DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Influencing the United States

An inquiry into the domestic factors of American
foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia and Iraq Peter Cooper Elon University

Page

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Table of Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4 Review of Relevant Literature ..................................................................................................... 10 Public Opinion ........................................................................................................................... 11 National Interest ....................................................................................................................... 13 Economic Conditions ................................................................................................................. 16 Special Interest Groups ............................................................................................................. 18 Research Design ........................................................................................................................... 20 Public Opinion ........................................................................................................................... 22 National Security Spending ....................................................................................................... 22 Existence of Weapondollar Coalition ........................................................................................ 23 Lobbying .................................................................................................................................... 23 Analysis of Data ............................................................................................................................ 24 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 35 Bibliography.................................................................................................................................. 38 Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 43

Page

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Abstract

This study looks at the domestic factors of American foreign policy, specifically examining the role of public opinion, the national security interest, weapons sales, and lobbying. Major weapons corporations like Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are examined in an attempt to see if large corporations affect the United States foreign policy. American foreign policy is measured on a hawkish-dovish basis and the study finds that negative public opinion and increased military spending leads to a more hawkish foreign policy. However, data on lobbying and weapons sales seems to be inconclusive on its effect on American foreign policy.

Page

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Introduction
The United States is the worlds current superpower, with its influence reaching to the far corners of the globe. The United States foreign policy between different Arab countries in the Middle East varies and has gone through numerous changes over the years. Presidents can facilitate foreign policy that either tends to be dovish, like President Jimmy Carter, or hawkish like Ronald Reagan. A hawkish foreign policy tends to be more focused on military action and aggressiveness and a dovish regime tends to be more diplomatic and friendly. The United States tends to behave amiably towards countries that cooperate with American interests and unfriendly toward nations that are hostile to American interests. American foreign policy has shifted over time, changing dramatically after WWII, again during the Cold War, and again after September 11th, 2001 (9/11) (Al-Husseini, 2010). Involvement of the United States in foreign countries is more prevalent than ever, and the United States is often a catalyst for change in the international world today. Domestic factors play a large role in the development of foreign policy in the United States political system. Many factors including public opinion, the nations security, economic necessities, and lobbyists affect the creation of foreign policy. Lobbyists also affect the domestic creation and passing of foreign policy related issues ( Risse-Kappen, 1991; Meernik, and Ault 2001; Mayer, 2004; Kline, 2004; Mayer, 2004; Daniels, 2005; Smidt, 2005; Baumgartner et al., 2008; Synder et al., 2009; Albrecht and Schlumberger, 2004; Bilgin, 2004; Desch, 2007/2008; Bzostek and Robison, 2008; Pressman, 2009; Bichlar and Nitzan, 1996; Bahgat, 1999; Ross, 2001; Sen and Babali, 2006; Stern, 2006; Gable, 1958; Bard, 1988; Evans,
Page

1988; Ainsworth, 1993; Smith, 1995; Hojnacki and Kimball, 1999). By examining these domestic

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

factors, the objective is to shed light on how they each play a role in the creation of a particular foreign policy agenda. The Middle East has a long, varied history with the United States, consisting of multiple wars and interventions, as well as massive amounts of resources being transferred between the regions. The Middle East is a volatile region with a myriad of factors leading to its instability. Different countries, ethnicities, and religious beliefs splinter the region. Geographically, the Middle East extends from Western Sahara and Morocco to Egypt and Israel all the way to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. How does the United States affect this region and what is the goal of American foreign policy? What is American foreign policy exactly? How does it work? This leads to the question, what factors affect American foreign policy? This study looks specifically at domestic factors that affect American foreign policy toward two countries: Saudi Arabia and Iraq. To further understand these cases, a brief background of each country is explored.

Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia is the second largest oil-producing country with a total population of about 28.6 million people. Saudi Arabia has significant economic power, with GDP in 2010 estimated to be around 622.6 billion dollars, making it the 23rd strongest economy in the world (World Factbook, 2011). The creation of modern day Saudi Arabia began in 1932, before WWII. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was united under King Saud, from the previous states of Hejaz and Nejd. The House of Saud is often considered a pro-Western regime. Saudi Arabia has often been considered an ally of the United States, even though there have been periods of tension in bilateral relations. The American administration during the Cold
Page

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

War found Saudi Arabia to be an excellent state to help combat communism. The era of the Cold War scared American presidents of the time - Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy - who were all worried about the U.S.S.R. and the spread of communism. The Saudi Arabian government saw and currently sees communism as a godless, atheistic way of life. The Saudi regime loathed communism for the fact that it was godless; the American regime loathed communism because it was anti-capitalistic and threatened the American way of life. The two states agreed that communism was bad, but for very different reasons. The United States and Saudi Arabia also have a mutual interest in regional stability. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the United States and Saudi Arabia could not allow the first Gulf War get out of proportion. Saudi Arabia allowed American military forces into the country and permitted the occupation of Saudi land. The U.S. and Saudi Arabia shared strategic interests in the region, including regional stability, economic interest, and the fight against communism (United States Institute of Peace, 157). More recently, relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia have been lukewarm particularly because of the terrorist attacks in the United States on 9/11. Relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia struggled immediately after this time, given the fact that 15 of the 19 9/11 hi-jackers were Saudi nationals. This has led to a profound negative public opinion of Saudi Arabia by Americans today. Saudi officials have also acknowledged the negative effect the attacks had on Saudi Arabias relations with the United States (Blanchard, 2010). Despite the struggles between the United States and Saudi Arabia, healthy bi-lateral
Page

relations are of vital importance to both states because of economic and security interests,

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

among others. The National Security Adviser Tom Donilon met with the King of Saudi Arabia recently in April to confirm a partnership based on strong-historical ties and common interests (BBC Arabic, 2011). Back in 2004 the U.S. and Saudi Arabia established six mutually important
1

issues including counterterrorism, military affairs, energy, economic and financial affairs, cross-

cultural education and human development, and consular affairs (Blanchard, 2010). Military matters are imperative to American foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia. The United States has been Saudi Arabias leading arms supplier from 1950 to 2006, with the amount of military equipment sold to Saudi Arabia from the United States totaling $62.7 billion dollars. Interesting to note is that dollars are recycled between the two economies, as the United States buys oil from Saudi Arabia and in return, Saudi Arabia purchases grandiose amounts of military equipment from U.S. based defense contractors. The single largest recent U.S. foreign military sale to Saudi Arabia was a $9 billion dollar contract for 72 F-15 S fighter aircrafts (Blanchard, 2010) . The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia continues to buy many American goods such as concrete, wood, and construction materials because Saudi Arabia has a lot of oil and not a variety of raw materials. The interests of these U.S. based weapons contracting firms in selling arms to the Middle East will be examined in depth, specifically in their relation with American foreign policy. Energy plays a significant role in relations with Saudi Arabia. In 2009, the United States consumed 6.9 billion barrels of oil, accounting for 22% of total oil consumption in the world (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2009). Saudi Arabia accounts for about 10.4% of crude

Page

U.S. government contracts are bid on by US weapons manufacturers i.e. Boeing or Northrop Grumman, all of whom who bid competitively.

