...and economic sanctions against Iraq (largely aimed at cutting off oil sales) un.org/Depts/unmovic/…
Goals of the policy were (1) to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing a nuclear weapons program, (2) prevent him from attacking his neighbors, & (3) protect the Kurds in northern Iraq.
By the early 2000s, there emerged a dispute between France and the United States over whether to continue "containment".
For France, ending containment was sensible since (1) Iraq was weak, (2) UN inspections could continue and confirm whether Iraq had WMD/nuclear program 👇.... cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/…
France, opposed. They viewed using force as setting a bad precedent and, hence, threatened to veto any UNSC resolution seeking to authorize the use of force. c-span.org/video/?c450663…
Then Bush issued his ultimatum and the invasion began two days later.
Having given this background, the key question becomes: why invasion? Why was the Bush administration so keen on invasion as the alternative to containment?
That is where the IR scholarship comes in!
Explanation 1: The 9/11 connection.
The Bush administration did a lot publicly to link 9/11 to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein
This meant the public was "primed" to go along with the war due to a need for revenge, as explored by @LindaSkitka & Peter Lieberman in Public Opinion Quarterly
In particular, Bush was concerned about preventing threats BEFORE they attacked. Hence, invading Iraq had a "preventive war" element. In his 2008 ISA presidential address, Jack Levy discussed the role of preventive logic in the Iraq war
This is consistent with @MMazarr's recent account, arguing that the need to protect America from "another 9/11" took on almost missionary zeal with Bush
As @PatPorter76 lays out in this @ip_palgrave piece, invading Iraq & establishing a democracy was seen as a way of undermining the "Delta of Terrorism"
Porter is arguing against Dan Deudney & John Ikenberry, who wrote in @SurvivalEditors that "the primary objective of the war was the preservation and extension of American primacy in a region with high importance to American national interests"
Explanation 2: invading Iraq was a demonstration of US dominance (this is a variant of the Deudney and Ikenberry argument).
@ahsanib in @SecStudies_Jrnl describes the Iraq War as a “performative war”, done to demonstrate American willingness to use force to suppress challenges to its authority. Such a demonstration became imperative following the "humiliation" of 9/11
At the time invading Iraq became percieved as less costly than maintaining containment (with sanctions and the low-level fighting es), as argued by Andrew Coe in @The_JOP.
Indeed, as @Malfrid_BH recently argued in in @Journal_IS, containment was simply unsustainable due to making it impossible for Iraq to credibly signal that it did NOT have (or wish to pursue) WMD
This touches on the "dual dilemma" of reassurance (towards USA) and deterrence (towards Iran) that Saddam faced. This is debated by David Lake and @mkmckoy in @Journal_IS
It was only a matter of time before US invaded Iraq to remove Saddam. Harvey argues that the invasion of Iraq would have taken place regardless of who won the Presidency in 2000 (Bush or Gore) because he was a problem that eventually had to be replaced. amazon.com/Explaining-Ira…
The main points of Harvey's argument are illustrated well in this presentation
Explanation 5: Munich Analogy
Related to the "matter of time" argument, Jon Finer's @ForeignAffairs review of "The U.S. Army in the Iraq War" connects the eventual invasion decision to the "Munich Analogy" and remorse for not "finishing the job" in 1991 foreignaffairs.com/reviews/review…
What to conclude? What all of these works show is that the actual decision for war eludes us.
That's because, as @DraperRobert argues in his recent account, the ultimate decision was George W Bush's and it's still not clear exactly what ultimately made up his mind (and when
The best we have is the post-hoc justifications that he offers in his memoirs amazon.com/Decision-Point…
We might eventually know (when more archives open), but, like the origins of the Vietnam War, it will likely continue to be debated without resolution.
[END]
Addendum 1: What exactly did Bush say in his memoir? From my read, it seems that he bought into a sixth explanation (which combines #1 & #2): setting an example to prevent nuclear proliferation (in particular, to prevent 🇮🇷 from pursuing the bomb).
By mid-August of 2002, it was confirmed to Bush that Iran had a nuclear program (as Bush describes, page 415, of his memoir)
The "Axis of evil" remark is referring to his 2002 State of the Union address
During that speech, he made the following remark
But Bush apparently had two reasons to NOT attack Iran:
1) it appears that Bush found the "budding freedom movement" in Iran encouraging
2) It's very likely that Iraq was viewed as the "easier" target. Here is Bush describing what Colin Powell said to him about invading Iraq
Again, we must be careful making inferences from a memoir. Still, Bush's post-hoc rationalization shouldn't be completely dismissed.
Addendum 2: Some additional pieces that elaborate on each of the five explanations given above
For more on explanation 3, the unsustainability of containment (namely, how it was likely doomed from the beginning) & explanation 5, the failure to finish the job in '91, see this recent @TXNatSecReview piece by Samuel Helfont tnsr.org/2021/02/the-gu…
For more on Explanation 5, that there was a need to eventually "finish the job" and not allow the problem of Saddam to "fester", see @PhdTravlos & @drbvaler in @DuckofMinerva, where they discuss how the US-Iraq "rivalry" created dynamics that led to war
Relatedly, to further understand how the long-standing US-Iraq rivalry drove US military strategy (to focus on quickly responding against small powers, rather than engage in a permanent standoff against a great power) see @steven_metz's book
Addendum 4: For a comparative perspective on the decision to invade Iraq (i.e. context with overall US foreign policy & politics), several good works include...
...Florian Boller in Democracy and Security article on the decision of congress to authorize interventions... tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…
Which of these two men is most responsible for World War II?
Short answer: not Churchill
Long answer: [THREAD]
To be clear, in this thread I am dealing with the onset of the war in Europe. The War in Asia was just as important and obviously connected to Europe. But that is for another thread. For now, I do highly recommend Paine's book "The Wars for Asia"
Solving the "Europe Problem" has vexed US foreign policy since the beginning.
[THREAD]
As I wrote last week, a key trait of US "grand strategy" since the founding of the Republic was "Go West" either by expanding US territory west or seeking to maintain trade with China.
Since the founding of the republic, US foreign policy has been about one thing:
Go west (and don't let Europe get in the way).
[THREAD]
I'll write more about "don't let Europe get in the way" in another 🧵. This one will focus on the "Go west" part (which will also touch on the Europe part).
One could go so far as to argue that the Republic itself was founded because of a desire to go west. Specifically, the colonials were forbidden to go west of the 1763 Proclamation line.
When you hear "Liberal International Order", just think "the G-7, for better and for worse"
[THREAD]
While some scholars and policy makers like to speak of the "Liberal International Order" as the collection of post-World War II international institutions.... cambridge.org/core/journals/…
...the phrase itself is much more recent in origins, largely a product of the mid-1990s.
As I wrote in my latest for @WPReview, shifting patterns in population growth will inevitably influence international politics. worldpoliticsreview.com/global-demogra…
This isn't a new idea. It's one found in classic works on change in world politics.