The Iraq War

The invasion by United States of America in Iraq soil in 2003 has become the costliest

use of armed force, largest and longest war the U.S has engaged in modern times since the

Vietnam war. It was the first major post-cold war in which U.S undertook military action towards

fighting an international organization. Though the invasion decision was unprecedented in some

respects, more so concerning the extensive U.S military involvement on an Arab or Muslim

country, the contention regarding the invasion of Iraq can be understood in reference to

international relations theories. This paper provides an examination of the best theory that

describes the causes of the war and thereafter the worst theory which offers interpretations

regarding the war.

The main reasons that led to the war included the alleged development by Iraq of

Weapons of Mass Destruction as well as the purported links in which the government of Saddam

Hussein was accused of having links to the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. Thus this war was a

part of the broader fight by the U.S towards terrorism. This was in the was after the 9/11 attacks

on America that led them to fight global terrorist. Iraq provided training camps as well as other

support towards the terrorist groups who were fighting the government of Iran and Turkey.

The best theory that describes the Iraq war is the Neorealism theory. This is a theory

about international politics. It was formulated by Kenneth Waltz whereby he endeavored towards

constructing a general framework that does explain the recurring patterns of the behavior of state

as well as the interactions of the state within the international system (Yordn 127). The domains

of this theory dwell on the issues of the past, present and future in the international relations of

war and the avoidance of war, power seeking, power balancing as well as the death of the states,

competition in security, arms race as well as the formation of alliances.

 The basic tenets of neorealism do enable a systematic approach towards studying the

shifts of state behavior. There are six fundamental concepts that are considered in neorealism

theory. They include; structure, anarchy, the distribution of power, capability, national interest

and polarity. The first two concepts structure and anarchy are intertwined. This is because the

structure of the international system is regarded as being anarchic (Mearsheimer 7). Usage of the

term anarchy does not entail presence of disorder and chaos, rather, it simply means the absence

of having a world government. By having no overarching global authority which provides

stability and peace in international relations, the global politics thus are not formally neither

hierarchically organized. The international politics are structured in an anarchic manner as

contrasted to domestic politics which are structure in a hierarchical manner. Hence the

international system is considered in terms of an anarchic international structure (Mearsheimer

9). It is evidenced from the above tenets that the U.S merits in all of them as being precipitants

that fueled the cause of the war. This is because the U. S wanted to overthrow the anarchic

structure that was in Iraq.

There are two implications of having an anarchic structure. First, every actor within the

international system should be responsible towards looking after itself. The system should be

composed of self-regarding units which primarily seek survival. The national states are

considered as the only entities in the international relations which have the centralized legitimate

authority of using force in looking after themselves (Yordan 126). Thus, the sovereign states

constitute the units of international system and are the primary actors in world politics.

Henceforth, the organizing principle about international structure is actually anarchy and the

structure itself is defined in terms of the states, in which the states in this paper are U.S and Iraq.

Second, the states have a perpetual feeling of being threatened from potential attacks by other
states, as evidenced by the threats by AL Qaeda from Iraq towards U.S. However, in this

assumption, there is no one single state that commands by virtue of authority, hence, no state that

is obliged to obey (Mearsheimer 8).

Since each state constantly feels insecure, each thus needs of being capable of fending

itself. This does lead to the concept of capability. Capabilities are vital for states in ensuring their

survival. This survival aim does encourage relative gains. A neorealist assessment of capability

of the states is determined through five criteria; its demographic, natural resource endowment,

military, economic and technological capacities (Mearsheimer 9). As each states achieve various

levels of capabilities-which serve as the primary survival goals, the states within the international

system are thus then differentiated according to their levels of capability. Scholars of neorealism

strive in painting the relational picture regarding the capabilities of each state that it does possess

within a particular epoch. This is thus referred as relative capability (Yordan 128).

Since states are perpetually insecure, they seek to acquire capabilities. In striving towards

attaining security from potential attacks, the states are driven into acquiring more and more

capabilities so as to escape the impact of the capabilities of the other states. This hence does

render the other states feeling more insecure thus prepare for the worst. Since there is no single

state that will feel entirely secure in a world that is competing, this does ensue to the vicious

cycle of security and accumulation of capability. Of note is that in this competition of security,

state will achieve varying degrees of capability (Mearsheimer 10). The U.S in this case strived to

attain security to all its citizens and this was the primary precipitant of the invasion to Iraq.

The worst theory that tries to explain the U.S invasion of Iraq is the Neoliberalism theory.

It asserts the value of the free market competition. It is characterized by a belief of sustained

economic growth as being the means of achieving human progress by placing its confidence in
the free market as being the most efficient allocation of resources. This theory does emphasize

minimal state involvement or intervention through social and economic affairs by having a

commitment towards freedom of trade and capital (Mearsheimer 10). This theory fails in

explaining the U.S invasion of Iraq adequately because its conviction about causes of war issues

beliefs that the state should at least reduce drastically the strength as well as size of any

transgressions by the state beyond those that ae legitimate to be unacceptable. These beliefs can

be although they can be applied at the international level whereby a system of free trade as well

as free markets ought to be implemented, fails at ensuring that the interests of one country are

not sabotaged by the interests of another as evidence in the Iraq war (Mearsheimer & Walt,

2003).

Works Cited

Yordn, Carlos L. "America's Quest for Global Hegemony: 'Offensive Realism, the Bush

Doctrine, and the 2003 Iraq War'." Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political

Theory 2006: 125. JSTOR Journals. Web. 18 Feb. 2017.

Mearsheimer, John. J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, 2003. New York, NY: W.W. Norton

Samuel, Annie Tracy. "The Open Door And U.S. Policy In Iraq Between The World

Wars." Diplomatic History 38.5 (2014): 926-952. Academic Search Premier. Web. 18

Feb. 2017.