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

oil and petroleum products imported into the United States. In 2009, the United States imported about 1.1 million barrels of oil daily from Saudi Arabia (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2009). Saudi Arabia also has exceedingly large amounts of oil that they are not using; 3.5 million barrels a day -- of excess capacity that they could produce in case of a large increase in demand for oil (Al-Arabiyya, 2011). The only country that provides more oil to the United States is Canada. When a country depends on another country for a certain amount of a vital resource, politics are an integral part in keeping the relationship healthy.

Iraq Iraq was created back in 1920 by the Western powers after WWI and the division of the Ottoman Empire. The Imperial powers at the time, France and Great Britain, split up parts of the modern day Middle East. France took Syria and Lebanon and Great Britain took present day Iraq. In 1932, Iraq gained independence from Great Britain and the Iraqi monarchy that was instated ruled until 1958. This was the year that the military staged a coup d'tat and the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party came to power. Saddam Hussein entered power at this time. While in power from 1979 to 2003, Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, evoking prodigious American response to many different Iraqi actions. Throughout the past fifty years, Iraq has been in an eight year war with Iran which resulted in the deaths of millions, an attempted annexation of Kuwait that led to American involvement in the Persian Gulf War, and the overthrow of Saddams Baath party in 2003. The latter eventually led to the execution of Saddam Hussein in 2003 (Archive, 2007). Since the demise of the Hussein regime, the United
Page

States policy towards Iraq became increasingly more complex. Relations shifted from a bi-

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

lateral relationship between the U.S. and Iraq to a United States military dominated regime promoting democracy in the region. A stable Iraqi government was the goal of the United States, as seen through the policies of the Bush administration. The United States involvement toward Iraq has been one of occupation for the past seven years. Iraqi instability is of concern to the United States. The United States has concerns in regards to Iraqs future, which include: Iraqs participation in OPEC and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) the presence and safety of U.S. or other military based in Iraq after 2011, Iraqs future ability to project military force beyond its borders and Iraqs sovereign economic, political, and military relations with regional actors including Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, China, and Russia (Blanchard et al., 2009).2 The U.S. worries that the spread of sectarian and religious violence and terrorist attacks will spread throughout the region and possibly spread back to the homeland; consequently, the U.S. works closely with Saudi Arabia and partly with Iraq to help train counter-terrorists. The continual cooperation of these countries, and hopefully the Iraqi government, will create a reduction in transnational and Iraqi national terrorist activity. Currently, Iraqi security forces play the most important role in keeping security in the nation. American troops have been gradually withdrawing from Iraq, with the final date for full withdrawal set to be December 31, 2011 (Blanchard et al., 2009). However, the Obama administration has a contingency plan of withdrawal depending on a gradual build- up of Iraqi security forces and an Iraqi government that can eventually take care of itself. Critics argue that the withdrawal of U.S. troops could

The GCC includes Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAW, Qatar, Bahrain, and Oman

Page

lead to a dramatic fall in security and the political reconciliation could suffer between Iraqs

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

main religious groups including Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis and other types of political and ethnic groups. While the United States has different foreign policies toward Iraq and Saudi Arabia, there seem to be similar themes in its overall goal. Foreign policy toward these two Middle Eastern countries is affected through the advancement of security in the name of the national interest and the availability of oil and weapons markets. The domestic factors touched upon earlier will be examined in depth towards these two countries; public opinion, the nations security, economic necessities, and lobbyists. Powerful lobbyist groups can affect decision making in Congress and public opinion can affect the policy set by the Executive branch in the government. Special interest groups also affect the role of American foreign policy in the Middle East (Gharaibeh, 2006). An in-depth look into the weapons corporations that are part of the weapons markets and the effects of their lobbying will be scrutinized. The United States provides much of the world with weapons, and exploring these effects on policy in the Middle East is critical in understanding the region. American foreign policy is a complex phenomenon that needs to be explored in depth to know what it truly is and what it truly does.

Review of Relevant Literature

Scholars argue that four variables have shaped American foreign policy. Public opinion (Risse-Kappen, 1991; Meernik, and Ault 2001; Mayer, 2004; Kline, 2004; Mayer, 2004; Daniels, 2005; Smidt, 2005; Baumgartner et al., 2008; Synder et al., 2009), the United States national interest (Albrecht and Schlumberger, 2004; Bilgin, 2004; Desch, 2007/2008; Bzostek and Robison, 2008; Pressman, 2009) economic factors (Bichlar and Nitzan, 1996; Bahgat, 1999;

Page

10

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Ross, 2001; Sen and Babali, 2006; Stern, 2006) and lobbyists, who affect American foreign policy as well as the domestic creation of public policy (Gable, 1958; Bard, 1988; Evans, 1988; Ainsworth, 1993; Smith, 1995; Hojnacki and Kimball, 1999). All of these factors affect American foreign policy in the Middle East.

Public Opinion Public opinion of certain societal groups favor a hawkish foreign policy in the Middle East (Baumgartner et al., 2008).Thus, rather than giving out economic concessions to aggressor states, the Bush administration advocated a policy of aggression, which found support among groups that favored such a policy. Specific groups include Evangelicals, mainline Protestants, Baptists, neoconservatives, and conservatives, who were all more likely to support Bushs heavy handed policy in Iraq (Mayer, 2004; Daniels, 2005; Baumgartner et al., 2008). Evangelical and conservative fundamentalist Christian leaders also tend to demonize and vilify Islam and the prophet Muhammad (Mayer, 2004; Baumgartner et al., 2008). These hardline Christian leaders were a part of the Bush electorate, and therefore Bush needed to satisfy his voters. Bushs electorate consisted of these societal groups, and they influenced him as much as he influenced them. It is important to note that Bush had Evangelicals who believed in the Bible literally in his administration (Mayer, 2004). George W. Bush and his administration invoked rhetoric of good vs. evil in the Middle East not only against Saddam but also the war on terror (Kline, 2004; Desch, 2007/2008). Saddam Hussein was categorized as an evil-doer, and thus was seen as an

