Lessons Learnt From The Us’s Current Relationship With Iraq, 2003
By (Author)
Name of the Class (Course)
Professor (Tutor)
Name of the School (University)
City
Date
Abstract
The relationship of the United States and Iraq offers a lesson on various diplomatic concepts and the underlying socio-economic and political ideologies. Various scholars have in the past shed light on the sociological aspects of the existing relationship after the decade long invasion and occupancy of Iraq by United States. Theoretical concepts of international relations will be explored to unveil the true picture of U.S – Iraq interaction aftermath. In the interest of researchers, academia and political science, it is imperative that this case is given critical assessment. This issue presents an avenue of intellectual discourse concerning the diverse disciplines that discuss international relations. In view of the social structure, economic policies and political strategies, this debate covers substantial research concepts that are important to ascertain validity and credibility of existing knowledge.
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Background
The United States’ stay in Iraq has been on the global spotlight for over decade. The question many people ask is what the consequences this has on their relations. Apart from Iraq, United States interest in the Middle East has raised eyebrows leading to in-depth research on various dimensions (Lake, 2009, 19). The Geopolitics of Middle East has been a significant contributor to its overall influence in the global economy. However, its socio-economic policies and political system has been the subject of discussion. Iraq wields a lot of influence in the region, and its political ideologies were being seen as a threat by the west. It is not a matter of retelling the chronology of the U.S invasion of Iraq, but the impacts this has on the global socio-economic and political position America occupy. According to Christol (2004, 47-9), diverse acts of atrocities under the guise of setting the new global order of democracy was met with mixed reactions by Middle East nations and Iraq in particular. In this paper, it is important to note that the raging debate on the theoretical concepts surrounding diplomatic relations is the center stage for international peace agreements.
According to Tate (2010, 128-9), the traditional mentality that international relations were limited to specific disciplines is ruled out. This explains the need to break away from the confines of philosophy, sociology and economics as the only relevant disciplines exploring diplomatic ties. International relations theories should equally not be misconstrued as solely for academia. This means it should be given much attention as it plays a critical role in mutual understandings in cross boundary relationships especially in this wake of open economies. The current relationship between United States and Iraq offers a lot of lessons on feasibility of tested theories concerning international relations. It reflects the complex international interactions that are characterized by divergent socio-economic and political ideologies. Kenneth N. Waltz is one of the scholars who assert the fact that diplomatic history has been marred with elitist decision making.
Statement of the Problem
According Waltz, the consideration is on individual state, and to ideological, moral and economic issues, both traditional liberals and classical realists make the same mistake. They fail to develop a serious account of the international system—one that can be abstracted from the wider socio-political domain. Waltz acknowledges that such an abstraction distorts reality and omits many of the factors that were important for classical realism. It does not allow for the analysis of the development of specific foreign policies. However, it also has utility. Notably, it assists in understanding the primary determinants of international politics. He reformulated realism in international relations in a new and distinctive way. In his book Theory of International Politics, first published in 1979, he responded to the liberal challenge and attempted to cure the defects of the classical realism of Hans Morgenthau with his more scientific approach, which became known as structural realism or neorealism. Waltz insists on empirical testability of knowledge and on falsifications as a methodological ideal, which, as he admits, can have only a limited application in international relations. The case of US attack on Saddam Hussein and subsequent changes in approaches of managing Iraq indicates two sides of international relations theories. These include realism and idealism key in defining the relations among states and U.S – Iraq in particular. A realist theory can be seen as a tradition of speculation about the society or states. However, in international relations the realist theory is based on emphasizing the constraints imposed on politics by the nature of human beings (Ikenberry, et al. 2009, 93). The realist school belief that national self- interest mandate nations to constantly acquire power for the purpose of security and existence. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation. The negative side of the realists’ emphasis on power and self-interest is often their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
Hans Morgenthau is of the opinion that power is the undisputable feature which determines states policy on both foreign and domestic policies. The realist theory is also known as the power or traditional theory which is centered on power politics. It is concerned with an explanation of what happened, how it happened which is used to predict the trend of what to happen in the future. The lessons observable from the case of the U.S – Iraq relationship triggers further research into the theories that must be discussed to boost the increasing need for International Corporation.
According to Brennan (2013, 139-40), United States wield political and economic power and therefore play a central role in making decisions on global issues. The capitalism ideology has seen the America make several attempts to sink the communism, and this was the disguised intention of America. Military intervention by the U.S in most of its operation in the Middle East has significantly tainted its image in the international platform. Fingers point at neoconservatives who were well connected as the key architects behind the Iraq war. In regard to Guney (2007, 64), there was a political motive behind the lobbying with economic strategies. It is worth to note the involvement of several U.S presidents during their long stay of U.S military operatives in Iraq. The intertwining realism versus idealism approach dictates the perception of various people towards the U.S on how they handled Iraq.
