KEY QUESTION: What motived the US in 2003 to invade Iraq and was it in their national interest?

TEAM AMERICA…

#@%$

Argument: In light of perceived national security threats - i.e. 9/11, Iraqi WMD, threatened US oil interests in the Middle East - the neoconservative clique in Washington leading up to 2003 convinced Congress and a vast percentage of the US public that invading Iraq was in the national interest, and subsequently implemented neo-conservative foreign policy in order to justify war in Iraq.

Contributing to the conversation/discussion…

Please participate in discussion throughout the presentation either verbally or online in this discussion forum – participation is welcomed!

Here you can make use of this BACK-CHANNEL tool to share your ideas, opinions, and perspectives on material presented here – no account needed! You may also want to ask questions to be answered by either members of the audience or myself throughout or at a later date

You may also want to continue the conversation after the presentation and give me feedback for improvement or other… I’d love to hear your thoughts!

Cheers!

URL for the forum:https://todaysmeet.com/HTAAiraqwar

There is also a Twitter handle if you prefer: #htaairaq

Contributing to collaborative note-taking…Please also participate in note-taking in a collaborative fashion using the ShamblesPad I have set up specifically for this session– participation is welcomed!

Here you can make use of the many and differing thoughts, perspectives, ideas and interpretations on the evidence presented. You then have a dynamic and varied set of notes to take-away, plus a new idea to perhaps integrate into your teaching Another alternative that allows for more functionality in collaborative note-taking is to use a shared Google Doc.

URL for the Shambles Pad:http://shamblespad.com/p/htaairaq

Where will we be going?

• Learning Intent:By the end of this presentation you will,Know three theories of

international relations foreign policy: Liberalism, Realism and Neo-conservatism,

And apply them to an historical event in order to better understand its causal factors

• Success CriteriaDecide to what extent

you think neoconservative US foreign policy influenced political decision making leading up to the 2003 Iraq War, and ultimately caused the War.

Where will we be going?1. Definitions: What are the key political theories and terms necessary to understanding US foreign policy at the time of the Iraq War?>> Sources (addressing throughout): Who are the key politicians and academics associated with the event and what are their perspectives?2. Background Context (causes, changes and continuity): What earlier events influenced the Bush administration’s decision making in the decades leading up to the 2003 Iraq War?3. Interests and Arguments: Whose interests were best served by the Iraq War, and what are the arguments around this?4. Reflections: Where does this leave us now?

DEFINITIONS: What are the key political theories necessary to understanding US foreign policy at the time of the Iraq War?

• Liberalism– Focus on ideals such as human rights, liberty, and democracy– Incorporates modern conceptions of ethical behaviour

between states– Confidence in International institutions– Realists view Liberalism as over-ambitious, unrealistic and

over-optimistic

"The Law of World Citizenship Shall Be Limited to Conditions of Universal Hospitality“ (Immanuel Kant, Third Definitive Article for a Perpetual Peace, 1795)

“The State, according to my ideas, is a society of men established for the sole purpose of the establishment, preservation and promotion of their civil interests. I call on civil interests, life, freedom The health of the body, the possession of external goods, such as are money, land, houses, furniture, and things of that nature ” (John Locke, A Letter concerning Toleration, 1689)

DEFINITIONS: What are the key political theories necessary to understanding US foreign policy at the time of the Iraq War?

• Realism– Inevitable conflict– Balance of power– Anarchical international system– 3 core assumptions: Groupism; Egoism; Power-centrism– Liberalists view realists as pessimistic

“it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails. My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved.” (Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince 1537)

“... the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. ... The condition of man ... is a condition of war of everyone against” everyone. (Hobbes, Leviathan 1651)

“ the web of social and political life is spun out of inclinations and incentives, deterrents threats and punishments. Eliminate the latter two, and the ordering of society depends entirely on the former – a utopian thought impractical this side of Eden.”(Kenneth Waltz, Theory of International Politics, 1979)

DEFINITIONS: What are the key political theories necessary to understanding US foreign policy at the time of the Iraq War?

• Neo-Conservatism:– A US political theory that it should pursue a tough foreign

policy on behalf of morality.– Four tenets:

• Distinguish between ‘good’ states and ‘bad’ states• Belief that US should remain global hegemon (pre-eminent

military and high defence budgets)• Willingness to use military force to attain US goals• Suspicion of international institutions (U.N. etc.)

“The alternative is to leave monsters on the loose, ravaging and pillaging to their hearts’ content … Because America has the capacity to contain or destroy many of the world’s monsters, most of which can be found without much searching, and because the responsibility for the peace and security of the international order rests so heavily on America’s shoulders …” (Kristol and Kagan, Foreign Affairs (75), 1996:31)

DEFINITIONS: What are the key terms necessary to understanding US foreign policy at the time of the Iraq War?