Page

Saddam Hussein as an evil-doer appealed to hardline religious conservatives who supported

11

enemy of the state and a National Security threat to the United States. The classification of

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Bushs hawkish foreign policy and unilateral advancement in the region (Daniels, 2005). Neoconservatives and religious conservatives, who were staunch supporters of Bushs policy in the Middle East, also believe in a connection between a strong, coherent, national domestic policy rooted in American identity (Kline, 2004; Bilgin, 2004). The idea of being American is an important factor in shaping public opinion on foreign policy. September 11 was a political catalyst in which the usual heterogeneous melting pot of the United States was able to unify under the umbrella of American (Snyder et al., 2009). September 11 created a domestic environment in which the public could tolerate war in the name of defense. The American public expects the President to have the nations primary interest of security and peace in mind when forming foreign policy (Meernik and Ault, 2001). When a part of a Presidents electorate sees an external threat, in this case Islam and Saddam Hussein (Smidt, 2005), the public expects the President to assess the external threat and protect his nation/voters. The majority of the public also believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the 2003 invasion (Smidt, 2005). The Bush doctrine and the idea of preventive war was a tolerable doctrine to the public. The public is able to distinguish between two distinct sets of foreign policies; the first is a policy that aims at restraining aggressive states, and the second is a policy that attempts to introduce internal change (Meernik and Ault, 2001). When a President is able to successfully maintain security of his country, public opinion remains high in approval of a Presidents foreign policy. Conversely, the public has little tolerance for intervention and a loss of American

Page

foreign policy that defends against international aggression, the public rewards those policies

12

lives in foreign conflicts. Meernik and Ault (2001) conclude that when a President pursues

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

with support and approval; on the other hand the public disapproves of policies that are feared to lead the nation into protracted conflicts in the internal matters of other states. Public opinion and their approval of foreign policy issues are an inherent part of the U.S. political structure. Bottom-up approaches to foreign policy creation assume that opinions of the general public affect the foreign-policy making process (Risse-Kappen, 1991). The U.S. political system is inherently fractured, as no specific governmental institution, department, sector, or person can wield absolute total power or control. Processes and mechanisms are built into how society is represented by political systems. In the case of the United States and its foreign policy, it is driven by societal actors and influenced by public opinion (Risse-Kappen, 1991). Contrary to the bottom-up approach is the top-down process, where political elites create consensus and cleavage about which direction foreign policy should go as well as influencing public opinion of foreign policy. This approach assumes the public has little knowledge of the international issues involved and that the public does not particularly care as much about foreign and security policy issues vis--vis economic policies. Risske-Kappen (1991) asks the question, who is in charge of the foreign-policy making process, the public or the elites?

National Interest It is important to note that scholars claim that by nature, the national interest is ambiguous, especially in a unipolar society (Snyder et al., 2009). Scholars also claim that to be

Page

and Nitzan, 1996). Under the conditions of how national interest is perceived among scholars,

13

worthy of the name national interest, it must relate to the broad interest of society (Bichlar

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

many different criteria can fall under this category. The ambiguity of the national interest is problematic when trying to be precise. Scholars claim that the United States national security interest, which is composed of the United States overall interest in the region in part, affects the American foreign policy of promoting democracy, a policy of the Bush administration (Kline, 2004; Desch, 2007/2008). In the name of the national security interest, the Bush administration and the United States proceeded with a hawkish foreign policy that was rooted in ideological policies of defeating terrorism, stopping proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq and the possible use of WMDs by Saddam Hussein, and promoting democracy (Pressman, 2009). The idea of promoting democracy is affected greatly by the national security interest. It is interesting to note that the idea of promoting democracy in the Middle East was invading Iraq and trying to use force and coercion to create a liberal democratic regime. Promoting democracy has long been seen as advancing national security, yet the United States does not promote democracy in Saudi Arabia, an autocratic regime (Pressman, 2009). Countries that have an abundance of natural resources, mainly oil, are hindered in their ability to democratize (Ross, 2001). Three different theories account for this, including a reinter effect, repression effect, and modernization effect. The reinter effect suggests patronage to reduce accountability, the repression effect suggests oil revenues funding internal security, and the modernization that growth based on oil exports hinders social and cultural push for democracy (Ross, 2001). The Middle East is saturated in oil, and the United States has a policy of

Page

democracy promotion and the national interest are actually at odds (Pressman, 2009). It will be

14

democracy promotion in the region in the name of the national interest. The policy of

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

difficult for the United States to gain legitimacy in the region since it is seen as hypocritical by those who are forced to play by the rules of the hegemon. Security and peace are a major part of the United States national interest (Meernik and Ault, 2001). It is important to qualify that the American foreign policy of preventative war, supported by the Bush doctrine, was in the name of security and peace. The notion of defending the United States is of the utmost authority of a president. Saddam Hussein and his inability to cooperate with the United States after the first Gulf War led to soured relations between the United States and Iraq. Strategically, Iraq played a role economically and in terms of security to balance out Iran during the Iran-Iraq war (Bzostek and Robinson, 2008). Iraq was once the center of U.S. foreign policy in terms of trying to moderate Iraqi policies. However, the inability of Saddam to play by the rules of the unilateral power caused Iraqi-U.S. relations to shift for the worse. Unilateral advancement of the war in Iraq and a strategy of hegemony are consistent with the hawkish foreign policy of the Bush administration (Bilgin, 2004; Desch, 2007/2008). U.S. policy makers are committed to advancing freedom and combating terrorism, two stated foreign policies, in the name of the national interest. (Bilgin, 2004; Pressman, 2009). The vagueness of goals such as advancing freedom and the war on terror are often counterproductive in achieving actual strategic goals of the United States (Pressman, 2009). The United States advances freedom in the name of the national interest by defeating terrorism. However, the war on terror often provides a scapegoat incentive for authoritarian regimes in

Page

and Schlumberger, 2004). Defeating terror is a problem in itself for the conservative leaders

15

the Middle East to suppress possible opposition parties that may try to democratize (Albrecht

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

who were a part of the Bush administration as terrorist and rogue states cannot be contained like the Soviet Union, but must instead be eliminated (Desch, 2007/2008; Aysha 2005). The war on terror is a war fought against evil, and for Christianity, evil has no true end and is only eradicated eschatologically with the rapture (Kline, 2004).The war on terror and promotion of democracy/freedom policies are at odds with each other. Highly idealized absolutes of complete eradication of terrorism have promoted hawkish foreign policies in the Middle East (Desch, 2007/2008). Terrorism by nature is a weapon for the weak, since the United States faces no contemporary military power remotely strong enough to compete since the fall of the Soviet Union. Essentially, the United States is a unipolar power that has hegemonic tendencies in the Middle East based on the idea that the Middle East is a currently a stability-oriented and military-focused region (Bilgin, 2004). The United States does not have the same hegemonic tendencies in other regions. The United States sees players in the region such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia as strategic interests. They pose military and economic interests for the United States in a variety of ways (Bzostek and Robison, 2008).

