In an address before The House of Commons, on the 1st of March 1848, Lord Palmerston declared: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal, and those interests it is our duty to follow”. Which theory or theories of International Relations motivated the Iraq War, and more narrowly, inspired President Bush? The President’s State of The Union Address; four short months after the attacks of September 11th, declared that a new ‘Axis of Evil’ exists in the world after 9/11. In the 2003 State of The Union Address, the President declared that America and her allies were the only things that stand between a world of peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm; and that Iraq now threatened the world with chaos and constant alarm.
On March the 17th, 2003, just two days prior to the commencement of the Iraq War, President Bush, in an address to the nation, declared that: “events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decisions”. During his Inaugural Address in 2005, the President made a potentially startling declaration regarding America’s foreign policy. The gathering threats posed by the war on terrorism present profound challenges to the Realist Theory of International Relations in the years ahead.
The President’s State of The Union Address; four short months after the attacks of September 11th, declared that a new ‘Axis of Evil’ exists in the world after 9/11. President Bush stated:
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.
We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons. (Applause.)
Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch — yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch.
We can’t stop short. If we stop now — leaving terror camps intact and terror states unchecked — our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has called America and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom’s fight. (Applause.)
The axis of evil portion was written by leading Neoconservative thinker David Frum. Former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, a close advisor to several Republican Presidents, is a renowned Realist who believes that such phrasing is not constructive. Morality is a secondary concern to Realists, Realism focus primarilly more on concerns of levels of power. Hans J. Morgenthau, one of the intellectual fathers of Realism, believed that a nation’s foreign policy must advance a ‘realistic’ national interest, and more important for this disscussion, be divested of a crusading idealistic spirit. The rest of the speech is close to Realist thinking with a declared strategy that emphasizes national security as the dominate consideration. The argument of a clear and present threat posed by Weapons of Mass Destruction, threaded throughout all of these speeches, is consistant with Realist thinking. Realists believe states are inherently aggressive (offensive Realism) and are preoccupied with security (defensive Realism). This speech was the closest in Realist thinking among the speeches I chose.
In the 2003 State of The Union Address, the President declared that America and her allies were the only things that stand between a world of peace, and a world of chaos and constant alarm, and that Iraq now threatened the world with chaos and constant alarm. The President declared in his Address to Congress:
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.)
The dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages — leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained — by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.
The most glaring aspect of this address inconsistant with Realism is the “Bush Doctrine” of preemption. Realism literature is replete with condemnations of the preemption doctrine of preemption, or as Scowcroft declares it: “radical interventionism”. Once again, one is able to see influence of Neoconservative foreign policy theory rather than Realism. Neoconservative theory of International Relations often emphasizes the need to preemptively eliminate potential threats at an earlier time, rather than allowing the potential threats to grow stronger and more powerful over time. Realists believe stability is crucial. Stability in geopolitical affairs is a cornerstone of Realist thinking: “It is easy in the name of stability to be comfortable with the status quo”, wrote Brent Scowcroft. Scowcroft continues with this line of thinking by stating: “The status quo is not necesssarily a good thing, but it might be better than what follows. My kind of realism would look at what are the most likely consequences of [pre emptively] pushing out a government. What will replace it?” The doctrine of preemption is not a tenant of the Realist Theory of International Relations.
On March the 17th, 2003, President Bush, in an address to the nation, declared that: “events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decisions”. President Bush addressed the American People just two days before the war commenced:
We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be far greater. In one year, or five years, the power of Iraq to inflict harm on all free nations would be multiplied many times over. With these capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could choose the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, where it arises, before it can appear suddenly in our skies and cities.
The cause of peace requires all free nations to recognize new and undeniable realities. In the 20th century, some chose to appease murderous dictators, whose threats were allowed to grow into genocide and global war. In this century, when evil men plot chemical, biological and nuclear terror, a policy of appeasement could bring destruction of a kind never before seen on this earth.
Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations — and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now.
Realists would not give much weight to the “security of the world”. Realists are concerned with ‘overiding national interest’, which is deemed as the national security and survival of the state. Realists would most likely be skeptical that any conflict could advance the security of the globe because the actors (states) involved are inherently self-interested and are seeking to advance self-centered goals. Global security, even if it were possible to achive, which Realism is skeptical of, would be secondary to the strategic interests of the U.S.
