A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT U.

S FOREIGN POLICY IN IRAQ 1991-2003

CHAPTER 1- BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION:

With the emergence of modern nation states, modern international relations emerged as these

nation-states device and followed certain principles, courses and standards that govern their

interactions in the international community. Basically, no nation is an island, so it becomes

imperative for nation states to interact with each other. These actions therefore formed the

foreign relations of such states. Traditionally, these actions are guided by national foreign

policies that are clearly in pursuit of national aspirations or interests. What then is/are foreign

policies?

Foreign policy is defined as the study of actions of a state toward the external environment

and conditions-usually domestic-under which these actions are formulated (Dawisha, 1976).

The domestic condition referred to in this definition may include such things as the form of

government of such state and the public opinion and other activities or establishment within

such state. However, this does not mean that actions of states are not influenced by external

conditions too. Foreign policy can also be said to mean a set of carefully articulated goals and

objectives interpreted in the decisions made and actions taken by a state in the pursuant of

those articulated goals and objectives when interacting with other states in the international

system (Ugwukah and Eteete, 2010).

Foreign policies do not just come about. There are certain factors that influence or determine

their formulation. It is impossible to lay down any general rule regarding the relative

importance of each of these factors or a scale of importance which decision-makers must

permanently adhere to in making their policy decisions. Nevertheless, certain basic

1
determinants can be identified which most of the states in the international system take in to

account while making their policy. F.S Northedge clearly states that the foreign policy of a

country is a product of environmental factors both internal and external to it (Ugwukah and

Eteete, 2010). Thus, foreign policy formulation is influenced by internal and external factors.

The internal factors comprise factors within a particular state. In the words of Henry

Kissinger, ‗foreign policy begins where domestic policy ends‘. The internal factors that

influence foreign policy formulation include: economic development/structure, social

structure, nature and character of political leadership, military capabilities, public opinion,

history and culture, geographic location of the state and demographic factor and so on. The

external factors (which comprise factors found in the global system) include international

organisations and regimes, world public opinion, policies and actions of other states, the

nature of the world economy and international law/norms (Ghosh, 2013).

The best formulated foreign policy in the world is rendered irrelevant without a clear sense of

tools available to decision makers and their respective utility. By tools we mean instrument

needed to implement foreign policy objectives and goals. Traditionally, states have had to

recourse to diplomacy, economic, subversion and military instruments to achieve their

respective aims and objectives. More recently, these instruments, which can be termed ‗hard

power‘ (the use of military and economic or coercion and payment to influence the behaviour

or interests of other states) have been supplemented by the recognition of the importance of

incorporating ‗soft power‘ (quasi-legal instruments which do not have any legally binding

force, or whose binding force is somewhat weaker than that of hard power) into a states range

of skills available to them in implementing or executing their foreign policy. The promotion

of values through governmental and non-governmental actors is one of the ‗soft power‘ tools

which can help states shape a target country‘s foreign policy aims. Each of these has

strengths and weaknesses in relation to a given foreign policy problem, and it is a

2
states‘ability to capitalise on these diverse sets of instruments that determine whether it has a

successful foreign policy or not (Alden, 2011).

Since the founding of Iraq in the aftermath of World War I, United States policy (towards

Iraq) has included cooperation, confrontation, and war. However, the purpose of this research

work is to focus on U.S foreign policy in Iraq from the year 1991 to 2003. The U.S 2003

military invasion of Iraq and the extended occupation that followed were certainly the most

dramatic and significant events in the long history of U.S relations with Iraq. This period

spanned through the administration of former president George W. Bush. Although the

invasion of Iraq is widely regarded as the continuation of the first gulf war, specific and

different factors however influence U.S foreign policy from 1991 -2003 (Hahn, 2012).

The United States have enduring interests in preserving regional stability in the Middle East,

countering transnational terrorism, and advancing responsible governance. These objectives

are advanced by a stable Iraq that can serve as a constructive power. An Iraq without the

capacity to govern effectively and mechanisms to resolve conflicts peacefully would be a

destabilising presence that would harm U.S interests in the Middle East. United States foreign

policy since 2003 have overtime emerged from the need to prevent the re-emergence of Al

Qaeda or its affiliates and keep the country from serving as a safe haven that could be used to

attack Americans and U.S allies (Nagl and Burton, 2009).

1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The United States have series of interests it wants to achieve in Iraq. These interests have

instigated the formulation (and execution) of different foreign policies towards the country

(Iraq). These policies have guided U.S relations with Iraq over the years. These relations have

been sources of huge concern for both the United States and Iraq as well as among various

countries of the world. Over the years, different administrations have formulated different

3
policies and committed considerable amount of resources in their execution, yet it seems the

U.S.A is not achieving its stated objectives in the country. For instance, the policy of invasion

adopted under the Bush administration which sought to capture ‗Iraq‘s Weapons of Mass

Destruction‘ and to free the people of Iraq from the dictatorial rule of Sadam Hussein, to

ensure stability in the country (and the region at large) and to curb transnational terrorism did

not prove effective from the view of the aftermath of events that occurred. Shortly after the

invasion and occupation of Iraq, the country combusted, leading to the proliferation of

Islamist fundamentalist groups, ethnic and religious militias and insurgents; and thus leading

to increase in the activities of terrorist groups. Thus, the study intends to examine the

underlying factors responsible for the ineffectiveness of United States foreign policies in Iraq

between 1991 - 2003 and also to look at ways in which future relations between the two

countries can be improved.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study seeks to:

(i). assess the major factor(s) responsible for the US war on terrorism and the

subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003.

(ii). evaluate the effectiveness of the foreign policy decisions of the Bush

administration towards Iraq;

(iii). examine the prospects for better relations between the U.S and Iraq.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The research questions include:

4
1. What are the major factor(s) responsible for the US war on terrorism and the subsequent

invasion of Iraq in 2003?

2. How effective were/are the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration towards

Iraq?

3. What are the prospects for better relations between U.S and Iraq?

1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

The purpose of this research work is to take a look at the effectiveness of the foreign policy

decisions of the United States towards Iraq from 1991 to 2003. In doing so, the major foreign

policy decisions towards Iraq under the administration of George Bush, this will give us a

better understanding on the reasons behind the effectiveness (or as the case maybe,

ineffectiveness) of the policies under the administration. Also, analysis of the policies would

in the future assist U.S decision makers to formulate more comprehensive and better policies

towards Iraq. Another major significance of this study is that the prospect of better relations

that would be examined in the course of this study would serve as a cornerstone for

international relations students and analysts in analysing and making near-accurate

postulations in the future relations between the two countries.

1.6 SCOPE OF STUDY

The project work will be limited to United States foreign policy in Iraq from 1991 – 2003.

There are a number of reasons for the choice of this scope. First of all, it was during this

period that the policy of invasion was adopted under the Bush administration, an event that

marked a significant upshot in the relations between the two countries. Secondly, this period

also coincided with United States declaration of war on terrorism (in 2001). Finally, a lot of

scholars have written a lot of works on the relations between the two countries since 2001,

this scope thus allows the researcher access lots of approved and published materials.

5
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF STUDY

This project work will be divided into five chapters. The first chapter will contain the

background to the study, statement of problem, object of study, research questions,

significance, scope and limitation of study, methodology and definition of terms. The second

chapter is the literature review which is divided into conceptual clarification and theoretical

framework. The third chapter will contain the methodology of the research work. Chapter

four will involve a discussion on the effectiveness of U.S foreign policy decisions under the

Bush administration and the prospects of better relations between the two countries. Some

sections of this chapter will also be dedicated to examine the major reasons behind U.S

declaration of war on terrorism. And then, the fifth chapter will contain the conclusion,

summary of findings, discussion and recommendation.

1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. State: a large social system with a set of rules that are enforced by a permanent

administrative body (government). That body claims and tries to enforce sovereignty

(ultimate power to control people and events within the area of states).

2. Foreign policy: set of policies that states formulate in order to relate with one another

in the international system. Foreign policy of a state entails the ideas or actions

designed by policy makers to solve a problem or promote some change in the policies,

attitudes or actions of another state or non-state actors in the international economy or

in the physical environment of the world. It is a set of rules or principles which

govern how a state decides to interact with another state. It involves strategies and

tactics a state uses in achieving its national objectives in the international system. No

6
state is an island, therefore, states need to interact with each other and foreign policy

is the method in which a state chooses to do so.