Economic Conditions Americans believe that open markets and the spread of capitalism and open markets will make Americans wealthier and help people out of poverty, and these ideas affect the American economic foreign policy toward the Middle East (Finnemore, 2009). Wanting stable markets that are willing to trade oil, the U.S. foreign policy promotes a priority of regional

Page

prices (Bichlar and Nitzan, 1996; Bzostek and Robison, 2008). On the contrary, military

16

stability in the Middle East. Security in Saudi Arabia and the Middle East is vital for stable oil

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

instability of non-democratic regimes in the Middle East threatens global economic security (Bilgin, 2004). Religious tensions in Iraq and Saudi Arabia also threaten the stability and availability of energy resources, mainly oil. If a minority group of people rebels in any of these countries, a majority of the other minorities in the other countries could follow suit and try and rebel (Sen and Babali, 2006). The result would likely be higher oil prices, which is not something desired by Americans. Prevention of a hostile power from dominating the Middle Easts vast oil reserves is another main reason for a pre-emptive war and hawkish Middle Eastern American foreign policy (Stern, 2006). There are vital security interests in the Persian Gulf, including Iraq and Saudi Arabia, the top two countries with proven oil reserves in the world. The United States will use all means necessary, including military means, to make sure no hostile power controls oil. Stability in the region is equal to stable oil prices (Bahgat, 1999). So far, it seems that the United States has an incredibly important role in keeping the Middle East stable for consistent and reasonable oil prices (Bichlar and Nitzan, 1996). A major difference in scholarly thinking presented by Bichlar and Nitzan (1996) states that U.S. foreign policy has been increasingly accommodating to big oil companies and big weapons companies. Regional destabilization and high oil prices support the profit margins and economic gains of the petrodollar and weapondollar firms, which are some of the largest corporations within each individual sector and U.S. foreign policy aligns with their interests (Bichlar and Nitzan, 1996). The alignment of U.S. foreign policy and large corporations could be

Page

17

at the cost of other societal groups, which in turn could lead to the free flow of oil and higher

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

unstable prices of oil resulting in more money to purchase arms by the countries that have a high amount of natural resources

Special Interest Groups In general, interest groups are not thought to have much influence on foreign policy because they lack access to the decision making process, however, this is completely untrue for decisions in foreign policy that require congressional approval, such as weapons sales to foreign countries and the decision to go to war (Bard, 1988). Middle East policy is influenced heavily by specific special interest groups, mainly because of their balance of power (Bard, 1988). For any particular lobby or interest group, power shifts according to the lobbyists relative access, (Gable, 1958; Ainsworth, 1993) resources, cohesion, size, social status, and leadership. (Bard, 1988). Access to the policy-making process is of vital importance to lobbyists and special interest groups. A focus on the means of the interest group, rather than their ends is important in the democratic system since interest groups seek access to the key points where decisions are made (Gable, 1958). These key points require pressure by particular interest groups in a number of decision areas, including individual legislators, legislative committees, party leaders, the executive, and opinion leaders in the community (Gable, 1958). Any particular interest group may succeed in shaping policy when it is able to resonate with the public and when this group has access to the major centers of policy creation (Gable, 1958).

Page

however, access does not necessarily mean influence (Gable, 1958). When influence does

18

Special attention is given to interest groups that have significant amounts of access,

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

occur, it is very difficult to identify. Ainsworth (1993) draws a distinction between an interest group influencing decisions and a convenient alignment of interest between the lobbyist and the legislator. Interest groups have different tools available to influence legislators. Political Action Committees (PACs) are one of those tools. Two different approaches exist: a pragmatic approach to influencing congress and an ideological approach. The first, a pragmatic approach to influencing Congress supports the idea that individual members of congress can be influenced (Evans, 1988). Incumbents in Congress and other congressmen and women who may disagree with the goal of the PAC but have supported it before may be considered a target for PACs. The ideological approach to influencing Congress relies on the idea that individual members of congress cannot be influenced, and therefore contributions to congress must be made on the idea that the composition of congress can be changed (Evans, 1988). For specific congressional members, without knowing the loyalties of any particular lobbyist or lobbyist group, it is impossible to know the extent to which the claims are actually representative of the group (Ainsworth, 1993). Lobbyists often state how honest and forthright they are and how valuable access is to them (Ainsworth, 1993). However, large corporations may misrepresent their actual interests by overemphasizing the importance of their issue or skewing the amount of people they actually represent. A representation of the one by the many occurs by corporations because of their relative strong finances and prestige in society (Ainsworth, 1993). Other corporations, specifically in the oil and weapons industries have lobbied and attempted to influence the general public when a foreign policy issue in congress

Page

influence when their activity is outside of the public spotlight, but they also lobby in different

19

would be of financial benefit to their cause. Special interest groups often attempt to lobby and

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

ways as to wield the most influence. These ways include appealing to allies of congressional members and the supporting of grassroots ties between the public and specific congressional members (Hojnacki and Kimpball, 1999). In a comprehensive study on interest group influence on congress, scholar Smith (1995) examined campaign contributions of special interest groups and their effect on roll-call voting. Inconclusively, Smith (1995) has found scholars that report that campaign contributions are largely unrelated to voting decisions of members of Congress, scholars that say campaign contributions profoundly influence members of Congress, and thus over represent special interests, and scholars that argue influence varies across votes on the same issue. This is important that within the field of influence, scholars agree on one thing, they cant agree on how interest groups actually influence Congress. Smith (1995) does cite one empirical study by Langbein (1986) that suggests that money can buy access to members of Congress.