During his Inaugural Address in 2005, the President made a potentially startling declaration regarding America’s foreign policy:
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
Very likely the most prominent living Realist, Secretary Henry Kissinger, believed this to be Wilsonianism Idealism: “The United States…must temper its missionary spirit with a concept of the national interest and rely on its head as well as its heart in defining its duty to the world. Kissenger went on to write in the third volume of his memoirs, that America should be guided by strategic self-interest, and that moral considerations are secondary at best. Realists tend not to support this: “Wilsonianism with teeth”, in the words of political scientist John Mearsheimer.
President Woodrow Wilson belonged to the Idealism Theory of International Relations, believing that America must make the world safe for democracy because it was in the nation’s strategic interest to do so, and equally as important, it was the moral thing to do. Realists, such as Morgenthau and Kissenger, have often argued that Wilsonianism Idealists have “an unacceptably high tolerance for the kind of instability that the export of democracy can bring”. Do not be guided to the misimpression however, that President Bush emodies Wilsonianism Idealism in regard to foreign policy. Idealism would not necessarily allow for the imposition of democracy, by overthrowing brutal regimes through war. Neoconservatism sometimes blends both Idealistic and Realism elements together by adhering to the belief that overthrowing/displacing tyranical and brutal regimes by transforming them into democracies is morally right (Idealism) and in the strategic-self interest (Realism) of America. This is certainly not always the case and it is prudent to point out that Neoconservatism Theory has many internal variations, just as Realism and Idealism Theories of International Relations do as well.
The gathering threats posed by the war on terrorism present profound challenges to the Realist Theory of International Relations in the years ahead.
I am not entirely convinced that the Realist Theory of International Relations can handle the terrorist threat. To be fair, I am not quite sure any current International Relations Theory can handle terrorism. State-sponsored or state-based terrorism, if you will, is rapidly being overtaken by the emerging threat of ‘stateless’ terrorism. Stateless terrorism in the sense that terrorist cells may exist in a given state but not be funded, assisted, or consciously harbored by the government of the state in which the cells operate within, and potentially launch attacks, from. Pakistan comes readily to mind as an example of the delicate intricacies involved with the dance that is International Relations. Al- Qadea is not a state.
The international organization, loosely associated cells were able to launch the September 11th attacks absent the capabilities and resources readily available to most states. The devastation was just as, if not more, cataclysmic than an attack launched by a state, as envisioned in the Realism Theory of International Relations. Terrorism tends to be anarchic, so in this narrow respect, Realism may be able to provide strategic insight and solutions, since Realism adheres to the belief that the International System is anarchic. Idealism is not a strong active force in International Relations of the twenty-first century, so therefore it is highly unlikely that states will turn to Idealism when confronting terrorism. Idealism fell largely into decline after it failed to prevent WWI.
Neoconservatism is most closely identified with the Iraq war and is unlikely to be the International Relations template that the next Administration turns to when confronted with terrorism. Some Neoconservative foreign policy elements have been successful, however, utilizing a complete Neoconservatism approach is like fitting the proverbial square peg into a round hole. Neorealism currently seems to be the most active field of study and research in the International Relations realm. It is most likely to early to predict with any accuracy or certainty if Neorealism will be a viable and sustainable International Relations Theory capable of confronting terrorism. Perhaps Ambassador and International Relations expert Richard Holbrooke is envisioning the form that foreign policy will take in the years ahead for confronting terrorism: “A good foreign policy, ought to marry idealism and realism, effective American leadership and, if necessary, the use of force”.
I propose a theory of International Relations that has conditional sovereignty at its core. The principle of conditional sovereignty is best articulated in the following quotation, by prolific author and philosopher Ayn Rand:
Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the nonexistent “rights” of gang rulers. It is not a free nation’s duty to liberate other nations at the price of self-sacrifice, but a free nation has the right to do it, when and if it so chooses.
This right, however, is conditional. Just as the suppression of crimes does not give a policeman the right to engage in criminal activities, so the invasion and destruction of a dictatorship does not give the invader the right to establish another variant of a slave society in the conquered country.
A slave country has no national rights, but the individual rights of its citizens remain valid, even if unrecognized, and the conqueror has no right to violate them. Therefore, the invasion of an enslaved country is morally justified only when and if the conquerors establish a free social system, that is, a system based on the recognition of individual rights.
This would be a foreign policy based upon a hybrid “Realistic Idealism”. The United States has the right, though not a duty, to intervene in tyrannical regimes that violate the natural rights of the individual. Future American Administrations should place diplomacy first and foremost, while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge the right of such governments as Iran’s and North Korea’s to exist. The principle of conditional sovereignty does not always result in regime change. Conditional sovereignty does insist upon the interjection of morality into International Relations. When the individual is enslaved by a government, it is no longer a government, but an enslaver. Strategic foreign policy sometimes compels countries to diplomatically engage such regimes. They should be accorded the minimal humanity one would present to a slaveholder, not the respect accorded to a government of, for, and by the people. Moral relativism in International Relations is the equivalent of Russian roulette; the bullet will kill you eventually.