7
 REFERNECES

A. I. Dawisha, (1976), Foreign Policy Models and the Problem of Dynamism, British Journal

of International Studies, Volume 2.

Alexander. C. Ugwukah and Adam Eteete Michael, 2010, An introduction to International

Relations, Ibadan: Ababa Press Limited.

C. Alden, 2011, Foreign Policy Analysis, United Kingdom: University of London.

Ikedinma H.A, Ndu, L. Njoku (PH. D) and Terhembe Nom Ambe-Uva, 2012, Foreign Policy

Analysis, Nigeria: National Open University of Nigeria.

John A. Nagl and Brian M. Burton, 2009, After the Fire: shaping the future of U.S

relationship with Iraq, United States: Centre for a New American Security.

Peter Hahn, 2012, A Century of U.S Relations with Iraq, Retrieved from origins.osu.edu on

7th of April, 2012.

Peu Ghosh, 2013, International Relations 3rd edition. Published by PHI learning, New Delhi,

India.

8
 CHAPTER 2- LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION

2.1.1 CONCEPT OF FOREIGN POLICY

There have been numerous writings by scholars about the concept of foreign policy. The

scholars have set out to explain from their own perspective or view and also in ways in which

states have been involved in the practice. It should be noted that there is no available

accepted world definition of foreign policy. In this section, we will be examining the writings

of various scholars on foreign policy.

Foreign policy can be defined as an interaction between internal and external factors

(Ikedinma and Njoku and Ambe-Uva, 2012). Gambari Ibrahim went further with this

definition when he posited that ‗foreign policy is an interaction between identifiable domestic

political forces and the dynamics of international political relations‘. What can be drawn from

both definitions is that foreign policy is a result of domestic activities and the actions and

activities of other states (and actors) in the international system.

Keith R. Legg and James Morrison (1971) on their part defined foreign policy as ‗set of

explicit objectives with regards to the world, beyond the borders of a given social unit, and a

set of strategies and tactics designed to achieve these objectives. In this definition, Legg and

Morrison explained the fact that foreign policy goes beyond stated goals and objectives

which a state wants to achieve, but goes on to say that it includes an elaborate and systematic

plan of action aimed at achieving those stated objectives.

Joseph Frankel (1963) in line with the second part of Legg and Morrison‘s definition of

foreign policy posited that ‗foreign policy consists of decisive actions which involve to some

appreciable extent relations between one state and the other‘. Tunde Adeniran on the other

9
hand agrees with Frankel by saying that foreign policy by and large is the policy pursued by a

state in its dealings with other states. According to him, foreign policy consists of three

elements; the first element is the overall orientation and policy intention of a particular

country towards another. The second element is the objective that a country seeks to achieve

in its relations with other states. And the third element is the means of achieving that

particular goal or objective. Tunde Adeniran position on foreign policy gives a

comprehensive explanation on the idea behind Legg and Morrison‘s definition of foreign

policy.

M. Faith Tayfur (1994) on his own part defined foreign policy as the behaviour of states in

the international system through their authorised agents. Tayfur adds another dimension to

the meaning of foreign policy by stating that foreign policy can only be formulated and

executed by authorised agents of a particular country. These agents may include the executive

or legislative arm of the government, ministry of foreign or external affairs, various

diplomats, Foreign Service officers, ambassadors in embassies or high commissions, and so

on.

In analysing the various definitions of foreign policy above, it can be deduced that foreign

policy contains stated objectives or aims that a state seeks to achieve in its interaction with

other states in the international system, these stated objectives are accompanied with the

plans that such state wishes to adopt in pursing them. And finally, foreign policy is carried

out (i.e. formulation and execution) on behalf of a state by authorised and/or recognised

agents/bodies of such state.

2.1.2 LEVELS OF ANALYSIS OF FOREIGN POLICY

Foreign policy is analysed in a bid to interpret the actions of government and also understand

why government/leaders does certain things. The process of understanding why implies an in

10
depth understanding of the contents and actions behind a given policy. In analysing foreign

policy, we look at government decisions, why it makes certain decisions, what forces are

behind the decisions made, etc. In this section, we shall be looking at three levels of analysis.

These are; individual, state and systemic levels of analysis.

a) INDIVIDUAL LEVEL OF ANALYSIS:

This level of analysis lays emphasis on the individual or groups at the helm of foreign policy

decision making. It looks at the factors that influence the decisions/actions of these decision

makers; all the factors that have overtime built the perception, perspective or view of these

decision makers on international politics. It may be comforting to imagine that foreign policy

decision making is fully rational, but the truth is that in many ways it is influenced by a

number of factors that makes it too some extent, irrational. This level of analysis focuses on

the idiosyncratic characteristics of individuals/groups involved in foreign policy processes.

Idiosyncratic analysis is the study of humans and how each leader‘s personal characteristics

shape their decision. The personal characteristics of these individuals or groups consist of a

lot of things that have shaped or influenced their personal characteristics. These factors may

include environmental, family or educational background and experience, and political

experience. Individual level of analysis also seek to look at the emotional, psychological and

biological characteristics of man as some of the factors making foreign policy processes (to

some extent) irrational from the part of individuals or groups (Rourke, 1986).

b) STATE LEVEL OF ANALYSIS:

For all the importance of human input, policy making is significantly influenced by the fact

that it occurs within the context of a political structure. Countries are the most important of

these structures. This level of analysis emphasises the characteristics of states and how they

make foreign policy choices and implement them. What is important from this perspective is

11
how a country‘s political structure and the political forces or sub-national actors within a

country causes its government to decide to adopt one or another foreign policy. One variable

that affects the foreign policy processes in a country is the type of government such state

operates. These governments vary from dictatorial/authoritative form of government to

democracies. The foreign policy process in a dictatorial/authoritative form of government

may focus on a narrow segment of the government while the same process in a democracy

maybe more open with inputs from legislators, media and public opinion. Yet even in the

most democratic state, foreign policy tends to be dominated by the country‘s top leadership.

Situation at a particular time also influences foreign policy processes within a country. For

example, policies are made differently during crisis and non-crisis situations. A crisis

situation may occur when the government is surprised by an event or feel threatened

(especially military). Whereas non-crisis situation usually involve an array of domestic

actors, crisis policy making is likely to be dominated by the political leader and a small group

of advisers. The type of policy to be formulated, political culture, legislatures and state

bureaucracies are other variables that influence foreign policy processes within a state

(Rourke 1986).

c) SYSTEMIC LEVEL OF ANALYSIS:

This level of analysis focuses on the external restraints on foreign policy. Thus, it is a ‗top-

down‘ approach to world politics that examines the social-economic-political and geographic

characteristics of the system and how they influence the actions of states within it. All

systems, whether it is the system within a country or the international system have

identifiable structural characteristics. The way authority is organised in the international

system and the scope and the level of interaction among the actors in the system are

identifiable characteristics in the international system that exert influence on the foreign

policy of states. The international system‘s organisation of authority structure is based on the

12
sovereignty of states, and as such, the international system is a state-centric system that is

anarchic (i.e. it has no overarching authority to make and enforce rules or settle disputes).

Because of the anarchic nature of the system, foreign policy is formulated according to the

logic of self-help by each state in the international system or when it is threatened.

Furthermore, countries are restrained by the realities of power in the system. This means that

the conduct of the international system (with the employment of foreign policy) is influenced

by power considerations such as the number of powerful actors and the context. International

norms and laws also influence the foreign policy of states (Singer, 1961; Rourke 1986).

2.1.3 NATIONAL INTEREST CONSIDERATIONS IN FOREIGN POLICY

National interest is a slippery concept used to describe as well as prescribe foreign policy. It

can be seen as a vision of a better living; that is what states hope to achieve in their relations

with other states. National interest is sometimes regarded as the ‗guiding map‘ towards the

formulation of the foreign policy of a state. In other words, it is often regarded as the

objective toward which foreign policy is prosecuted; the main determinants of what nations

do. Unlike foreign policy, national interest is basic and constant, and does not change even

when government changes (Nye, vol 2). Although national interest serves as the basis for

foreign policy, the national interests of each state in the international system are different.

