The United States' 2003 War in Iraq - Essay Example

The United States' 2003 War in Iraq Did Not Shed Light on Democratic Peace Theory The United States of America (USA)'s 2003 war in Iraq did not shed light on Democratic Peace Theory since the Democratic Peace Theory refrains from going to war with one another. The fact that the USA declared war to Iraq is an indication that this country did not respect this principle. Based on the USA’s claim, their grand strategy is to search for a long-term strategy in neo-conservative policies. It is true that the neo-conservative foreign policies would be good for conservatives. This is supposed to be good for the USA. This is also advantageous for the world since these would inspire Americans to assume cheerfully the new international responsibilities that went with increased power and influences (Kristoll & Kagan, 1996). However, current statistics showed that the USA is a great power on the brink of decline. For this kind of situation, the current grand strategy, therefore, of the USA is to maintain its power and influences internally but channel these powers through international institutions. Marquardt (2006) conducted an in depth analysis on this grand strategy noting the insufficiency of protection against the threats of attacks to countries. Three analytical perspectives such as realism, liberalism, and marxism/neo-marxism are generally used to organize thinking about international relations (Strategic Planning, 2006). These principles help many nations to rationalize the international relations that they have in their respective countries. According to the U.S. Navy Military Syllabus (2006), these perspectives influence not only the assessments of the evolving international security environment description. It has also helped to develop an overall USA grand strategy prescription. The significance of such phenomena as international anarchy, system structure, nuclear weapons, economic interdependence, the spread of democracy, and the end of the Cold War as well as proposals for how the USA should react to and attempt to shape such international phenomena are largely determined by the analytical perspective of the strategist (Strategic Planning, 2006). Analytical premises and assumptions shape not only strategic assessments but also prescriptions for action, according to the U.S. Navy Military Syllabus (2006). As John Maynard Keynes put it, “practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct academic scribbler of a few years back” (Mead, 2004). It is important, therefore, according to the U.S. Navy Military Syllabus (2006) to develop an understanding of and appreciation for the contending analytical perspectives in international relations at the outset of our efforts to grapple with alternative grand strategies. It is also important to recognize that these three analytical perspectives should not be confused with political perspectives (Strategic Planning, 2006). It has been observed that the USA's image and public opinion is that this country is a superpower. In most parts of the world, this country is regarded as highly influential. It has the capacity to effect changes due to its many resources and aggressiveness. However, as shown by the current statistics, it has not been the case anymore in the last few years. That is about to end soon. As such, Goldman Sachs estimated in the late 2003 that China's Gross Domestic Product would surpass that of the USA as a superpower so long as it is ruled by the Chinese Communist Party in 2042 (The Great Decisions, 2005). In developing the grand strategy for the USA, American strategists should not use the terrorist threat’ or any other excuses that comes at hand to justify their strategies. It has to create a grand strategy based on justifiable and clear facts. As the official rationales for the USA’s invasion of Iraq that this Middle East country possessed “weapons of mass destruction” which threatened the national security of the USA (Zunes, 2003). But up to the present time, those weapons of mass destruction have not been proven as existent. Another reason given by the USA is that the Iraqi government had operational ties to al-Qaida (Zunes, 2005). The latter are now widely acknowledged to have been fabricated. Many years have past and the proofs for these have not yet been established. The back-up rationalization of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq (Zunes, 2005) is also losing credibility. Increasing attention is being given as to why the US government with broad bipartisan support made such a fateful decision (Zunes, 2006). This will not work. The USA needs radical departure from its current course (Dryer, 2005). There is no clear indication of this rationalization. The sincerity of this has been questioned around the world. The strategy of primacy will have basic effects such that it will reassure the USA’s allies and coalition partners. The USA said they will stand by them in times of need. It will signal to potential aggressors both at the