The foreign policy legacy of President George Walker Bush is still an unwritten chapter in the great history of the American Nation. Through the many setbacks, obstacles, and mangled policies, one profound fact emerges. Seven years after the attacks of the 11th of September, there has not been another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. If the foreign policy legacy of President Bush is to be composed by future American generations, I believe the absence of another attack should be the first words written upon the blank page.
Perhaps the twenty-first century world is like a three dimensional chess match, and it will take a blending of many different theories of International Relations to best formulate a foreign policy able to confront, and emerge victoriously from; the war on terrorism, tyrannical regimes with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and a world in which the toppling of one domino can cause them all to fall down.
“I believe in the fallibility of human nature. We continually step on our best aspirations. We’re humans. Given a chance to screw up, we will.”
- Brent Scowcroft.
Ryan P. Christiano is the founder of the modern Libertarian Defense Caucus, the strong defense wing of the Libertarian Party.
He is a National Political Science Honor Society Inductee. Ryan is an Independent moderate libertarian.
on Jun 11th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Great article, Ryan. It’s good to hear from you again. Good luck out on the campaign trail!
on Jun 13th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Good piece. It’s going to be interesting to see what people think of Mr. Bush in ten, twenty years…
on Jun 13th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
A nice article, and makes a lot of points I have been spitting out in a clearer method than I previously have.
Roland Doddss last blog post..Lee Kwang Pil Protests Something Worth Protesting
on Jun 15th, 2008 at 2:21 am
The Bush II administration began with a foreign policy based on realism and selective engagement. Bush advocated selective engagement early on, while Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld were all realists in the early days of the administration (Purdum, 2003). Rice summarized the administration’s position in a concise article that clearly prioritized “national interest” over “humanitarian interests.” Rice asserted that “the Clinton administration has often been so anxious to find multilateral solutions to problems that it has signed agreements that are not in America’s interest.” Rice specifically noted treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Comprehensive Test ban Treaty as “instructive.” The Bush II administration would focus on “power politics, great powers and power balances.” It would have no need of the recent foreign policy tradition of multilateralism (Rice, 2000, 47-8).
The Bush administration also broke with its own realist policies to pursue a neoconservative agenda of Wilsonian-style nation-building. In his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush “scorned ‘nation-building’ as a woolly-headed ambition that risked diluting America’s priorities and diverting its military into insoluble conflicts around the world” (Purdum, 2003, 11). Yet by August 2002, “the tone of the Bush administration’s rhetoric changed sharply.” Republican realists were deeply concerned with the administration’s break with the realist tradition. Individuals such as Scowcroft and Baker spoke out in disagreement with the administration. They saw Powell as their only remaining ally inside the inner circle. Scowcroft warned that a war with Iraq “could turn the whole region into a cauldron.” Retired General Anthony Zinni was present when Cheney gave a speech in Nashville on August 26, 2002. As he listened to the vice president state that “there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction,” Zinni “nearly fell off his chair.” Zinni “had seen nothing to support Cheney’s certitude” (Ricks, 2006, 46-7, 49-50). Still, in spite of nearly universal opposition, President Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq. He argued that the United States had to intervene in Iraq in order to prevent terrorists from training in Iraq, to prevent terrorists from obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction against America, and to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people (The White House, 2003).
The most important break with organizational tradition came with the Bush administration’s push toward the “imperial presidency.” This transition was marked by a myriad of developments including the passage of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT Act) otherwise known as the Patriot Act (The White House, 2006). The passage of the Patriot Act both reflected and contributed to a significant shift in the balance of power away from Congress and in favor of the executive office. The USA PATRIOT Act was passed by Congress within weeks and signed by President Bush on October 26, 2001, just fifteen days after the attacks. While the reach of this act is unprecedented, overriding some 48 state laws regarding civil liberties, the USA PATRIOT Act was just one of many developments that significantly increased the power of the executive office.
The Bush administration’s shift to the “imperial presidency” has been marked by a number of developments from an intensification of secrecy to the rejection of international treaties requiring Senate ratification to the doctrine of preventive war giving the president the power to unilaterally decide to go to war. As former Nixon aide John W. Dean wrote, “George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have created the most secretive presidency of my lifetime. Their secrecy is far worse than during Watergate” (quoted in Wittkopf and Jones, 2008, 329).