Despite this assertion, scholars have identified some basic national interests that are common

to most (if not all) states in the international system. These national interests include political

interests, security interests, economic and cultural interests. Lastly on national interests,

according to the Commission on America‘s National Interests, as declared in 1996, ‗national

interests are the fundamental building blocks in any discussion of foreign policy‘ (Nye, Vol

78). In this section however, we shall consider security interests.

13
a) SECURITY INTERESTS

Despite the numerous efforts by scholars of security studies to conceptualise ‗security‘ in a

coherent and systematic way, no single, generally accepted definition of security has been

produced. Security is a contested concept which defies pursuit of an agreed general

definition. However, regardless of this difficulty, some scholars have described security ‗as a

concept that a government, along with its parliament should protect the state and its citizens

against all kinds of national crises through a variety of power projections such as political

power, diplomacy, economic power and most especially military power (or the use of force).

Security is also viewed as a derivative of power, especially military power. Traditionalists in

the field of security studies regard the concept of security in exclusively military and state-

centred terms, equating security with military issues and the use of force. It should be noted

that security in international relations is not identical to the use of the term in everyday

language. Although it shares some qualities with ‗social security‘ or security as implied to

various civilian guard or police functions, security in international relations has its own

distinctive more extreme meaning. Unlike social security which has strong links to matters of

entitlement and social justice, international security is more firmly rooted in the traditions of

power politics (Baldwin, 1997).

The answer to what makes something an international security issue is what differentiates it

from social security. In the context of international relations, security is about survival. It is

when an issue is presented as posing an existential threat to a designated referent object. This

special nature of security threat justifies the use of extraordinary measures to handle them.

The invocation of security has been the key to legitimizing the use of force, but more

generally it has opened the way for state to mobilize or to take special powers to handle

existential threats. Traditionally, by saying ‗security‘, state declares an emergency condition,

14
thus claiming a right to use whatever means necessary to block a threatening development

(Buzan and Waever, 1998). This notion of security is what informed America‘s decision to

adopt an invasion policy towards Iraq in 2003. The American state perceived the September

11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon as constituting a

serious threat to its existence and national security.

2.1.4 CONCEPT OF TERRORISM

Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in human experience. Violence has been used throughout

human history by those who oppose states, kings and princes. This sort of violence can be

differentiated from what is termed as terrorism. Violence in opposition to a government is

often targeted against soldiers and those who govern. Terrorism however is characterized by

the use of violence against civilians, with the express desire of causing terror or panic in the

population. Terrorism cannot be disjoined from examining United States foreign policy

towards Iraq, especially since September 11, 2001. This term is one of the major factors that

have shaped United State‘s foreign policy towards the country in recent years. It would

therefore be germane to this study to look at some scholarly meanings of the term.

Terrorism according to Walter Laqueur (1987) is the use or the threat of the use of violence, a

method or strategy to achieve certain targets for the purpose of raising fear in the victim.

These violent attacks are usually carried out in open environments as publicity is an essential

factor in the terrorist strategy. Bruce Hoffman (2006) agreed with the violent nature of

terrorism but went further with his definition of terrorism. He posited that terrorism is

motivated by political aims which are designed to have far-reaching psychological effects on

victims. He also submitted that these terrorist activities are coordinated by an identifiable

organisational chain of command or conspiratorial structure.

15
Yonah Alexander (1976) on his own part was more specific on the purpose of terrorism. He

is of the view that terrorism is the ‗use of violence against random civilians targets in order to

intimidate or to create generalised fear for the purpose of achieving political goals‘. Two

points can be deduced from these various definitions so far: one is that terrorism is of a

‗violent nature‘. That is, it consists of violent activities aimed at unsuspecting, unarmed

civilians for the purpose of creating fear in their minds. The second point is that terrorism is

politically motivated.

United States Department of Defence in 2008 however broaden the meaning of terrorism

beyond politically motivated actions and attack on civilians to include religion and ideology

as motivators for terrorist activities. It asserted that ‗terrorism refers to the calculated use of

unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to

intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political,

religious or ideological.

It should however be noted at this point that terrorism has no precise or widely accepted

definition; the term has recently become a fad word promiscuously and often applied to a

variety of acts of violence which are not strictly terrorism. The difficult in defining terrorism

has led to the cliché or commonplace that ‗one man‘s terrorist is another man‘s freedom

fighter‘ (Jenkins, 1980). Therefore, the various definitions of terrorism discussed in this

section were selected because of their definitional importance to this study.

16
2.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Statesmen, historians, and political philosophers have long pondered on what causes states to

adopt certain kind of foreign policies. Yet most have sought answers in intricate

combinations of case specific factors. In this section, we shall examine theories that explain

foreign policy, and because foreign policy is driven by both or influenced by both internal

and external factors, we shall look at theories that relate to both the internal and external

environments of states. Thus, two theories shall briefly be examined to explain this project

work, and there are; behaviourism, neorealism.

2.2.1 BEHAVIOURISM

The original studies of foreign policy in the 1950s and 1960s were explicitly aimed at

challenging the realist assumptions that were the dominant approach to international relations

at that time. Rather than examine the outcome of foreign policy decisions, behaviourists

sought to understand the process of foreign policy decision making itself. Behaviourists (such

as Robert Jervis, Harold and Margaret Sprout) sought to understand foreign policy by

investigating the role of the individual decision maker and the accompanying influences on

foreign policy choice. Behaviourism focuses on the psychological and cognitive factors as

explanatory sources of foreign policy choice. For instance, Robert Jervis asserted that ‗the

psychological disposition of a leader, the cognitive limits imposed by the sheer volume of

information available to decision makers and the inclination to select policy options that were

patently second-best all contribute to imperfect foreign policy‘(Alden, 2011).

Behaviourism perspective considers that foreign policy decisions may emerge from the non-

rational psychological processes of individual decision makers and core decision making

groups, as well as from the ideologically constructed attitudes of political elites. A starting

17
point for assessing the casual influence of a leader‘s psychology might be to ask whether in

similar circumstances a different leader would have behaved similarly (Liberfeld, Vol 10).

This theory can be used to explain the policy of invasion adopted by George W. Bush under

the Bush administration. The behaviourism theory suggests the influence(s) of non-rational

psychological processes on individual decision makers (and core decision making groups);

these influences can be found in the foreign policy decision (policy of invasion) of Bush

junior. Some observers have located motives for the invasion decision in Bush‘s relationship

with his father: Given the continual comparisons with his father within the Bush family, and

how far he was from being a self-made man, Bush junior have felt compelled to prove

himself by surpassing his father and overthrowing Hussein, which his father had rejected

doing after the 1991 Gulf war. Furthermore, the failed assassination attempt by Sadam

Hussein on President George W. Bush‘s father (had it succeeded might have killed his wife,

Laura) has also been identified as one of the factors that shaped his decision to invade Iraq

(Liberfeld, Vol 10, 2005:pp14-15).

2.2.2 REALISM:

Neo-realism stems from realism which emphasizes power and security and conflicts in

international relations. Realism can be traced to ancient practitioners and thinkers such as Sun

Tzu, the Chinese general and the author of the Art of War; Thucydides, a Greek historian and

the author of the History of Peloponnesian war, and so on. Among others, realism purports

that states interests (defined as power) rather than their values or ideological preferences are

the reason behind every state act. And it is the maximization of power that is in states

interests. Thus, everything a state does can be explained by its desire to maintain, safeguard,

or increase its power in relation to other states (Kaarbo and Lee Ray, 10th edition).

As realist theory evolved it split into classical realism and neo realism or structural realism

(which is our main focus). While classical realism focuses on the selfish nature of man in

18
explaining state actions, structural realism (or neo-realism) lays emphases on the structure of

the international system as the major factor shaping state actions or behaviours (which is

interpreted in its foreign policy). Neo-realism portrays politics as the struggle for power. Neo

realists believe that the cause of states actions is in the anarchic nature of the international

system. They posit that the international system is based on sovereign actors (states), which

answer to no higher authority is ‗anarchic, with no overarching authority providing security

and order‘. The result of such self- help system is that each state must rely on its own

resources to survive and flourish (Rourke, 12th edition). From a neo-realist perspective,

decisions by governments or states to adopt certain policies are the product of states

involuntary participation in external quests for power and security due to an international

political environment in which each state fears the actual or potential hostility of other states

(Lieberfled, Vol 10).