Research Design
This research aims at measuring a hawkish or dovish foreign policy between the years 2002 and 2010 between the United States and Saudi Arabia and the United States and Iraq. This time parameter was based on the 2002 National Security Strategy and the 2006 National Security Strategy. The periods are split into two foreign policy periods, from September of 20023 to March of 2006. The second period begins from April of 20064 to May 2010 using the same rationales. The periods are broken into 42 months and 50 months, respectively. Some of

Page

The creation of the 2002 National Security Strategy The creation of the 2006 National Security Strategy

20

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

the data is taken from the United States government, and therefore is taken from a fiscal year (FY) standpoint. A fiscal year starts from October 30th of the previous year until September 1st of the stated year i.e. FY 2003 starts on October 30th 2002 and goes until September 1st 2003. Two independent variables are measured in Fiscal Years and two independent variables are measured in calendar years. The four independent variables to be looked at in this study include public opinion (calendar year), national security spending (fiscal year), the existence of lobbyist groups (calendar year), and the examination of the weapondollar coalition (fiscal year). The dependent variable in this study will be measured via presidential rhetoric taken from the National Security Strategies described earlier. The numbering system will code specifically for ten unique individual terms for hawkish and ten unique individual terms for dovish. These terms will be quantified as to how many times they appear in each specific strategy and if they are relevant toward a more militaristic approach or more diplomatic approach. For a list of the terms coded and their appearance in text, as well as how often they appeared see Appendix A1. As stated previously, foreign policy is often an ambiguous term. In this study, foreign policy will be measured on a comprehensive overall scale, because policy can be both hawkish and dovish with a possible tendency to be more hawkish than dovish or vice versa. A hawkish foreign policy is defined as a tendency of any certain administration to favor military action over diplomatic action and foreign aid which is more in line with a dovish foreign policy. While it is possible that the Bush and Obama administrations could favor administering aid and also sending the military to any given country, this research views hawkish-dovish

Page

21

foreign policy with a comprehensive approach.

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Public Opinion The effect of public opinion on Saudi Arabia and Iraq and its impact on American foreign policy will be analyzed from 2002-2010. Scholars argue that public opinion on foreign policy issues has an impact in the U.S. political system (Meernik and Ault 2001). Other scholars reinforce the idea, stating that the bottom-up approach to foreign policy making is correct, where the general public has a measurable and distinct impact on the foreign policy-making process (Risse-Kappen, 1991). Public opinion polls will be taken for nine years from the Gallup Poll Social Series on World Affairs (Gallup, 2011). A random sample of 1,015 adults over the age of eighteen were selected in the continental United States. For purpose of this research, a majority negative opinion will consist of 51% of participants either having a mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable view of the case country.

National Security Spending The second variable being examined is national security spending. Scholars argue that the nations security plays a vital role in the creation of foreign policy (Kline, 2004; Desch, 2007/2008; Pressman, 2009). The national security interest will be measured using actual total expenditure on the United States military versus congressional request for funds. This information will be received from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The years 2001-2010 will be compared in local dollar amount from actual funds received and actual funds requested. This will be measured in either increased or decreased amounts based

Page

22

on the discrepancy of actual spending. The national security interest is high if actual spending is

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

above congressional request for funds, and it is low if actual spending is below congressional request for funds.

Existence of Weapondollar Coalition The third independent variable consists of examining major weapons companies who receive United States government contracts in Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This research builds on a prior definition presented by scholars, for more information see Bichlar and Nitzan, 1996. This research found speculative causality between the differential profits of major weapons companies and accommodating US foreign policy. While outside the scope of this research, an in depth look into the oil markets and the petrodollar coalition would be vital to future growth in the understanding of US foreign policy. This paper focuses on the weapondollar coalition, which consists of the five largest U.S. based weapons contractors. The Weapondollar coalition consists of Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics and Raytheon. Measuring this variable will be done using the Federal Procurement Data System provided by the United States government. Foreign contracts in Iraq and Saudi Arabia given to the following five companies will be compared to the amount of money lobbied to congress in order to see if there is a correlation between contract rewards, lobbying and American foreign policy.

Lobbying The fourth independent variable consists of lobbying spending from 2002-2010. Data

Page

contracts received in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The goal is to see if there is a correlation between

23

are taken from the Center for Responsive Politics and are used to compare to total amount of

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

lobbying of the weapon industry, the amount of contracts received by the U.S. government, and a more hawkish foreign policy in the Middle East. From the four following independent variables discussed above, two hypotheses have been formulated. First, a majority negative public opinion of Iraq and Saudi Arabia coupled with an increased military expenditure versus congressional request for funds will result in a more hawkish foreign policy. Second, the existence of strong special-interest lobbyist groups and a large percentage of business in sales for the Weapondollar coalition to Saudi Arabia and Iraq will cause a more hawkish foreign policy.

Analysis of Data
The first to be discussed is the measure of American foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia and Iraq and whether or not it is hawkish or dovish. The independent variables will be discussed in the following order; public opinion, military expenditure, existence of weapondollar coalition, and lobbying vis--vis their relation to the two hypotheses presented. The dependent variable, American foreign policy toward Saudi
20 140 120 100 80 60 40 Dovishness Hawkishness

Arabia and Iraq, primarily tended to be hawkish over the selected time

Source: Atlas TI coding program. For a list of specific codes used, see Appendix A1 and A2.

Page

24

Total levels for 2002 National both periods Security Strategy

2006 National Security Strategy

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

period, 2002-2010. The 2002 National Security Strategy was almost doubly hawkish as it was dovish, and the 2006 strategy tended to be slightly more dovish than its predecessor. The 2002 strategy was created relatively recently after the September 11th terrorist attacks, which may account for the overall hawkishness of the foreign policy. Both strategies were produced under the Bush administration, however the 2006 strategy continued on into the beginnings of the Obama administration, which may be an explanation for why the strategy became more dovish. Therefore, there is a link between conservatism and evangelism, and there is a link between conservatism and a more hawkish foreign policy (Reagan, Bush, Bush Sr.).

Independent Variables Scholars have claimed that the bottom-up approach to policy-making influences how foreign policy is created (Risse-Kappen, 1991). In a democracy, the masses are supposed to have a voice. Public opinion should indeed be a shaper of foreign policy in a representative democracy, since elected leaders are required to look at the salience of any particular foreign policy agenda. The United States public had overall majority negative views of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Page

25

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Negative Public Opinion

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Iraq Saudi Arabia

Source: Gallup News Organization from polls taken annually in February. A random sample of 1015 adults age eighteen or older who live in the continental United States were randomly dialed. Data is with a 95% confidence that the margin of error is +/-4 percentage points.