regional and global levels that move against the USA. Its many interests abroad can only come at very high cost to them. A rising China and India are among the potent competitors to the USA’s pre-eminence. There is also a fear that a rogue state like the North Korea may try to strike the USA’s homeland. The most important factor in the primacy strategy is the USA's political will to lead rather than the costs of that leadership (Marquardt, 2006). It should be noted that primacy has its shortcomings. This country might try to prevent it. Such that, other states will balance against the United States of America in order to contain its power and influence (Marquardt, 2006). Primacy best exemplifies the George W. Bush administration's foreign policy from the year 1989 to 1992. The development, maintenance and the exercise of the USA's power occupied the centre of the Bush administration's vision of a "new world order" (Kristoll and Kagan, 1996). National security planning documents argued that this country should harness its formidable military power to establish a post-Cold War ‘Pax Americana’. This power would reassure the USA’s allies that their security was in the country’s national interest and serve as a clear rationale against their enhancing their own defences. These defences might one day be used to challenge the USA's global leadership. Another important element of the grand strategy is that collective security is different from the primacy. That is, collective security favours multilateral mechanisms to achieve the goals. There are a number of mechanisms that should be put in place in order to achieve collective security. It should be noted that collective security seeks modest increases in spending. On the other hand, primacy puts unilateral action above coordinated action. This unilateral action is focused on achieving primacy (Mead, 2004). The use of force by the USA on Iraq is one indication that this country does not respect the Democratic Peace Theory (Mertus & Carter, 2005). This is in fact a direct violation of that principle. No country has the right to use force on another country. The imposition of sanctions is not expected on the USA by Iraq, or from any other country for that matter (Mertus & Carter, 2005).. Iraq has to resolve its own internal problems. If there is any institution which can intervene in the internal affairs of Iraq, it is the United Nations, or other country organizations Iraq is a member of. The general neglect of non-violent alternative responses to state violence being committed by the USA is a valid justification for the United Nations to discuss this invasion being committed by this country (Mertus & Carter, 2005). In retrospect, it would appear that the USA was trying to gain full control of as much oil reserve as possible. Sometimes we need to read ‘in between the lines’ to try to see the true motives of war. Soon after troops where employed to fight, the majority of Americans protested against the war, wanting their young boys to stay home. President George W. Bush went through much trouble to prove his motives in sustaining the war in Iraq. This resulted to rocketing crude prices. As proof of this, the oil prices increased to more than thirty per cent due to the backlash of the war. Price of gas at the pump on the average went from $1.99 per gallon, to at times, over $3 per gallon. This created hard times for truckers, carriers and the like. Companies were forced to conserve oil in all aspects of the work place. This affected the health industry as well. Due to the high oil prices, companies had to cut back on health insurance of employees. This affected work moral in the work place (Mead, 2004). Employees often wondered if it was a sign of poor job stability. Companies had to cut the work force. In general, this makes for a weakening economy. All these point to one clear fact: the USA's 2003 war in Iraq did not shed light on Democratic Peace Theory. References Kristoll, William and Kagan, Robert. Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Foreign Affairs, July/August 1996. Marquardt, James J. 2006. “Grand Strategy and the Next President of the United States”. The Colby Reader. Mead, Walter Russell. 2004. America's Grand Strategy in a Power, Terror, Peace, and War in a World at Risk. CFR Book. Mertus, Julie and Hallward, Maia Carter. 2005. The Human Rights Dimensions of War in Iraq: Framework for Peace Studies Peace & Change 30 (1), 85–119. Strategic Planning. 2006. CCE-NWC Navy Military Syllabus. Zunes, Stephen. Bush Again Resorts to Fear-Mongering to Justify Iraq Policy. Foreign Policy in Focus. FPIF Commentary, October 12, 2005. Zunes, Stephen. D emocracy and Double Standards: The Palestinian ``Exception''. Foreign Policy in Focus. FPIF Commentary, December 27, 2005. Zunes, Stephen. Libby Indictment May Open Door to Broader Iraq War Deceptions. Foreign Policy in Focus. FPIF Commentary, November 14, 2005. Zunes, Stephen. 2003. Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism. Common Courage Press. Read More