Neo-realist theories ignore cultural differences among states as well as differences in regime

type, mainly because the international system creates the same basic incentivesfor all great

powers. Whether a state is democratic or autocratic matters relatively little for how it acts

towards other states. Nor does it matter much who is in charge of conducting state‘s foreign

policy. Neo-realists treat states as if they were black boxes: they are assumed to be alike, save

for the fact that some states are more or less powerful than others.

There is a simple structural realist (or neo-realist) explanation for why states compete among

themselves for power. It is based on five straightforward assumptions about the international

system. None of these assumptions alone says that states should attempt to gain power at each

other‘s expense. But when they are married together, they depict a world of ceaseless security

competition. The first assumption is that great powers are the main actors in world politics

and they operate in an anarchic system. This is not to say that the system is characterized by

chaos or disorder. Anarchy is an ordering principle; it simply means that there is no

19
centralized authority or ultimate arbiter that stands above states. The opposite of anarchy is

hierarchy, which is the ordering principle of domestic politics. The second assumption is that

all states possess some offensive military capability. Each state, in other words, has the power

to inflict some harm on its neighbour. Of course, that capability varies among states and for

any state it can change over time. The third assumption is that states can never be certain

about the intentions of other states. States ultimately want to know whether other states are

determined to use force to alter the balance of power (revisionist states), or whether they are

satisfied enough with it that they have no interest in using force to change it (status quo

states). The problem, however, is that it is almost impossible to discern another state‘s

intentions with a high degree of certainty. Unlike military capabilities, intentions cannot be

empirically verified. Intentions are in the minds of decision-makers and they are especially

difficult to discern. The fourth assumption is that the main goal of states is survival. States

seek to maintain their territorial integrity and the autonomy of their domestic political order.

They can pursue other goals like prosperity and protecting human rights, but those aims must

always take a back seat to survival, because if a state does not survive, it cannot pursue those

other goals. The fifth assumption is that states are rational actors, which is to say they are

capable of coming up with sound strategies that maximize their prospects for survival. This is

not to deny that they miscalculate from time to time. Because states operate with imperfect

information in a complicated world, they sometimes make serious mistakes (Mearsheimer,

2013).

This theory can be used to explain the policy adopted by the United States under the Bush

administration. Firstly, American decision makers believed that the US interests necessitated

the adoption of the invasion policy. Also, as states have to put the survival of the state in the

first place in the hierarchy of needs and the attacks on9/11 threatened this number one need

and called for revenge, taking the plunge at the expense of justice was a must for the

20
U.S.A.‗The American way of life‘ was in danger and it was crucial. Therefore, we can say

that they did what the national interest asked them to do from the perspective of neo-realism.

Secondly, the decision of the United States to invade Iraq (under the Bush administration)

was because the country wanted to protect and increase its power (state power) in the

international system. It was the believe that the attack on Iraq would evolve state power to a

bigger level regardless of whether it is morally right or wrong. The invasion according the

American decision makers would demonstrate America‘s military power to the world and

deter any probable rival state from challenging the power of the United States in the

international system. The ‗natural resources‘ in Iraq, namely oil, must also have helped the

American decision makers wage war on Iraq. They would make use of the resources after the

invasion and compensate the military expenditure of the USA in a way to relax American

economy. All of these reasons would increase the American ‗state power.

21
REFERENCES

‗Iraqi Conflict’ Retrieved from www.newsbatch.com on 7th June, 2011.

‘Notions of Security; Shifting Concepts and Perspectives’; Retrieved from

www.transnationalterrorism.eu on 15 February 2007.

Alexander, Yonah, 1976, International Terrorism; National, Regional and Global

Perspectives: New York: Praeger.

Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, 2009,the Evolution of International Security Studies, United

State; Cambridge University Press.

Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, Jaap de Wilde, 1998, Security: A New Framework For Analysis,

Published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Brian Michael Jenkins, 1980, The Study of Terrorism; Definitional Problems: California; The

RAND Corporation.

Daniel Lieberfeld, Theories of Conflict and the Iraq War, International Journal of Peace

Studies, Volume 10.

David A. Baldwin, 1997, The Concept of Security, Review of International Studies, published

by British International Studies Association.

Hoffman, Bruce, 2006, Inside Terrorism (2nded), NY: Columbia University

Ikedinma H.A, Ndu, L. Njoku (PH. D) and Terhembe Nom Ambe-Uva, 2012, Foreign Policy

Analysis, Nigeria: National Open University of Nigeria.

J. David Singer, 1961,The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations, World

Politics Volume 2, John Hopkins University Press.

John J. Mearsheimer, Structural Realism,

John T. Rourke, International Politics on the World Stage 12th edition, U.S: University of

Connecticut.

22
Joint Chiefs of Staff DOD, 2008: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and

Associated Term, Washington D.C: DOD.

Joseph Frankel, 1963,The making of Foreign Policy; U.S.A, Oxford University Press.

Joseph S. Nye Jr, Redefining the National Interest, Foreign Affairs Volume 78, Publiahed by

Council of Foreign Relations, Unites States.

Juliet Kaarbo and James Lee Ray, Global Politics 10th edition, S4Carlisle publishing

services.

Laqueur, Walter, 1987, The Age of Terrorism (2nded). Boston, United States.

Legg K. And Morrison J., Politics and International System, New York.

M. Faith Tayfur, 1994, Main Approaches to the study of Foreign Policy,Turkey: Middle East

Technical University.

Ramazan Ozedemir, Invasion of Iraq: a reflection of realism; Fatih University Press; Turkish

Journal of Politics, Volume 2.

23
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 PREAMBLE

As a result of the complexities of this study, it is therefore important to lay down the

source/sources of information as well as the methodologies used in the research of this study.

This will justify the outcome of the result obtained from the study. In accordance with the

fore, the under listed design and methodology were used in this study.

3.2 RESEARCH DESIGN

Research design is a systematic plan to study a scientific problem. It can also be a detailed

outline of how an investigation will take place. In this research work however, the descriptive

and analytical methods will be used. It entails the description as well as the analysis of

findings in the study.

3.3 AREA OF STUDY

The area of study pinpoints the geographical location affected by the study. This may be

indicated specifically by the names of the affected area, state, organisation or region. The

area of study for this research work is Iraq and the United States of America.

3.4 RESEARCH POPULATION

This basically covers the entire human and material element that come under the scope of the

study and which is of interest and relevance to the researcher. The research population for

this research work covers the decision makers, particularly the presidents of the United States

from 2003 to 2012.

24
3.5 SAMPLE AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

In this research work, the sample techniques that would be used to analyse the foreign

policies of the United States towards Iraq will be the judgemental or purposive sampling. As

such, the foreign policies that have been selected for this work include the major foreign

policies that were adopted during the administration of former president George W. Bush and

current president Barack Obama from the period of 2003-2012.

3.6 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION

The method of data collection used for this study is the secondary data. This would involve

the use of sources such as:

 Internet

 Books

 Journals

 Library archives

 Articles

The use of this method will allow this study to make use of works of academia that

have been written by experts and scholars in the field of foreign policy and the

relations between United States and Iraq.

3.7 DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

The results obtained from the use of secondary data in this study will be analyzed by

empirical means. That is, relating and analyzing the facts/information obtained from the

secondary data to the already mentioned theoretical frameworks in place in the previous

chapter.

25
3.8 LIMITATIONS OF METHODOLOGY

These are the shortcomings or constraints that have affected the methods or techniques used

in conducting the research. Finance was one of the major constraints during the conduct of

this conduct of this research work. Lack of adequate finance prevented the researcher from

using primary method of data collection such as the conduct of interviews (and

administration of questionnaire) on American decision makers that were involved in the

formulation and execution in the foreign policy decisions of United States from 2003 to 2012.

26
REFERENCES

J.O Toluhi 2001, Fundamentals of Research Methodology, Kwara State: Victory

Publications.

27
 CHAPTER 4- U.S-IRAQ RELATIONS AFTER 2001

4.1 AN OVERVIEW OF IRAQ UNDER SADDAM HUSSEIN

Saddam Hussein was the ruthless dictator of Iraq for more than two decades (from 1979 until

2003). He was the centre for the country‘s military power and military brutality. When

Saddam Hussein assumed power, he immediately made it clear that he had full control and

power over the people, military, economy and government. Saddam Hussein‘s government

was undemocratic and was a dictatorship. He ruled the country with a brutal hand and used

fear and terror to stay in power. This quest for power led him into war with Iran, and

subsequently with the U.S. The high level of brutality and dictatorship, and also his quest for

power led him to take two decisions that contributed to or incited world public opinion

against him, which subsequently brought Iraq on a collision course with the United States.