Overall between the first foreign policy period, Iraq had the highest negative view with 79.2% of participants negatively viewing Iraq. The second period fell with 74.5% of the public negatively viewing Iraq. Saudi Arabia was also majority negatively viewed for both time periods. Americans negatively viewed Saudi Arabia at 62.2% and 59.25% for the two separate periods. It is important to note that the majority of Americans negatively view both countries. Iraq however, has a much more negative rating, likely due to the war. From 2002-2006, we see a higher negative rating in both Saudi Arabia and Iraq than from 2006-2010. We also see a correlation in the falling of negative views of these countries and an overall dovish foreign policy, as can be found in the graph on hawkish versus dovish foreign policy.
Page

26

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

The actual military expenditure of the United States exceeded the Congressional request every year except for FY 2008, where actual expenditure was below the Congressional request by about two billion dollars. Actual military expenditure has risen from about 356 billion dollars in 2002 to about 698 billion dollars in 2010. The United States has both continually spent on the military and spent over its requested budget, almost assuming that the United States armed forces will overspend. For the first foreign policy period, from 2002-2006, the military spent on average close to 435 billion dollars, with Congressional requests averaging close to 367 billion dollars during the same period, meaning an overspending of 68 billion dollars for the first foreign policy period. The second period saw average spending much higher at around 614 billion dollars, with Congressional requests averaging around 546 billion dollars for the second foreign policy period. Coincidentally, this period also had an overspending of 68 billion dollars. The first hypothesis predicted the following: a majority negative public opinion of Iraq and Saudi Arabia coupled with an increased military expenditure versus congressional request for funds will result in a more hawkish foreign policy. The time parameters are broken down into two different foreign policy periods. Foreign policy period one, from 2002-2006, saw an overall hawkish foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia and Iraq and an average overspending of the military during this period as well as a majority negative public opinion. Public opinion for Iraq for the first period was overall 17% more negative than Saudi Arabia, even though both countries had overall negative views by Americans. Actual military expenditure continued to

Page

4.7% and 2.95% for Iraq and Saudi Arabia, respectively. However, during this time period,

27

overspend in the second foreign policy period, and majority negative public opinion dropped

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

American foreign policy was slightly more dovish. The period from 2006-2010 saw attempted diplomacy by the Obama administration, and decreased public support for the war in Iraq. Data suggests that negative public opinion coupled with overspending may lead to a hawkish foreign policy. While outside the scope of this study, an in-depth study on the qualification of overall American foreign policy and the rhetoric used by presidents and the United States actions would benefit the academic community.

Military Expenditure vs. Congressional Request

800000

700000

600000

500000 Actual U.S. Military Expenditure Congressional Request for Budget 300000

400000

200000

100000

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Note: All Years are in Fiscal Years

Page

28

Actual Expenditure taken from SIPRI military expenditure database and Department of Defense Website, all dollars are in local currency (In millions)

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Note: FY2008 - FY2010 have added requests to the base department of defense budget. FY2008 has a $141.7 billion Global War on Terror (GWOT) request; FY2009 has a $70 billion GWOT request, and FY2010 has a $130 billion Contingency Operations request. Source: Military Expenditure of USA. (2011). & United States Department of Defense (20012009)

The next independent variable was the existence of a strong weapondollar coalition. This research aimed to build on previous scholarship provided by Bichlar & Nitzan (1996). The five weapons companies examined were Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and General Dynamics , five of the six biggest weapons contractors in the world. My research found that these companies received millions of dollars a year in federal contracts to Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The first period however, from 2002-2006 saw very limited documented sales to these major weapons companies. An average of 3.37 million USD dollars in contracts was given to the five major companies during the first foreign policy period to Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The second foreign policy period saw a fourfold increase at an average of 11.99 million dollars in contracts given to the weapondollar coalition. In comparison to overall sales to Saudi Arabia and Iraq, there is a gross discrepancy between contracts given to the major weapons companies. Using 2008 as an example, the five major contracts received 50.1 million dollars in contracts for Saudi Arabia and Iraq, yet there was close to 8.7 billion dollars worth of sales to Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This data seems to suggest that these corporations are not as strong in foreign sales, however, large amounts of money are unaccounted for, and would be an excellent area for further research.

Page

29

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Total value of government contracts given to weapons contractors in Saudi Arabia and Iraq
70

60

50 Lockheed Martin 40 Raytheon Northrop Grumman 30 Boeing General Dynamics 20

10

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Dollar amounts are in millions rounded to the nearest ten thousand. FY(Fiscal Year) denotes from October first of the previous year until September 30 th of the year listed i.e. FY 2002 = 10/01/2001 9/30/2002 Source: Ad Hoc Reports, Federal Procurement Data System, for specific systems and categories that each individual corporation sold to the United States government, see Appendix A3. Federal Procurement Data System access recommended by the United States Office of Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff. See appendix A4 for contracts given to Saudi Arabia and Iraq individually.

Page

30

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

7,000

Total Military Sales to Iraq and Saudi Arabia

6,000

5,000

4,000 Iraq 3,000 Saudi Arabia

2,000

1,000

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Source: Defense Security Cooperation Agency, (2009). Note: Data are measured in millions of dollars, rounded to the nearest million dollars.

Page

31

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Lobbying is provided by the Center for Responsive politics. Their data is taken directly from and compiled using the quarterly lobbying disclosure reports filed with the Secretary of the Senates Office of Public Records (SOPR). The goal of these lobbying organizations, as stated by scholars, is to gain access for the purpose of influence. Drawing on scholars that say that foreign policy decisions that require Congressional approval can be influenced by special interest groups, it is also very difficult to measure influence. The lobbying statistics taken here show that these weapons corporations are strong enough to give millions of dollars annually with the possible intent of influence. The average for the first foreign policy period was 7.71 million dollars of lobbying and the second period average of 11.64 million dollars of lobbying for the foreign policy period between 2006-2010. In 2008 we saw a spike in giving in lobbying. 2008 also saw increased spending in the military and total military sales to Iraq and Saudi Arabia. The cause of this is unknown. It would seem that these strong special-interest groups exist, and that they try to affect the policy creation process. Their strength in lobbying legislators is in millions of dollars. This means that in terms of lobbying, these corporations are quite strong.

Page

32

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Weapons Lobby
25

20

Lockheed Martin Raytheon Northrop Grumman Boeing 10 General Dynamics Overall Average Spent on Lobbying Per Year 5

15

0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Annual lobbying in millions of dollars per year (Rounded to nearest ten thousand dollars) Source: www.opensecrets.org (Center for Responsive Politics) Selection Criteria5

Page

These five corporations were chosen because of their overall size. These are the five largest United States defense contractors, they are also four of the top five biggest defense contractors in the world with B.A.E. a U.K. based contractor ranking second behind Lockheed Martin. These make up the Weapondollar coalition (SIPRI).

