Analysis: Why The US Went To War With Iraq
Apply the system-level, state-level and individual-level of analysis to the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq. Which do you believe is the best level for analyzing why the US went to war with Iraq?
Systems analysts believe that any system operates in predictable ways--that there are behaviors that the countries usually follow. Although each of us has free will, each of us is also part of many overlapping systems that influence our behavior and make it reasonably, although far from perfectly, predictable. State-level analysis emphasizes the national states and their internal processes as the primary determinants of the course of world affairs. Individual-level of analysis focuses on human actors on the world stage. This approach begins …show more content…
by identifying the characteristics of decision making. (Rourke 47). It focuses on people.
The level that is best for analyzing why the Us went to war with Iraq is the state-level.
We as a whole in the US believe that everyone should be like us. We like to dominate in world affairs. In the war with Iraq justice had to be won and the bad guys needed to be taken down and taught a lesson. State level analysis examines foreign policy behavior. The state-level analysis would be the most appropriate because it covers the wide area of American politics, which influence our foreign policy, from "legislators, the media, public opinion, and opposition parties, as well as those foreign policy--making actors that influence authoritarian government policy"(Rourke 57). "No one suggested that Iran is a potential threat to the United States, any more than Iraq could ever have been a threat to the US. It's a threat to our ally, and those in the Likud Party, and AIPAC, who agree pretty consistently with Likud, feel that the best way to eliminate a threat is to destroy it, and they want America to use its military might to eliminate the threat" (Lerner). Such statements by active politicians prove that our foreign policy is influenced by groups outside the government, giving the state-level analysis a solid reason to be used when dissecting the 2003 decision to go to war with …show more content…
Iraq.
Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism. How effective have these two theoretical perspectives been in helping scholars understand the international system? Do you believe Realism or Liberalism does a better job of explaining the nature of international politics? Why? Realism and liberalism ideal that are similar yet opposite.
Realism is conservative and negative. Realists plan for durability of the current international state of affairs. Liberalism is progressive and hopeful. Liberals believe change is necessary and inevitable. Both realism and liberalism contain truths. Liberal’s hopeful view of international politics is based on these beliefs: liberals consider states to be the main actors in international politics, they emphasize that the internal characteristics of states vary, and that these differences have extreme effects on state behavior. Liberals also believe that calculations about power matter little for explaining the behavior of good states.
Realists are doubtful when it comes to international politics. Realists agree that creating a peaceful world would be best, but that would mean not having to worry about a world of security competition and war. "Realism," as E. H. Carr notes, "tends to emphasize the irresistible strength of existing forces and the inevitable character of existing tendencies, and to insist that the highest wisdom lies in accepting, and adapting oneself to these forces and these
tendencies."
Realist view of international relations is based on these beliefs: like liberals, realist treat states as the principal actors in world politics. Realists focus mainly on great powers, however, because these states dominate and shape international politics and they also cause the deadliest wars. Realists believe that the behavior of great powers is influenced mainly by their external environment, not by their internal characteristics. Realists hold that calculations about power dominate states' thinking, and that states compete for power among themselves.
I believe that the realist do a better job at explaining the nature of international politics. There is always a security threat, especially in our country-we have terror alerts for that very reason. I don’t agree with war but believe it is sometimes necessary. If the us declines in power someone will emerge as the front runner. A realist view is the only one to have…EXCEPT change IS inevitable!!!
Works Cited
Hi.ghered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072890363/student.../chapter3/ www.associatedcontent.com ›
Politics
magazine.uchicago.edu/0202/features/index.htm
"Realism and Liberalism Discuss and compare or contrast Realism and Liberalism." WriteWork.com. WriteWork.com, 13 March, 2005. Lerner, Michael. "The Israel Lobby, Bad for the U.S., Bad for Israel, Bad for Jews" Tikkun Sep-Oct. 2007 Rourke, John T, and Mark A. Boyer. International Politics on the World Stage Brief 7thEdition. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008 (47-69)
Systems analysts believe that any system operates in predictable ways--that there are behaviors that the countries usually follow. Although each of us has free will, each of us is also part of many overlapping systems that influence our behavior and make it reasonably, although far from perfectly, predictable. State-level analysis emphasizes the national states and their internal processes as the primary determinants of the course of world affairs. Individual-level of analysis focuses on human actors on the world stage. This approach begins …show more content…
by identifying the characteristics of decision making. (Rourke 47). It focuses on people.
The level that is best for analyzing why the Us went to war with Iraq is the state-level.
We as a whole in the US believe that everyone should be like us. We like to dominate in world affairs. In the war with Iraq justice had to be won and the bad guys needed to be taken down and taught a lesson. State level analysis examines foreign policy behavior. The state-level analysis would be the most appropriate because it covers the wide area of American politics, which influence our foreign policy, from "legislators, the media, public opinion, and opposition parties, as well as those foreign policy--making actors that influence authoritarian government policy"(Rourke 57). "No one suggested that Iran is a potential threat to the United States, any more than Iraq could ever have been a threat to the US. It's a threat to our ally, and those in the Likud Party, and AIPAC, who agree pretty consistently with Likud, feel that the best way to eliminate a threat is to destroy it, and they want America to use its military might to eliminate the threat" (Lerner). Such statements by active politicians prove that our foreign policy is influenced by groups outside the government, giving the state-level analysis a solid reason to be used when dissecting the 2003 decision to go to war with …show more content…
Iraq.
Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism. How effective have these two theoretical perspectives been in helping scholars understand the international system? Do you believe Realism or Liberalism does a better job of explaining the nature of international politics? Why? Realism and liberalism ideal that are similar yet opposite.
Realism is conservative and negative. Realists plan for durability of the current international state of affairs. Liberalism is progressive and hopeful. Liberals believe change is necessary and inevitable. Both realism and liberalism contain truths. Liberal’s hopeful view of international politics is based on these beliefs: liberals consider states to be the main actors in international politics, they emphasize that the internal characteristics of states vary, and that these differences have extreme effects on state behavior. Liberals also believe that calculations about power matter little for explaining the behavior of good states.
Realists are doubtful when it comes to international politics. Realists agree that creating a peaceful world would be best, but that would mean not having to worry about a world of security competition and war. "Realism," as E. H. Carr notes, "tends to emphasize the irresistible strength of existing forces and the inevitable character of existing tendencies, and to insist that the highest wisdom lies in accepting, and adapting oneself to these forces and these
tendencies."
Realist view of international relations is based on these beliefs: like liberals, realist treat states as the principal actors in world politics. Realists focus mainly on great powers, however, because these states dominate and shape international politics and they also cause the deadliest wars. Realists believe that the behavior of great powers is influenced mainly by their external environment, not by their internal characteristics. Realists hold that calculations about power dominate states' thinking, and that states compete for power among themselves.
I believe that the realist do a better job at explaining the nature of international politics. There is always a security threat, especially in our country-we have terror alerts for that very reason. I don’t agree with war but believe it is sometimes necessary. If the us declines in power someone will emerge as the front runner. A realist view is the only one to have…EXCEPT change IS inevitable!!!
Works Cited
Hi.ghered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072890363/student.../chapter3/ www.associatedcontent.com ›
Politics
magazine.uchicago.edu/0202/features/index.htm
"Realism and Liberalism Discuss and compare or contrast Realism and Liberalism." WriteWork.com. WriteWork.com, 13 March, 2005. Lerner, Michael. "The Israel Lobby, Bad for the U.S., Bad for Israel, Bad for Jews" Tikkun Sep-Oct. 2007 Rourke, John T, and Mark A. Boyer. International Politics on the World Stage Brief 7thEdition. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008 (47-69)