The first of these decisions was the use of chemical weapons on his own people; while the

second was the invasion of Kuwait which resulted in the first gulf war (Barbati, March 2013).

a) The use of chemical weapons

As early as April 1987, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their

villages in northern Iraq during the Al Anfal campaign (Saddam‘s campaign to punish the

Kurds and bring them back into a more submissive mood). It is estimated that chemical

weapons were used on approximately 40 Kurdish villages. Saddam‘s cousin led the

campaign, launching so many chemical attacks against Kurdish towns and villages that he

was nicknamed ―Chemical Ali.‖ The Anfal campaign killed an estimated 100,000 Iraqi

Kurds. Many were executed or killed by shells. But many also died by having poison gas

dropped on them, including mustard gas, which burns, mutates DNA and causes cancer; the

nerve gases sarin and tabun, which can kill, paralyze or cause nerve damage; and possibly

VX gas and the biological agent atafloxin (Guerin, December 2014). The most famous attack

28
was the gassing of Halabja, a mostly Kurdish city near the Iranian border, on March 16, 1988.

Beginning in the morning on March 16, 1988 and continuing all night, the Iraqis rained down

volley after volley of bombs filled with a deadly mixture of mustard gas and nerve agents on

Halabja. Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters,

convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within

days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth

defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from

the chemical weapons (Block, December 2013: Rosenberg, January 2011). These attacks

were met with series of accusations by the international community. Allegations of genocide

and violation of fundamental human rights were brought against Saddam Hussein.

b) Invasion of Kuwait

Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait on August 2, 1990, after months of diplomatic efforts

through the United Nations, including the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq, a 28-

nation allied force led by the United States attacked Iraq on January 16, 1991. In the

subsequent 43-day war, fought mostly from the air, an estimated 150,000 Iraqi soldiers were

killed and the same number captured, while the allies suffered fewer than 150 combat

casualties. The war‘s toll on Iraqi civilians was also significant as up to 3,000 died in the

allied bombing and missile attacks on highways, bridges, and military installations in urban

areas. Thousands more suffered from the destruction of water and sewage treatment plants

and the country‘s electrical power infrastructure. The war also caused vast environmental

damage, as Iraq released more than 10 million barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf and Iraqi

troops withdrawing from Kuwait set oil installations on fire, adding to the fires caused by

allied bombing (Schwartz 1998).

29
Iraq‘s invasion of Kuwait did not come as a complete surprise to those who were following

Saddam Hussein‘s public comments in the first half of 1990. On several occasions Iraq, in

massive debt after its crippling eight-year war with Iran, criticized the Kuwaiti government,

one of its major creditors, for exceeding its oil production quota set by the Organization of

the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Saddam also referred to Iraq‘s historical claims

on Kuwaiti territory. United States intervened on the part of Kuwait because it wanted to

secure its interests in Kuwait (and in the region at large). A successful annexation of Kuwait

by Iraq meant that the free flow of oil at a cheap price the United States gets from Kuwait

would stop, also if Iraq successful annexed Kuwait, it would increase the political power of

Saddam Hussein and Iraq in the international system because the control of Kuwait‘s and

Iraq‘s oil deposits means that Saddam Hussein was in control of a large portion of the oil

deposits in the region, a situation which could be used to hurt U.S allies and interests in the

region (Ridgeway 1991).

4.2 TERRORISM AND U.S INTERVENTION IN IRAQ

Terrorism (which has been discussed in previous chapters) has and will continue to shape

United States foreign policy in Iraq and the Middle East at large. Particularly, after the

September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, the country (i.e. the U.S) has come to

consider seriously, international terrorism in its relations with Iraq (and countries of the

Middle East in general). The attacks in 2001 let the U.S to declare ‗war on terrorism‘.

4.2.1 WAR ON TERRORISM

The ‗war on terrorism‘ involves open military operations, new security legislations and all

efforts directed at blocking the financing of terrorism. Global war on terrorism (as it is

sometimes called) refers to international military campaign against terrorism around the

world. Put differently, the war involves not only the United States (which is the major state in

30
the war) but other states such as Britain, France, Ecuador, Nigeria, and so on. Although the

phrase ‗war against terrorism‘ was used in 1984 under the Reagan Administration as part of

an effort to pass legislation that was designed to freeze assets of terrorist groups and marshal

the government against them as a response to the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombings, the

September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States served as the propelling force (or immediate

factor) that led to this war (on terrorism). What this means is that some other factors serves as

remote factors for the causes of this war.

One of these remote factors was the 1983 Beirut Barracks Bombings. As said earlier, these

attacks led to the use of the phrase ‗war on terrorism‘ under the Reagan Administration in

1984. The bombings (which occurred on October 23, 1985 in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred

during the Lebanese civil war when two truck bombs struck separate building housing United

States (and French military) forces in Lebanon. At least, 241 American soldiers including 220

marines were killed in the attack when a truck parked with explosives rammed through

barricades and detonated in front of the U.S barracks near the international airport. The same

day in a co-ordinated attack, 58 French paratroopers were killed by a truck bomb at French

barracks in Beirut.

Another event that could be regarded as constituting a remote factor was the 1998 U.S

embassy bombings. Truck bombs were also used in these attacks. These attacks occurred at

the embassies of the U.S in two East African cities of Dar es Salaam (in Tanzania) and

Nairobi (in Kenya). These attacks brought Osama bin Laden and his terrorist organisation, al

Qaeda to the attention of the American public for the first time. Both attacks occurred on the

same day (7th of August, 1998) killing about 213 people in the Nairobi blast and 11 in the Dar

es Salaam blast (Perl, 1998). These attacks however did not constitute or pose a major threat

to United States national security, partly because it did not occur on United States soil (even

though embassies are regarded as extensions of states under the principle of extra-

31
territoriality in international relations). This is what differentiates these attacks from the 9/11

attacks which was carried out on United States cities. The attacks also revealed the threat

terrorism poses to international peace and security to U.S decision makers and the

international community at large.

a) September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks

The September 11 attacks involved four separate but co-ordinated aircraft hijackings which

occurred in the United States. These hijackings were carried out by 19 hijackers that

belonged to the al-Qaeda network (led by Saddam Hussein). According to investigators and

records of cellular phone calls made by passengers abroad the planes, the hijackers used

knives and box cutters to kill or wound passengers and pilots, and then commandeer the

aircraft to preselected targets. According to a report by the House Permanent Select

Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,

“...a total of 25 terrorists hijacked four airlines, namely American flight 11 which departed

Boston for Los Angeles; United Airline flight 175 which departed Los Angeles for Boston;

United Airlines flight 93 which departed Newark for San Francisco; American flight Airlines

77 which departed Washington Gulles for Los Angeles... more than 3000 persons were killed

in these four attacks. Citizens of 78 countries perished at the World Trade Centre site.‖

In the aftermath of the attacks, many U.S. citizens held the view that the attacks had "changed

the world forever." The Bush administration announced a war on terrorism, with the goal of

bringing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda to justice and preventing the emergence of other

terrorist networks. These goals would be accomplished by means including economic and

military sanctions against states perceived as harbouring terrorists and increasing global

surveillance and intelligence sharing. Immediately after the September 11 attacks, U.S.

officials speculated on possible involvement by Saddam Hussein. Although unfounded, the

32
association contributed to public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In other words, the

9/11 attacks constitutes a major factor that has shaped U.S foreign policy in Iraq (and the

Middle East region at large) since 2001. The major response to the attacks came under the

then new government of President George W. Bush. He formulated a set of foreign policies

which became known as the Bush Doctrine.

b) Background of the Bush Doctrine

Near the end of the Cold War, Iraq (led by Dictator Saddam Hussein) invaded its oil-rich

neighbour Kuwait. The U.N. Security Council authorized the use of force against Iraq unless

it withdrew its forces from Kuwait by January 15, 1991. The United States organized a

coalition made up of its NATO allies and other nations including several Arab countries. On

January 16, the coalition, led mainly by American troops, started pushing Iraq out of Kuwait.