33

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

My second hypothesis stated the following: the existence of strong special-interest lobbyist groups and a large percentage of business in sales for the Weapondollar coalition 6 to Saudi Arabia and Iraq will cause a more hawkish foreign policy. Using 2008 as an example, the weapondollar coalition received a meager 5.7%7 of total contracts to Saudi Arabia and Iraq. It seems that this hypothesis is completely incorrect. A strong special-interest lobbying group for both foreign policy periods does exist, but sales totals for these five corporations to Saudi Arabia and Iraq are a tiny percentage of total sales to the countries. There are not a large percentage of sales to these two countries and there seems to be no correlation between weapons sales, lobbying, and a more hawkish foreign policy. Overall, there also seems to be no correlation between contracts given to the Weapondollar coalition and the amount of money lobbied to legislators. Lockheed Martin may be an exception with contracts values won rising from 2002 until 2009 with a spike in sales in 2008 and a fall in contract value in 2009. This seemed to correlate with lobbying patterns, with lobbying by Lockheed Martin, the largest weapons contractor in the world, increasing every year until 2008 and then in 2009 seeing a fall in money given. This could be a coincidence, but should be explored more in depth, seeing if this one company is different from the rest. There may be less influence on foreign policy by these lobbying groups because constitutionally, foreign policy is controlled more by the executive branch than the legislative branch (Bard, 1988). The ability of any particular lobby to affect the legislative branch to overcome the fact that the executive branch holds more power in foreign policy depends on

Page

Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, United Technologies, Boeing Total contract value to weapondollar coalition/total weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and Iraq

34

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

political capital, 8 staff effectiveness, timing, and the policy type. Interest groups may also be stronger during an election year, as individual imperatives to get elected or re-elected take precedence over other loyalties (Bard, 1988).This leads to the idea of researching specifically election years, and the role that lobbyist groups play during this time. Looking at 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012 would be of interest to further understanding of special interest groups during presidential election years.

Conclusion
American foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia and Iraq varies on a multitude of levels. Public opinion and military spending seem to create an atmosphere that is more militaristic in the Saudi Arabia and Iraq. These countries are in a region that is already prone to dictatorships and wars. The United States values its partnership with Saudi Arabia because of strategic alliances; flow of capital and resources, and in more than one occasion similar interests but for different reasons. Past Secretary of State Alexander Haig once spoke about the sale of weapons systems to Saudi Arabia, saying What is at stake is this nations capacity to develop a strategy that canprotect our vital interest in an unstable area exposedto threats from the Soviet Union and its proxies (Bard, 1988). Negative public opinion and increased military spending may have created a Saudi Arabia that is military focuses and an Iraq that is focused very much on fighting. Public opinion on Iraq is still negative and the war continues on. While lobbying and weapons sales to Iraq and Saudi Arabia were inconclusive, Saudi

Presidential popularity and the number of same members of the Presidents party in Congress.

Page

35

Arabia and Iraq still purchase large amounts of weapons and weapons systems from the United

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

States. Finding out what business or corporations fulfill these contracts is important to find to see if they are influencing foreign policy. As war costs a great deal of money, it is imperative to know where all the money is going too, and why it is going there. This would be an excellent area for future research. To further understand special interest groups and lobbying efforts by strong corporations in the weapons industry, one should look at how the special interest group tries to align itself with the public. Its ability to manipulate public attitudes toward neutrality or indifference to their issue also affects its influence (Gable, 1958). In the past, major weapons sales to foreign countries have been lobbied by particular weapons corporations. United Technologies and Boeing were major contractors for a multimillion dollar contract to the Saudis for the sale of Airborne Warning and Control System plans. (AWACS). Mobil oil also spent more than half a million dollars on advertisements praising the development of economic relations between Saudi Arabia and the United States. However, these ads did not mention the arms sale at hand, but did mention $35 billion in business contracts for American firms (Bard, 1988). An examination into the lobbying efforts of specific corporations and how much business they receive is also an area of interest for further study. This study recognizes its limitations. Foreign policy was coded either hawkish or dovish based on twenty different terms. The selection of the terms and their relativity to militaristic action and diplomatic action was also at the discretion of the author of this paper and information drawn from a specific set of scholars. Other limitations include the use of the

Page

were procured. This system is very advanced and there could be possible user error in finding

36

Federal Procurement Data System, where government contracts given to weapons corporations

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

the total contract data available. Finding complete and comprehensive data on these corporations sales would best be achieved by contacting the companies directly. Finally, this paper acknowledges the possible findings of the research: public opinion and increased military expenditure may lead to a more militaristic foreign policy. It also must be noted, though, that public opinion was based on a single survey by Gallup poll. Further areas of research recommended from this study include examination of oil companies, their lobbying efforts, the sharing of their knowledge with Saudi ARAMCO, Saudi Arabias state owned oil firm and Iraqi oil firms. Oil plays a role in the region, but it is such a huge topic that it should be examined in depth by itself. Studying the specific effects of lobbying by these corporations and their effects on the legislative branch and the executive branch is also a further area of research; however, measuring influence is extraordinarily difficult as stated by scholars. A graph of oil lobbying by six of the largest oil companies in the world is included in appendix A6 for use in further research. Overall this study found a correlation between negative public opinions of countries by the public and increased military expenditure can cause a more hawkish foreign policy. The areas of lobbying and sales data are much more inconclusive on their effects on foreign policy than the data on public opinion and military expenditure. Looking at who and what influences the United States foreign policy is paramount to the understanding of how the United States affects the world.

Page

37

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Bibliography
Ad Hoc Reports. (2011). Retrieved April, 26, 2011 from the Federal Procurement Data System Ainsworth, S. (1993). Regulating Lobbyists and Interest Group Influence. The Journal of Politics. 55, 41-56 * Arabic * Al-Arabiyya. (2011). Kingdom reiterates commitment to stable markets. Retrieved from < http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/08/140724.html> Albrecht,H. & Schlumberger,O. (2004). Waiting for Godot: Regime Change Without Democratization in the Middle East. International Political Science Review. 25,371-392 * Arabic * Al-Husseini, S. (2010). American Foreign Policy towards the Middle East. Accessed from <http://www.ahewar.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=204725#> * Arabic * Archive. (2007). Saddam Hussein. The-Island. Retrieved from <http://www.aljazeera.net/News/archive/archive?ArchiveId=1028465> Aysha, E.E.D. (2005). September 11 and the Middle East Failure of US Soft Power: Globalisation contra Americanisation in the New US Century. International Relations. 19, 193-210 Bahgat,G. (1999). Oil Security at the Turn of the Century: Economic and Strategic Implications. International Relations. 14, 41-52 Bard,M. (1988). Interest Groups, the President, and Foreign Policy: How Reagan Snatched Victory from the Jaws of Defeat on AWACS. Presidential Studies Quarterly. 18, 583-600 Baumgartner, J.C., Francia, P.L., Morris, J.S. (2008). A Clash of Civilizations? The Influence of Religion on Public Opinion of U.S. Foreign Policy in the Middle East. Political Research Quarterly. 61, 171-179. * Arabic * BBC Arabic (2011, April 14) U.S. National Security Advisor meets with Saudi's. Retrieved from <http://www.bbc.co.uk/arabic/middleeast/2011/04/110413_donilon_saudi.shtml> Bichlar,S. & Nitzan,J. (1996). Putting the State in Its Place; US Foreign Policy and Differential Capital Accumulation in Middle East Energy Conflicts. Review of International Political Economy. 3,608-661 Bilgin,P. (2004). Whose Middle East? Geopolitical Inventions and Practices of Security. International Relations. 18, 25-41