The administration secretly planned and prepared for war without disclosing it to the general public. Planning began in November of 2001 and included upgrading airfields in various Gulf countries, moving supplies to the region and the construction of necessary facilities. By April 2002, the planning and preparation for war was also being hidden from Congress. Bush had instructed General Tommy Franks not to make financial requests through Washington. “Anything you need, you’ll have.” The money would no longer be appropriated through congress. By the end of July 2002, Bush had approved more than thirty projects totaling over $700 million. Congress had no knowledge or involvement (Woodward, 2004, 122).
In December of 2002, Bush and Rumsfeld agreed to start secretly deploying troops into the theatre so as not to attract the attention of the press or the rest of the world. The first deployment order went out on December 6, 2002 and deployments continued every two weeks or so thereafter. Troops were given less than a week’s notice at times. In January 2003, the Bush administration arranged for much of its humanitarian relief to be disguised as general contributions to conceal its war planning from the NGO recipients. Yet, when asked about Iraq, Bush’s favorite response was “I have no war plans on my desk.” At one point or another after the planning began, nearly every member of the administration publicly denied any plans to go to war with Iraq (Woodward, 2004, 129).
on Jul 6th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I am appalled by your thesis. Since when did nations have the “right” to invade others. Read Clauswitz on war. War for defense yes, but as a right due to differing political ideologies? You should take a close look at the list of behaviors associated with the formal definition of sociopathy. Might be time to start showing a little more empathy for the people of these nations you so blithely intend to have killed. Better still, consider volunteering to help tend the wounded and bury the dead. Might do wonders.
on Jul 6th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
To the anti-war camp: peace cannot always be won through peaceful means. Oppressed people cannot always throw off their shackles without a little help. While we should always use diplomacy to the best of our abilities, until we have a functioning international body a la a League of Democracies as opposed to the corrupt ineffectual UN, we may need to use force from time to time. This may always be the case.
on Jul 6th, 2008 at 11:21 pm
Geoff Lloyd said:
“I am appalled by your thesis. Since when did nations have the “right” to invade
others. Read Clauswitz on war. War for defense yes, but as a right? You should take a close look at the list of
behaviors associated with the formal definition of sociopathy. Might be time to
start showing a little more empathy for the people of these nations you so
blithely intend to have killed. Better still, consider volunteering to help tend
the wounded and bury the dead. Might do wonders.
Mr.Lloyd,
With all due respect, I do not appreciate being labeled a sociopath because you disagree with my thesis. That kind of ad hominem attack is unecessary and does not allow for intellectual debate.
That aside, I am articulating a foreign policy based upon the International Relations Theory of Conditional Sovereignty, which is based upon a foundation of natural rights theory. I am well versed on Clauswitz, I wish you were equally well versed on natural rights theory and Conditional Sovereignty Theory.
My foreign policy proposal has human empathy at its very core. The issue is not invading other nations due to “differing political ideologies” as you quaintly and erroneously refer to the benchmark as. Rather, such a foreign policy does not acknowledge the right of the ‘government’ that oppresses the natural rights of its citizens, to exist. The government that oppresses and enslaves its citizens is no longer a government, but an enslaver. Therefore it is not accorded the rights and privileges of a government that does respect the natural rights of the individual, because it is a government in name only.
As my thesis exhaustively articulates, this does not translate to an invasion of such a nation, but rather diplomatic relations with such a regime should have a Conditional Sovereignty foundation. Diplomacy is the greatest tool in the vast majority of geopolitical situations. However, as in the case of Iraq, it was in the self-interest of the United States to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny.
Mr. Llyod says:
“Might be time to
start showing a little more empathy for the people of these nations you so
blithely intend to have killed. Better still, consider volunteering to help tend
the wounded and bury the dead. Might do wonders.”
Which position is more empathetic, yours, which would have meant the continued oppression and torture of the Iraqi people in perpetuity, or a position that presented a good chance for the Iraqi people to live in freedom?
Not that is is any of your concern, however, I have volunteered in the Wounded Warriors Foundation; giving my time, money, and prayers to wounded soldiers currently hospitalized. I am also actively involved in Homes For Our Troops. My cousin serving In Iraq, was wounded in the Sunni Triangle several years ago. I have seen some of the horrific effects of warfare, and it is presumptuous of you to make such assertions.
If I bury the war dead, tend to the war injured, see the tears of a soldier’s widow, does that make the war and its objectives any less noble or just?
Or does it just make it the Hell that is war.
Ryans last blog post..Libertarian Hawks Need To Step Up, Now More Than Ever Before: Never, Never, Never, Quit
on Aug 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pm