When the Gulf War ended, President George H. W. Bush (the father of George W Bush)

decided to contain Iraq's potential military threat. He did this by stationing American military

forces in neighbouring countries. The U.N. Security Council issued resolutions calling for

Iraq to disarm by ridding itself of weapons of mass destruction, and it sent weapons

inspectors into Iraq. In 1992, Department of Defense officials, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis

Libby wrote a proposal for a new American military and political strategy. They concluded

that containment and deterrence had become obsolete with the end of the Cold War. They

also argued for three revolutionary ideas (Ikenberry 2002):

 The United States must remain the world's only superpower, unchallenged by any

other nation.

 The United States may need to use pre-emptive force (attack an enemy first) in self-

defense.

33
  The United States will, if necessary, act unilaterally (alone) to confront and eliminate

threats to American security.

This proposal sparked great controversy. President H.W Bush ordered his secretary of

defense, Dick Cheney, to revise the strategy and remove the points about pre-emptive and

unilateral action. When Bill Clinton became president in 1993, he continued the policy of

containment and deterrence. In 1998, Iraq expelled U.N. weapons inspectors. Around this

same time, a group of national defense critics began to publicly argue for the forced removal

of Saddam Hussein because of his potential use of weapons of mass destruction. Called "neo-

conservatives" by the press, the group included Libby, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Donald

Rumsfeld, and other members of the former Reagan and Bush administrations (Ikenberry

2002).

When George W. Bush became president in 2001, he appointed Rumsfeld secretary of

defense and Wolfowitz as one of his deputy defense secretaries. Vice President Dick Cheney

appointed Libby his chief of staff. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, and Cheney formed the core

of neo-conservative influence on national security matters within the Bush administration.

The neo-conservatives wanted to revive the strategy proposed by Wolfowitz and Libby in

1992. They also pushed for the United States to confront hostile regimes and "militant Islam."

In addition, they called for the United States to expand democracy and capitalism throughout

the world. Following the devastating terrorist attacks in 2001, Wolfowitz and the other neo-

conservatives pressed for an immediate attack on Iraq. Secretary of State Colin Powell,

however, persuaded President W Bush to first attack the Al Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban

regime harbouring them in Afghanistan (Nye, 2003: Ikenberry 2002).

In his January 2002 State of the Union Address, President Bush identified Iraq, Iran, and

North Korea as an "axis of evil." "The United States of America will not permit," Bush said,

34
"the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive

weapons." On September 12, 2002, after a sharp debate within the Bush administration over

what to do about Iraq, the president addressed the United Nations. He warned that disarming

Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction (banned by the U.N. after the 1991 Gulf War) "will

be enforced" by the U.N. or, if necessary, by the United States acting unilaterally in self-

defense. In early November 2002, the United Nations adopted a U.S.-sponsored resolution. It

stated that Iraq was in "material breach" of previous U.N. resolutions and called for Iraq to

immediately disarm and fully cooperate with weapons inspectors or "face serious

consequences" (Beard 2002).

c) Meaning and the major Tenets of the Bush Doctrine

The Bush Doctrine rests on a definition of the threat based upon what it sees as the

combination of ―radicalism and technology‖—specifically, political and religious extremism

joined by the availability of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Bush Doctrine

identifies three threat agents: terrorist organizations with global reach, weak states that

harbour and assist such terrorist organizations, and rogue states. Rogue states are defined as

states that ‗brutalize their own people and squander their national resources for the personal

gain of the rulers; display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbours, and

callously violate international treaties to which they are party; are determined to acquire

weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as

threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes; sponsor terrorism

around the globe; and reject human values and hate the United States and everything it stands

for‘ (Iraq falls within the framework of this definition) (Zenes 2002).

A key feature of the Bush Doctrine‘s postulation of the threat is its conclusion that Cold War

concepts of deterrence and containment do not necessarily work against WMD-seeking

35
rogues states and are irrelevant against terrorist organizations. In summary, the Bush Doctrine

postulates an imminent, multifaceted, undeterrable, and potentially calamitous threat to the

United States—a threat that, by virtue of the combination of its destructiveness and

invulnerability to deterrence, has no precedent in American history. By implication, such a

threat demands an unprecedented response. The threats identified by the Bush Doctrine

therefore led to the adoption of the policy of ‗anticipatory self-defense‘. The policy is billed

as a strategy of pre-emption. In a speech, President Bush announced that the ―war on terror

will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and

confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered the only path to

safety is the path of action, and this nation will act.‖ The National Security Strategydeclares

that the ―United States has long maintained the option of pre-emptive actions to counter a

sufficient threat to our national security,‖ and given the risk of inaction against enemies

prepared to strike first, ―the United States will, if necessary, act pre-emptively.‖ The

National Security Strategygoes on to say, ―Legal scholars and international jurists often

conditioned the legitimacy of pre-emption on the existence of an imminent threat—most

often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing for attack.‖ However,

―We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today‘s

adversaries.‖ Because rogue states know they can‘t win with conventional weapons, ―they

will rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction weapons

that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning‖ (Jeffrey Record,

2003). The Bush Administration does not regard pre-emption as a substitute for traditional

non-military measures such as sanctions and coercive diplomacy or for proactive counter

proliferation and strengthened non-proliferation efforts. Pre-emption is an ―add-on‖ tailored

to deal with the new, non deterrable threat. The Pentagon (U.S military headquarters) defined

pre-emption an ―attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy

36
attack is imminent.‖ This definition can say to serve as the basis for the invasion of

Afghanistan in 2001, and subsequently Iraq in 2003.

The Bush Doctrine identifies methods to achieve its aims such as establishing new military

bases in the world, developing defense technology, and expanding intelligence gathering.

Diplomacy also has a role to play, especially in the "battle for the future of the Muslim

world." The Bush Doctrine favours the United States acting in cooperation with allies and

international institutions like the U.N. to deal with threats to world peace. But the security

strategy states that the United States "will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary." Critics

argue that the Bush administration reflexively resorts to unilateralism, acting alone in the

world. They cite the administration's withdrawal from three international treaties in its first

year in office: the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, and

the treaty setting up the International Criminal Court. (Anne Geyer, 2002).

Supporters of the Bush doctrine respond that the administration believes deeply in

multilateral action whenever possible. They note that many people oppose the treaties that the

administration withdrew from. The Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, they argue, was

outmoded. They believe that the International Criminal Court was harmful to the interests of

the United States, and the Kyoto Protocol was purely symbolic, as President Bush states in

his introduction to the National Security Strategy: "In all cases, international obligations are

to be taken seriously. They are not to be undertaken symbolically to rally support for an ideal

without furthering its attainment." As for Iraq, they point out that this was not a unilateral

action: The coalition of the willing had many member nations. Another element of the Bush

Doctrine is for the United States to "extend the benefits of freedom across the globe" in order

to build "a balance of power that favours freedom." The security strategy states that the

United States should do this by championing "nonnegotiable demands of human dignity."

37
These include such things as the rule of law, freedom of worship, and respect for women. In

addition, the strategy calls for the United States to promote world economic growth through

capitalist free markets and free trade (Pollack 2002).

4.2.2 THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND THE IRAQI WAR

The Iraq war was launched on March 19, 2003, with a strike against a location where Iraqi

President Saddam Hussein and top lieutenants were believed to be meeting. On March 17,

President Bush had given Saddam Hussein an ultimatum to leave the country or face military

conflict. Although some resistance was encountered after U.S troops entered Iraq, all major

Iraqi population centres had been brought under the U.S control by April 14. In November

2002, the United Nations Security Council had adopted Resolution 1441, giving a final

opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations or face serious consequences.

Between January and February 2003, a U.S military build-up in the Persian Gulf intensified

and President Bush, and other top U.S officials, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair

repeatedly indicated that Iraq had little time left to offer full cooperation with U.N weapons

inspectors. However, leaders of France, Germany, Russia, and China urged that the

inspections process be allowed more time. The administration of President Bush and its

supporters asserted that Iraq was in defiance of 17 Security Council resolutions requiring that

it fully declare and eliminate its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Further delay in

raking action against Iraq, they argued, would have endangered national security and

undermined U.S credibility (Woodward 2002). In making a case for confronting Iraq, Bush

administration characterized the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a grave potential threat

to the United States and to peace and security in the Middle East region. The Administration

maintained that the Iraqi regime harboured active weapons of mass destruction programs.

