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…
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…
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
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…
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…
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