintain the same level of economic prowess. Their strength comes from being able to work with one another, and in a world where they had to stand alone I think that we would see a significant shift in power. 

            Along with economic and military strength, it is important for a country to have a widespread cultural influence. As we discussed in class, the various forms of cultural influence can be culminated into the broad term of “soft power”. According to a Monacle survey of countries with the highest amounts of soft power, Germany tops the list, followed by the UK and then other members of the EU (later on). I believe that one major aspect of this strong cultural influence is because these countries have established themselves as countries with strong hard power, through their economies and militaries. This causes many people to want to emulate their culture, whether it is through setting up company headquarters in the country or have strong educational ties around the world. I believe that no other country in the EU has the capability of attaining and maintaining such cultural influence because they are not looked upon as one of the world’s premier nations, causing a lack of interest in their culture.

            Looking down the road, I do not think most of the members of the EU have the capabilities to grow into a great world power. The lack of need for a large military is one of the strongest leading factors for this. Some nations, such as France will grow in their soft power in the coming years. However, almost each of thee countries economic strength is through connection with one another. The European Union as a whole is a formidable power in the world stage. However, if we had to look at how countries would fare on their own, I believe that the only country who has even a remote chance of joining Germany and the UK as world power is France (albeit highly unlikely). There is a reason why there are so few great powers in the world, because so few states have the capabilities of holding the criteria.

The Failure of Bargaining Theory: A Look at the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

According to the bargaining theory of war, war is never the ideal solution because it costs both sides money, resources, and lives (Shirk, 2014). Therefore, a deal is always preferable to rational actors, and all conflicts can be divisible in order to avoid these costly wars (Shirk, 2014). Wars start, then, because of imperfect information, commitment problems, and the inability of states to mitigate anarchy (Shirk, 2014). However, this theory is far too theoretical to apply to most real world situations, and fails to account for highly complex conflicts.  The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is just one example of an issue that the bargaining theory has no answer for.

            Israel is a small nation located east of the Mediterranean, and the world’s only Jewish state (Beauchamp, 2014). Palestinians, the Arab population that originates from the land now controlled by Israel, refer to this territory as Palestine, and want to establish their own state of that name on some or all of the same land (Beauchamp, 2014). Israel was established because European Jews fleeing persecution wanted to return to their ancestral homeland and create a Jewish state. Israelis believe that Jews deserve their own state in their ancestral homeland, and need such a state to escape the rampant anti-Semitism in the world (Beauchamp, 2014).  Palestinians view this Zionism as a direct threat to their existence and a means of disenfranchising Arabs. They believe the land was rightfully theirs before the influx of European Jews in the 20^th century (Beauchamp, 2014).  Therefore, the aims of each side are directly in conflict with each other. One side cannot be appeased without the other side being frustrated.

This conflict cannot be easily divided because both sides will only be satisfied when they have achieved all of their goals in their entirety. For the Israelis, this means the establishment of a Jewish state free of Palestinian aggression. For Palestinians, this means the dissolution of any Jewish state and the return of land that they believe was rightfully theirs. For both sides, this means controlling Jerusalem and the West Bank, which are home to some of the holiest sites in both Islam and Judaism (Beauchamp, 2014). These are crucial aspects of the demands of each side, and neither is willing to compromise on these disputes. Therefore, fighting continues in the region today.

One proposed solution is called the “two-state solution,” which would create two separate states and therefore divide the conflict like bargaining theory would suggest. However, Israelis and Palestians have been unable to reach a two-state agreement for years because the goals of each side are in such direct conflict. The alternative solution is a “one-state solution,” which would merge Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip into one country (Beauchamp, 2014). But this plan is similarly insufficient and undesirable to both sides. If the new state were to become a democracy, Arabs would outnumber Jews, therefore eliminating the chance for a Jewish state (Beauchamp, 2014). In order to secure a Jewish state under these terms, Palestinians would need to be forced out of the region or denied the right to vote, which and “virtually the entire world, including most Zionists, reject this option as an unacceptable human rights violation” (Beauchamp, 2014).

The sources of disagreement between Israel and Palestine cannot simply be explained as “imperfect information” or “commitment problems.” In reality, there is no such thing as perfect information. There is no universal law stating who the land “rightfully belongs to,” and therefore each side believes the land to be theirs. And while it is true that the Palestinians have failed to produce credible commitments, disregarding Israeli authority and breaking cease-fires, as I have explained, the root of the problem is much deeper than one side going back on their word. 

I am not attempting to espouse my support for one side or the other in my explanation of this conflict. I am also not proposing a solution that I think would end this constant fighting. However, I am arguing that if the international community hopes to end this conflict without one side attempting to eliminate the other, it must employ more creative ways of addressing the issue.

Sources:

Beauchamp, Z. (2014). Everything You Need to Know About Israel-Palestine. Vox.com. Retrieved from http://www.vox.com/cards/israel-palestine/intro.

Shirk, M. (2014). Lecture 9: War.

GVPT200 Blog Post #1

 Saria Rudolph

Constructivism, Liberalism and Realism in The Melian Dialogues

The Melian Dialogues” does a great job of how the three “theories”, Liberalism, Constructivism and Realism are connected during the process that states go through when deciding whether to fight or stay out of an issue. Two of the main themes that are stressed to explain how these “theories” come together are the power of honor, and one’s state’s security.

Honor is a very important factor in the Melians’ decision making process and it actually gets to the point that the Athenians reminds him, “Remember what is usually the best course…Since you put your interest in place of justice, our view must be that it is in your interest not to subvert this rule that is good for all.” This statement supports the liberalist idea that states as well as individuals act in their own self-interest when making such decisions (Shirks, Liberalism lecture slide 12). As a leader not letting your own interest get in the way of making the decision that is in your state’s best interest.

                The Athenians were trying to persuade the Melians to just surrender and become part of their empire by reminding the representative that as leader there’s many factors that need to be taken into account when making such a drastic decision. The main two being which decision will benefit the Melians more and always keeping your state’s interests in mind and doing so in a rational manner.

When the Athenians were speaking to the Melians, “we’ll take it as we found it and leave it to posterity forever, because we know that you would do the same if you had our power, and so would anyone else.” The motivation for making the decision they made is to earn them more power and anyone else would make the same move if they were in the same place. This points back to the idea of no state necessarily being safe because they don’t always know another nation’s intentions, and no nation is truly safe unless they have all the power because of the zero sum plus idea, even if you are more powerful if another state has power that’s less power for you and therefore is indeed a threat to you because they can be developing whether at a rapid rate or gradual rate. Therefore, the Athenians represent realism.

Athenians seems to represent constructivism through his dialogue especially at the end of the article, “It seems to us…..they have already come to pass.” Constructivism because they believe that stability shouldn’t necessarily be assumed even if it is true that one state has more power than the other, while the Melains are overconfident about their having more power which shows they are more on the Realist/ Liberalist side of the political spectrum. This one decision ultimately led to the Melians doom.

                Therefore when making a decision that risks a national security although these theories have many differences in the end they can all come together and result in more efficient, well-thought out decision making.

Sources:

Thucydides, “The Melian Dialogues” from The History of the Peloponnesian War (ELMS)