These weapons according to the Administration could be used directly against the United

38
States, or they could be transferred to terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. The Administration

said that the United States could not wait until Iraq made further progress on WMD to

confront Iraq, since Iraq could then be stronger and the United States might have fewer

military and diplomatic options. In all, the decision by the Bush Administration to attack Iraq

was an interpretation of the Bush Doctrine which stated in part that it would not differentiate

between terrorist organisations and states that sympathise or harbour terrorist organisations.

What this means is that the Bush Administration identified Iraq as a state sympathising with

terrorist organisations (Woodward 2004).

4.3 SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF U.S FOREIGN POLICIES IN IRAQ

The policies adopted towards Iraq within the scope specified in this work have varying levels

of successes and failures. One of the first and most recognised successes was that the United

States was able to remove a ruthless and repressive dictator from power, i.e. Saddam Hussein.

During his tenure in office, Saddam Hussein committed many human rights abuses the most

notable of which was the use of Chemical and biological weapons on the Kurds in northern

Iraq. His government was also very corrupt and undemocratic. Thus, the policy of invasion

adopted by the United States was able to free the people Iraq from the hands of Saddam

Hussein. However, the war in Iraq also manifested three key problems. First, the premise of

the war was wrong. Rather than eliminating dangerous weapons, the administration itself

concluded by the end of 2004 that Iraq had ended all its nuclear, chemical and biological

programs between 1991 and 1995 and did not have stockpiles of these weapons, secondly,

intended to be the prototype for a new, assertive policy that would eliminate bad proliferation

at its source, the war proved to be many times more difficult and costly than predicted.

Though there was heady talk in Washington in the spring and summer of 2003 of moving on

to Tehran, Damascus and even Pyongyang, as the Iraqi insurgency grew and reconstruction

39
faltered, few believed that the United States could or would launch other preventive wars.

Third, post-war analysis demonstrated that the war was unnecessary. International

mechanisms were working and could have provided a solution. With a UN Security Council

united by President Bush‘s diplomatic efforts in the fall of 2002, an intrusive inspection

regime was showing results. Although senior U.S. officials belittled the United Nations

inspectors before the war and discredited their work, U.N. sanctions and inspections, in fact,

had been more effective than most realized in disarming Iraq after the 1991 war. In 2002 and

2003, the inspectors were finding what little there was to find. If they had been allowed to

continue their work for just a few more weeks, inspectors believe that they could have shown

that Iraq did not have active weapons programs. This is particularly true of the nuclear

program, the hardest program to hide and the one most used to justify the need for immediate

military action. U.S. officials had justified the war as necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein,

send a message to other would-be proliferators and establish a new model for counter-

proliferation (Cirinicione 2005).

Furthermore, the invasion of Iraq revealed that the danger of nuclear terrorism may have

increased. U.S. intelligence officials concluded in February 2005 Senate testimony that

American policy in Iraq (and the Middle East at large) has fuelled anti-U.S. feeling and that

the Iraq War has provided jihadists with new recruits who ―will leave Iraq experienced in and

focused on acts of urban terrorism.‖ After the Iraq invasion, terrorist attacks rose globally and

al Qaeda grew in influence and adherents. At the same time, weapons and materials are being

secured more slowly than expected. The amount of nuclear material secured in the two years

after 9/11 was at best equal to the amount secured in the two years before 9/11. Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director, Porter Goss said in his February 2005 Senate testimony

that he could not assure the American people that some of the material missing from Russian

nuclear sites had not found its way into terrorist hands. International Atomic Energy Agency

40
(IAEA) Director, General Mohamed El Baradei believes that the American emphasis on

military force may, in fact, increase insecurity: ―In the wake of the Cold War, many of us

were hopeful for a new global security regime, a regime that would be inclusive, effective,

and no longer dependent on nuclear weapons. But regrettably, we have made little or no

progress.‖ ElBaradei argues that a main objective for international security in the 21st century

should be to establish a system ―that would make the use of force—including the use of

nuclear weapons—less likely as a means of conflict resolution.‖(Nagan and Hammer 2004).

41
REFERENCES

―9/11 and Terrorist Travel‖ (2004); U.S Staff Report of the National Commission on

Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

―President Bush‘s Speech on the use of force‖,The New York Times, 8th October, 2002.

―The Bush Doctrine‖ retrieved from www.crf-usa.org on Febreuary 28, 2004.

―U.S orders Iran to pay for 1983 Lebanon attack‖ Retrieved from www.aljezeera.com on 7th

of July, 2012.

―U.S role in Beirut goes on despite exit of marines from peace force‖ Retrieved from

www.csmonitor.com on February 27, 1984.

―War on Terrorism‖, Retrieved from www.globalpolicy.org on 8th October, 2011.

Beard, Jack M, 2002 ―America‘s New War on Terror: The case of self-defense under

International Law‖‘ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

Brenton Guerin ―Saddam Hussein‖ Retrieved from www.studymode.com on 2nd of

December, 2014.

Eric Block, ―U.S Tolerated Chemical-Weapon Attacks by Saddam‖ Retrieved from

www.minnpost.com on 9th of December, 2013.

Gabriel Barbati, ―25 years After the Worst Chemical Weapon Massacre in History, Saddam

Hussein Attack on Halabja in Iraq: The city is Reborn‖ Retrieved from

www.ibtimes.com on March 15, 2013.

Georgie Anne Geyer, ―Backlash Against Going After Iraq‖ retrieved from Chicago Tribune

on 18th October 2002.

Ikenberry G. John‘ 2002, ―America‘s Imperial Ambition, Foreign Affairs.

Iraq War: Background and Issues Overview; Report for Congress, April 22, 2003; Foreign

Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

42
Janet A. McDonnell, 2001. The National Park Service: Responding to the September 11

Terrorist Attacks: U.S; U.S Department of the Interior.

Jeffery Record, 2003, the Bush Doctrine and war with Iraq

Jennifer Rosenberg, ―Top 5 Crimes of Saddam Hussein‖ Retrieved from

www.history1900s.about.com on 28th January, 2011.

Joseph Cirinicione 2005, ―Lessons of the Iraq War: how the Bush Doctrine made

proliferation worse‖, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Volume 23.

Kenneth M. Pollack, 2002, ―The threatening storm, the case of invading Iraq‖. New York:

Random House.

Mark N. Katz, 2012, ―Assessing the Obama Strategy towards the ‗war on terror‘, Middle East

Policy Council.

Nye, Joseph 2003, ―U.S Power and Strategy After Iraq‖, Foreign Affairs.

R. Chuck Mason 2009, ―U.S-Iraq, withdrawal/Status of Forces Agreement: Issues for

Congressional Oversight, Congressional Research Service.

Raphael F Perl, 1998. Terrorism: U.S Response to Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania: A New

Policy Direction? U.S; CRS Report for congress.

Ridgeway James (1991), The March to War. NY: Fair Wall Eight Windows.

Rumsfeld, Donald H, 2001, ―A New Kind of War‖ retrieved from The New York Times on

September 27.

Schwartz Richard A. (1998). Encyclopedia of the Persian Gulf War. Jefferson, NC:

Macfarland and Co.

Stephen Zenes, ―the case against war‖. The Nation, 30 September 2002.

Steven Cook 2009, ―Obama-Biden Iraq Agenda‖ retrieved from www.guardian.com on 16th

July, 2008.

The National Security Strategy of the U.S.A, September 2002.

43
Winston P. Nagan and Craig Hammer, 2004, ―The New Bush National Security Doctrine and

the Rule of Law‖, Berkeley Journal of Internal Law, Volume 22.

Woodward, B 2002, ―Bush at War‖. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Woodward, B, 2004, ―Plan of Attack‖. New York: Simon and Schuster.

44
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

This study employed secondary data to critically assess United States foreign policy towards

Iraq from 1991 – 2003. This study particularly focused on the Bush Administration. It

reviewed various related theories and literature to explain factors that influenced United

State‘s foreign policy up till 2003. This study also looked at the outcomes of the major

foreign policy decisions under the Bush Administration. The war in Iraq and an overview of

Iraq and the some of the actions of Saddam Hussein that eventually brought Iraq on a

collision course with the United States was also contained in this study.