• National Interest:– In simple terms, the national interest, often referred to by

the French expression raison d'État ("reason of State"), is a country's goals and ambitions whether economic, military, or cultural, and used as a tool to mobalise society in support of government policy.

In The Idea of National Interest (1934), Charles Beard traced the history of the concept of 'national interest' to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when modern nation-states began to crystallise. Unsurprisingly, the rise of the nation-state and the use of the term occurred at the same time. Beard found that after the development of the nation-state and the appearance of nationalist sentiments, older terms – the 'will of the prince' and 'raison d'état' – lost their ability to mobilise the public will. They were therefore replaced by references to 'national interests' and 'vital interests'. Other terms used for their mobilising capacity include 'national honour', 'public interest' and 'general will'. (School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of NSW)

– Some scholars, such as Rouseau, link the national interest intrinsically of the existence of society >>> a symbiotic relationship

The bond of society is what there is in common between these different interests, and if there were not some point in which all interests were identical, no society could exist. The bond of society is that identity of interests which all feel who compose it. In the absence of such an identity no society would be possible. Now, it is solely on the basis of this common interest that society must be governed. (Rousseau 1960:190)

– Interestingly, it is difficult to support DFAT’s statement below when viewed in light of the thesis presented today:

The national interest does not change with a change in government. (DFAT, Submission to the DFAT Senate Committee on East Timor, 1999.

Background Context: Change and continuity leading up to the 2003 Iraq War.

Rise of neo-conservatism in the late stages of the Cold War.

Neoconservative view of Vietnam War• A noble and winnable war• US public/media fickle• Need stronger military budget

Clinton Years: NCs on the ideological and political margins• End of Cold War: NCs without external

other >>> justified existence of political thought?• Fukiyama 1989: ‘End of History’

Kristol & Kagan’s 1996 Foreign Affairs article:

• A consistently strong defence budget that reinforces the power disparity between the US and would-be challengers;

• Educating the American public of the importance of supporting the US armed forces as they carry out the ‘responsibilities of global hegemony’;

• Clear moral purpose to promote democracy, free markets, and individual liberty abroad.

PNAC 1998 signatories

SOURCES: Khong, Y. in Smith, S. et al. 2012; and Hubris 2013

Causes: neo-conservatism

Tenets of neo-conservative foreign policy thought

1. Moral clarity about forces of good and evil in the international arena: liberal democracies are GOOD; tyrannies are BAD

2. A benevolent US hegemony will be good for all

3. USA should show greater willingness to use military force to pursue its goals

4. International law and institutions are unreliable in achieving peace/justice

Application of tenets to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq Saddam is the No.1 member of the

‘Axis of Evil’; regime change leading to a democratic Iraq >>> democratising the Middle East

Regime change in Iraq will remove a major adversary and reinforce US power in Middle East

Saddam possesses WMD, containment not working, military force only way to achieve US goals

UN resolution is unnecessary; ‘coalition of the willing’ is sufficient

(Kristol & Kagan 1998; Khong, Y. in Smith, S. et al. 2012:316)

Causes: neo-conservatism

In 2000, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice defined the US national interest in the post-Cold War era as five-fold,

“(1) to ensure that America’s military can deter war, project power, and fight in defense of its interests if deterrence fails; (2) to promote economic growth and political openness by extending free trade and a stable international monetary system to all committed to these principles, including in the western hemisphere, which has too often been neglected as a vital area of U.S. national interest; (3) to renew strong and intimate relationships with allies who share American values and can thus share the burden of promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom; (4) to focus U.S. energies on comprehensive relationships with the big powers, particularly Russia and China, that can and will mold the character of the international political system; (5) and to deal decisively with the threat of rogue regimes and hostile powers, which is increasingly taking the forms of the potential for terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”.

Rice, Condoleezza. 2000. “Promoting the national interest.” Foreign Affairs. 79(Jan./Feb): 45-62.

Causes: neo-conservatism

Former Secretary of State Rice 2000. “Promoting the national interest.” Foreign Affairs. 79(Jan./Feb): 45-62.

“(1) to ensure that America’s military can deter war, project power, and fight in defense of its interests if deterrence fails; (2) to promote economic growth and political openness by extending free trade and a stable international monetary system to all committed to these principles, including in the western hemisphere, which has too often been neglected as a vital area of U.S. national interest; (3) to renew strong and intimate relationships with allies who share American values and can thus share the burden of promoting peace, prosperity, and freedom; (4) to focus U.S. energies on comprehensive relationships with the big powers, particularly Russia and China, that can and will mold the character of the international political system; (5) and to deal decisively with the threat of rogue regimes and hostile powers, which is increasingly taking the forms of the potential for terrorism and the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD)”.

