Causes of 2003 Us Iraq War
Liberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory
As Causes for the 2003 US-Iraq War Many factors went into the decision of United States leaders to enter into war with Iraq in 2003. These reasons can be related to various classical and modern theories on the causes of war between states. Though there are several stances and viewpoints on the righteousness or legality of the war on Iraq, an objective eye will notice that the real factors for going to war are neither grounded in righteousness nor law. They involve the maintenance of peace and power for those in control, in this case, the United States. The theories of Liberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory both sufficiently account for the United States' main motivations for entering war with Iraq. Liberalism will account for the motivation of preserving the world peace while Hegemonic Stability Theory will account for the influence of world power on the United States' decision to go to war. Coupled with a case study on the US-Iraq war, these theories will help to better understand the reasoning behind the war. I will begin with a description of the two theories I have chosen, Liberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory. I will then briefly explain some of the real life events and decisions that went into the decision to go to war. Following, I will tie the case study to the two theories and give examples as to where they overlap. I will finish by explaining how I feel these two theories adequately explain the causes for the US-Iraq war.
Background on Liberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory Liberalism is based heavily on Immanuel Kant's writings on perpetual peace. Kant's theory does not outwardly explain the causes for war, but the climate for peace among liberal nations. One must look to the reasons for peace in order to determine the causes for war. Kant describes three conditions that are needed for perpetual peace, the first being that the citizens of a state will begin to demand economic and judicial
As Causes for the 2003 US-Iraq War Many factors went into the decision of United States leaders to enter into war with Iraq in 2003. These reasons can be related to various classical and modern theories on the causes of war between states. Though there are several stances and viewpoints on the righteousness or legality of the war on Iraq, an objective eye will notice that the real factors for going to war are neither grounded in righteousness nor law. They involve the maintenance of peace and power for those in control, in this case, the United States. The theories of Liberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory both sufficiently account for the United States' main motivations for entering war with Iraq. Liberalism will account for the motivation of preserving the world peace while Hegemonic Stability Theory will account for the influence of world power on the United States' decision to go to war. Coupled with a case study on the US-Iraq war, these theories will help to better understand the reasoning behind the war. I will begin with a description of the two theories I have chosen, Liberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory. I will then briefly explain some of the real life events and decisions that went into the decision to go to war. Following, I will tie the case study to the two theories and give examples as to where they overlap. I will finish by explaining how I feel these two theories adequately explain the causes for the US-Iraq war.
Background on Liberalism and Hegemonic Stability Theory Liberalism is based heavily on Immanuel Kant's writings on perpetual peace. Kant's theory does not outwardly explain the causes for war, but the climate for peace among liberal nations. One must look to the reasons for peace in order to determine the causes for war. Kant describes three conditions that are needed for perpetual peace, the first being that the citizens of a state will begin to demand economic and judicial
Cited: Bush, George W. 2002. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America [online]. Washington DC: The White House. [cited 2 May 2005]. Available from the World Wide Web: [http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html] Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Liberalism and World Politics. Conflict After the Cold War. Edited By Richard K. Betts. 2005. New York: Pearson-Longman. pp291-306. Feaver, Peter D., 2002. Don 't Substitute Spy Services for Leadership. American Diplomacy vol. 8 no. 2 2002: 1-3. Gilpin, Robert. 1981. Hegemonic War and International Change. Conflict After the Cold War. Edited By Richard K. Betts. 2005. New York: Pearson-Longman. pp93-104. Kant, Immanuel. 1964. Perpetual Peace. Conflict After the Cold War. Edited By Richard K. Betts. 2005. New York: Pearson-Longman. pp121-127. Keohane, Robert, and Joseph S. Nye. 1989. Power and Interdependence. Conflict After the Cold War. Edited By Richard K. Betts. 2005. New York: Pearson-Longman. pp139-145. McCartney, Paul T., 2004. American Nationalism and U.S. Foreign Policy from September 11 to the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly vol. 119 no. 3 2004: 399-423.