5.2 CONCLUSION

The foreign policies adopted by the United States under the Bush Administration, particularly

the Bush Doctrine proved to be ineffective despite the resources committed to it. Analysts

have concluded that ‗force‘ which the doctrine emphasises is one of the major reasons for the

failure of the policy. Although the policy succeeded in removing a repressive dictatator, it

failed to stabilize and/or establish a stable democratic government in the country instead; the

country was bedevilled with series of violent Islamic militias, fundamentalist and insurgents

groups resisting the forceful occupation of the United States, and sometimes fight for control

of power.

This project work has been able to examine events that led to the formulation of such policies

(under the Bush Administration). This enabled us to understand why it recorded the varying

level of failure and success. Iraq is vital state in the Middle East, especially when it comes to

the general stability on that region. Also, it is of a strategic and economic interest to the

45
United States; therefore, the foreign policies of the U.S towards the country would always be

a delicate matter in the foreign policy politics in the United States.

5.3 RECOMMENDATION

In view of the study findings, the study then makes the following recommendations. Firstly,

the United States should build a new diplomatic offensive to build an international consensus

for stability in Iraq (and the region at large) as against the use of force. The continuous use of

force would only continue to build armed resistance in terms of insurgent groups against the

United States. The (diplomatic) effort should include every country that has an interest in

avoiding a chaotic Iraq including all of Iraq‘s neighbours. Secondly, in trying to build this

diplomatic consensus, the United States should try to engage Iran and Syria constructively,

using incentives and disincentives. Thirdly, the United States should renew its commitments

to a comprehensive Israel-Palestine peace process, including former president‘s Bush two-

state solution.

46
BIBLIOGRAPHY

‗Iraqi Conflict’ Retrieved from www.newsbatch.com on 7th June, 2011.

‘Notions of Security; Shifting Concepts and Perspectives’; Retrieved from

www.transnationalterrorism.eu on 15 February 2007.

―9/11 and Terrorist Travel‖ (2004); U.S Staff Report of the National Commission on

Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

―President Bush‘s Speech on the use of force‖, The New York Times, 8th October, 2002.

―The Bush Doctrine‖ retrieved from www.crf-usa.org on Febreuary 28, 2004.

―U.S orders Iran to pay for 1983 Lebanon attack‖ Retrieved from www.aljezeera.com on 7th

of July, 2012.

―U.S role in Beirut goes on despite exit of marines from peace force‖ Retrieved from

www.csmonitor.com on February 27, 1984.

―War on Terrorism‖ Retrieved from www.globalpolicy.org on 8th October, 2011.

A. I. Dawisha, 1976, Foreign Policy Models and the Problem of Dynamism, British Journal

of International Studies, Volume 2.

Alexander, Yonah, 1976, International Terrorism; National, Regional and Global

Perspectives: New York: Praeger.

Alexander. C. Ugwukah and Adam Eteete Michael, 2010, An introduction to International

Relations, Ibadan: Ababa Press Limited.

Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen, 2009, the Evolution of International Security Studies, United

State; Cambridge University Press.

Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, Jaap de Wilde, 1998, Security: A New Framework For Analysis,

Published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc.

Beard, Jack M, 2002 ―America‘s New War on Terror: The case of self-defense under

International Law‖. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

47
Brenton Guerin ―Saddam Hussein‖ Retrieved from www.studymode.com on 2nd of

December, 2014.

Brian Michael Jenkins, 1980, The Study of Terrorism; Definitional Problems: California; The

RAND Corporation.

C. Alden, 2011, Foreign Policy Analysis, United Kingdom: University of London.

Daniel Lieberfeld, Theories of Conflict and the Iraq War, International Journal of Peace

Studies, Volume 10.

David A. Baldwin, 1997,The Concept of Security, Review of International Studies, published

by British International Studies Association.

Eric Block, ―U.S Tolerated Chemical-Weapon Attacks by Saddam‖ Retrieved from

www.minnpost.com on 9th of December, 2013.

Gabriel Barbati, ―25 years After the Worst Chemical Weapon Massacre in History, Saddam

Hussein Attack on Halabja in Iraq: The city is Reborn‖ Retrieved from

www.ibtimes.com on March 15, 2013.

Georgie Anne Geyer, ―Backlash Against Going After Iraq‖ retrieved from Chicago Tribune

on 18th October 2002.

Hoffman, Bruce, 2006, Inside Terrorism (2nded), NY: Columbia University

Ikedinma H.A, Ndu, L. Njoku (PH. D) and Terhembe Nom Ambe-Uva, 2012, Foreign Policy

Analysis, Nigeria: National Open University of Nigeria.

Ikenberry G. John 2002, ―America‘s Imperial Ambition, Foreign Affairs.

Iraq War: Background and Issues Overview; Report for Congress, April 22, 2003; Foreign

Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.

J. David Singer, 1961,The Level of Analysis Problem in International Relations, World

Politics Volume 2, John Hopkins University Press.

48
J.O Toluhi 2001, Fundamentals of Research Methodology, Kwara State: Victory

Publications.

Janet A. McDonnell, 2001. The National Park Service: Responding to the September 11

Terrorist Attacks: U.S; U.S Department of the Interior.

Jeffery Record 2003, the Bush Doctrine and war with Iraq

Jennifer Rosenberg, ―Top 5 Crimes of Saddam Hussein‖ Retrieved from

www.history1900s.about.com on 28th January, 2011.

John A. Nagl and Brian M. Burton, 2009, After the Fire: shaping the future of U.S

relationship with Iraq, United States: Centre for a New American Security.

John J. Mearsheimer, Structural Realism,

John T. Rourke, International Politics on the World Stage 12th edition, U.S: University of

Connecticut.

Joint Chiefs of Staff DOD, 2008: Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and

Associated Term, Washington D.C: DOD.

Joseph Cirinicione 2005, ―Lessons of the Iraq War: how the Bush Doctrine made

proliferation worse‖. Berkeley Journal of International Law, Volume 23.

Joseph Frankel, 1963,The making of Foreign Policy; U.S.A, Oxford University Press.

Joseph S. Nye Jr, Redefining the National Interest, Foreign Affairs Volume 78, Published by

Council of Foreign Relations, Unites States.

Juliet Kaarbo and James Lee Ray, Global Politics 10th edition, S4Carlisle publishing

services.

Kenneth M. Pollack, 2002, ―The threatening storm, the case of invading Iraq‖. New York:

Random House.

Laqueur, Walter, 1987, The Age of Terrorism (2nded). Boston, United States.

Legg K. And Morrison J., Politics and International System, New York.

49
M. Faith Tayfur, 1994, Main Approaches to the study of Foreign Policy,Turkey: Middle East

Technical University.

Mark N. Katz 2012, ―Assessing the Obama Strategy towards the ‗war on terror‘. Middle East

Policy Council.

Nye, Joseph 2003, ―U.S Power and Strategy After Iraq‖, Foreign Affairs.

Peter Hahn, 2012, A Century of U.S Relations with Iraq, Retrieved from origins.osu.edu on

7th of April, 2012.

Peu Ghosh, 2013, International Relations 3rd edition. Published by PHI learning, New Delhi,

India.

R. Chuck Mason 2009, ―U.S-Iraq, withdrawal/Status of Forces Agreement: Issues for

Congressional Oversight. Congressional Research Service.

Ramazan Ozedemir, Invasion of Iraq: a reflection of realism; Fatih University Press; Turkish

Journal of Politics, Volume 2.

Raphael F Perl, 1998. Terrorism: U.S Response to Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania: A New

Policy Direction? U.S; CRS Report for congress.

Ridgeway James (1991), The March to War. NY: Fair Wall Eight Windows.

Rumsfeld, Donald H, 2001, ―A New Kind of War‖ retrieved from The New York Times on

September 27.

Schwartz Richard A. (1998). Encyclopedia of the Persian Gulf War. Jefferson, NC:

Macfarland and Co.

Stephen Zenes, ―the case against war‖. The Nation, 30 September 2002.

Steven Cook 2009, ―Obama-Biden Iraq Agenda‖ retrieved from www.guardian.com on 16th

July, 2008.

The National Security Strategy of the U.S.A, September 2002.

50
Winston P. Nagan and Craig Hammer 2004, ―The New Bush National Security Doctrine and

the Rule of Law‖. Berkeley Journal of Internal Law, Volume 22.

Woodward, B 2002, ―Bush at War‖. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Woodward, B 2004, ―Plan of Attack‖. New York: Simon and Schuster.

51