President Bush, 19 March 2003

“On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war ... We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people ... Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”

Causes: 9/11 as a trigger

“The lesson of September 11: take care of threats early” (National security advisor Condoleeza Rice, October 2002)

“Is this the time to attack Iraq?”(Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on 15 September 2001 at meeting held at Camp David, cited in Woodward 2002:43,84)

Bill Day, 12 Sep. 2001, The Cagle Post

David Horsey, 2002. www.seatlepi.com

Causes: 9/11 as a trigger

Bush’s address to the nation 2001 after 9/11:Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts ... These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed; our country is strong ...These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve. America was targeted for attack because we are the brightest beacon for freedom and opportunity in the world. and no one will keep that light from shining. Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature. And we responded with the very best of America - with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could ...I've directed the full resources of our intelligence and law enforcement communities to find those responsible and to bring them to justice. We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them. America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism ...None of us will ever forget this day. Yet, we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world ...(www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001)

Neoconservative Tenet 1: Moral clarity/good vs evil

Neoconservative Tenet 3: US willingness to use force

Neoconservative Tenets 2 & 4: US hegemony restabilise global security & US led coalition (no global institution).

Causes: Bush’s 1% Doctrine

“We [the United States] must build and maintain our defenses beyond challenge … Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends. . . .We must deter and defend against the threat before it is unleashed”.

U.S. National Security Strategy: Prevent Our Enemies From Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction , 2002

Author Ron Suskind discusses his research and subsequent book

Interests & Arguments: Debate around WMD

• US’s power unrivaled after Cold War

• No tangible evidence to link 9/11 to Iraq & WMD = bogus threat!

Hubris: Selling the Iraq War, 2014First 6 minutes here deal with debunking the links being established by the Bush administration

‘…a classic modern strategy of endangered right wing oligarchy which is to divert mass [domestic] discontent to nationalism inspired by fear of enemies that are about to destroy us.’ (Chomsky, 2002)

“Both logic and historical evidence suggest a policy of vigilant containment would work, both now and in the event Iraq acquires a nuclear arsenal. Why? Because the United States and its regional allies are far stronger than Iraq. And because it does not take a genius to figure out what would happen if Iraq tried to use WMD to blackmail its neighbors, expand its territory, or attack another state directly. It only takes a leader who wants to stay alive and who wants to remain in power. Throughout his lengthy and brutal career, Saddam Hussein has repeatedly shown that these two goals are absolutely paramount. That is why deterrence and containment would work.”

Harvard University Professor of International Relations Stephen Walt together with Professor of Political Science at University of Chicago John Miersheimer ‘Unnecessary War’, in ‘Foreign Policy’, January 1, 2003

Interests & Arguments: Opposition to the war

• Academics united to voice their opposition to the war:– Many were realist

scholars who support military action when its in the national interest

– Their argument:Iraq War = Not in US national interests

“War with Iraq is Not in America’s National Interest,” New York Times, paid advertisement, 26 September 2002.

Motives, Interests & Arguments: Drill baby, drill!

BP statistical review of world energy 2013Consumption per 1000 barrels daily

World consumption increase:• 2005 gap between US/OECD and

world = 3 times that of gap in 1965.

Cartoons by Australian cartoonist, May 2003

Interests & Arguments: Drill baby, drill!

Interests & Arguments: Drill baby, drill!

BP statistical review of world energy 2013Oil proved reserves 1000 million barrels

NEOCONSERVATIVE VIEW: CAUSE/EFFECTWithout US invasion, >>> US sanctions not enough; >>> Iraqi oil remains ‘off the market’ for US; >>> Iraq continues selling oil to US competitors: China, Russia and France >>> Saddam gains in power avoiding US sanctions designed to prohibit a market for Iraqi oil >>> and, Saddam uses Iraqi oil for political advantage, i.e. link US access to oil contingent on US policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict.>>> Saddam had to go and Iraqi oil had to be secured!

Greenberg 2003 in Ventura Country Star

Reflections: Where does this leave us now?

“Faulty assumptions about the nature of Iraqi society, inadequate post-war planning, and above all incompetence in post-war reconstruction allowed the USA to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory”

(Galbraith 2006; Woodward 2006)

59% of Americans see the war as a mistake and 72% feel that the costs have exceeded the gains

(New York Times 2010)

Teaching this to a C21 Senior Modern History class

http://modernhistoryiraqwar.blogspot.com.au/