THIRD READING = CONCLUSION
Why realism liberalism not good to explain Iraq case?
REALISM NO - Some scholars might argue that my conclusions are flawed since I do not consider
realism; however, I contend that realist policy prescriptions do not fit with the circumstances of the
Iraq War from either the point of view of Waltz’s defensive realism or Mearsheimer’s offensive
realism. Since the United States’ engagement in Iraq did little to boost America’s power – relatively
or absolutely – one could hardly argue that the Bush administration employed realist thinking. In
fact, the mobilization to Iraq served to weaken the state’s military capabilities (and thus weaken
both its relative and absolute power) by opening another theater of war outside of the Afghanistan
conflict. The oversimplified argument that the desire to acquire oil powered a realist drive to invade
simply does not hold water. Liberalism and constructivism offer far clearer insights into the decision
to invade, with the constructivist point of view ultimately best explaining the origins of the Iraq
conflict. Overall, the decision to go to war originated in normative ideology within the Bush
administration, a phenomenon supported by the constructivist model and supported by liberal
ideology
LIBERALISM NO - Despite the various ways that the liberal point of view sheds light on the causes of
the Iraq conflict, it presents an almost self-contradictory value system pertaining to Hussein’s
regime. Liberalism stresses the fundamental need for individual freedom and self-determination,
presenting a clear case for intervention in Iraq – a state in which the dictatorial government showed
complete disregard for basic human rights. On the other hand, as Doyle notes, “the basic postulate
of liberal international theory holds that states have the right to be free from foreign intervention.”
These conflicting motivations make it difficult to analyze the Iraq War solely from a liberal
perspective. Additionally, while the example of United States collaboration with the United Kingdom
does reflect the cooperation between liberal states that is expected by republican liberalism, the fact
that many liberal nations did not support the invasion undermines this point to a great extent.
Finally, liberalism does not examine the normative behaviors of individual actors in the United States
policy-shaping community. In the case of the highly ideological Bush administration, such an analysis
is of crucial importance, further making liberalism an incomplete, albeit helpful, perspective for
considering the causes of the Iraq War.
CONSTRUCTIVISM IS THE BEST approach
As evidenced by this extract from Katzenstein’s work, norms and policies can change and – as
socially-driven constructs – are strongly affected by the individuals within the international system.
Another important aspect of constructivism is the importance of language to state policy
Why realism liberalism not good to explain Iraq case?
REALISM NO - Some scholars might argue that my conclusions are flawed since I do not consider
realism; however, I contend that realist policy prescriptions do not fit with the circumstances of the
Iraq War from either the point of view of Waltz’s defensive realism or Mearsheimer’s offensive
realism. Since the United States’ engagement in Iraq did little to boost America’s power – relatively
or absolutely – one could hardly argue that the Bush administration employed realist thinking. In
fact, the mobilization to Iraq served to weaken the state’s military capabilities (and thus weaken
both its relative and absolute power) by opening another theater of war outside of the Afghanistan
conflict. The oversimplified argument that the desire to acquire oil powered a realist drive to invade
simply does not hold water. Liberalism and constructivism offer far clearer insights into the decision
to invade, with the constructivist point of view ultimately best explaining the origins of the Iraq
conflict. Overall, the decision to go to war originated in normative ideology within the Bush
administration, a phenomenon supported by the constructivist model and supported by liberal
ideology
LIBERALISM NO - Despite the various ways that the liberal point of view sheds light on the causes of
the Iraq conflict, it presents an almost self-contradictory value system pertaining to Hussein’s
regime. Liberalism stresses the fundamental need for individual freedom and self-determination,
presenting a clear case for intervention in Iraq – a state in which the dictatorial government showed
complete disregard for basic human rights. On the other hand, as Doyle notes, “the basic postulate
of liberal international theory holds that states have the right to be free from foreign intervention.”
These conflicting motivations make it difficult to analyze the Iraq War solely from a liberal
perspective. Additionally, while the example of United States collaboration with the United Kingdom
does reflect the cooperation between liberal states that is expected by republican liberalism, the fact
that many liberal nations did not support the invasion undermines this point to a great extent.
Finally, liberalism does not examine the normative behaviors of individual actors in the United States
policy-shaping community. In the case of the highly ideological Bush administration, such an analysis
is of crucial importance, further making liberalism an incomplete, albeit helpful, perspective for
considering the causes of the Iraq War.
CONSTRUCTIVISM IS THE BEST approach
As evidenced by this extract from Katzenstein’s work, norms and policies can change and – as
socially-driven constructs – are strongly affected by the individuals within the international system.
Another important aspect of constructivism is the importance of language to state policy