Page

38

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Blanchard, C. (2010). Saudi Arabia: Background and U.S. Relations. Congressional Research Service. Blanchard,C., Katzman, K., Migdalovitz, C., Sharp, J. (2009) Iraq: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy. Congressional Research Service Bzostek, R. & Robison, S. B. (2008). U.S. Policy toward Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia: An Integrated Analysis, 1981-2004. International Studies Perspectives. 9, 359-376 Center for Responsive Politics. (2011). Influence and Lobbying. < http://www.opensecrets.org/influence/index.php> Central Intelligence Agency. (2011). The World Factbook. 2011. https://www.cia.gov Daniels, J. (2005). Religious Affiliation and Individual International Policy Preferences in the United States. International Interactions. 31, 273-301 Defense Security Cooperation Agency. (2009). Historical Facts Book. Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Construction Sales and Other Security Cooperation Historical Facts. Retrieved from <http://www.dsca.osd.mil/programs/biz ops/factsbook/Historical_Facts_Book_2009.pdf> Desch,M.C. (2007/2008). Americas Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy. International Security.32,7-43 Evans, D. (1988). Oil PACs and Aggressive Contribution Strategies. The Journal of Politics. 50, 1047-1056 Finnemore,M. (2009). Legitimacy, Hypocrisy, and the Social Structure of Unipolarity Why Being a Unipole Isnt All Its Cracked up to Be. World Politics. 61, 58-85 Gable, W. (1958). Interest Groups as Policy Shapers. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.319, 84-93 Gallup. (2011, February 1-3). Next, Id like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. What is your overall opinion of Iraq? Is it very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable? (Table). Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/File/146096/Am_Views_Different_Countries_Feb_11_2011 .pdf

Page

39

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Gallup. (2011, February 1-3). Next, Id like your overall opinion of some foreign countries. What is your overall opinion of Saudi Arabia? Is it very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable? (Table). Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/File/146096/Am_Views_Different_Countries_Feb_11_2011 .pdf *Arabic *Gharaibeh, I. (2006) American foreign policy in the Middle East. Al-Jazeera. Retreived from <http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/D57BBC08-07B5-4721-B439 0C73526DCFC1.htm> Hojnacki, M. & Kimball, D. (1999). The Who and How of Organizations Lobbying Strategies in Committee. The Journal of Politics. 61, 999-1024 Katel, P. (2007). New strategy in Iraq. CQ Researcher, 17, 169-192 Kline, S. (2004). The Culture War Gone Global: Family Values and the Shape of U.S. Foreign Policy. International Relations. 18,453-466 Mayer, J. (2004). Christian Fundamentalists and Public Opinion Toward the Middle East: Israels New Best Friends? Social Science Quarterly. 85, 696-712 Langbein, L. (1986). Money and Access: Some Empirical Evidence. Journal of Politics. 48, 1052 1062 Meernik, J. & Ault,M. (2001). Public Opinion and Support for U.S. Presidents Foreign Policies. American Politics Research. 29, 352- 373 Military Expenditure of USA. (2011). Retrieved April 26, 2011 from the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database. Pressman, J. (2009). Power without Influence: The Bush Administrations Foreign Policy Failure in the Middle East. International Security. 33, 149-179 Risse-Kappen,T. (1991). Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies. World Politics. 43, 479-512

Sen,S. & Babali,T. (2006). Security Concerns in the Middle East for oil supply: Problems and Solutions. Energy Policy. 35, 1517-1524

Page

40

Ross,M .L. (2001). Does Oil Hinder Democracy? World Politics. 53, 325-361

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Smidt, C. (2005). Religion and American Attitudes Toward Islam and an Invasion of Iraq. Sociology of Religion. 66, 243-261 Smith R. (1995). Interest Group Influence in the .S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 20, 89-139 Snyder,J. & Shaprio, R.Y. & Bloch-Elkon,Y.(2009) Free Hand Abroad, Divide and Rule at Home. World Politics. 61, 155-187 Stern, R. (2006) Oil Market Power and United States National Security. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 103, 1650-1655 United States Department of Defense. (2001). News Release. Department of Defense Amended Budget for FY 2002. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=2958 United States Department of Defense. (2003). News Release. Fiscal 2004 Department of Defense Budget Release. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=3615 United States Department of Defense. (2004). News Release. Fiscal 2005 Department of Defense Budget Release. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=7046 United States Department of Defense. (2005). News Release. Fiscal 2006 Department of Defense Budget is Released. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=8203 United States Department of Defense. (2006). News Release. Fiscal 2007 Department of Defense Budget is Released. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=9287 United States Department of Defense. (2007). News Release. Fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Budget Released. Retrieved from http://comptroller.defense.gov/Docs/2008_Budget_Rollout_Release.pdf United States Department of Defense. (2008). News Release. Fiscal 2009 Department of Defense Budget Released. Retrieved from http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2009/2009_Budget_Rollout_Release.pdf

Page

41

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

United States Department of Defense. (2008\9). News Release. DoD Releases Fiscal 2010 Budget Proposal. Retrieved from http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=12652 U.S. Energy Information Administration. (2009). Frequently asked Questions. Frequently Asked Questions - Crude Oil. Retrieved from http://www.eia.doe.gov/ask/crudeoil_faqs.asp * Arabic * United States Institute of Peace. (157) Saudi Arabia and Iraq, Oil, Religion and a Lasting Rivalry. Retrieved from < http://www.usip.org/files/resources/sr157_arabic.pdf>

Page

42

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

Appendix A1)
Code Family: Dovishness ______________________________________________________________________ Codes (10): [aid*] [allies] [ally*] [calm] [diplo*] [good] [help] [influence] [kind] [support] Quotation(s): 93 ______________________________________________________________________

Code Family: Hawkishness ______________________________________________________________________ Codes (10): [*aggress*] [antago*] [attack] [combat*] [defend] [enem*] [evil] [hostile] [strike] [threaten*] Quotation(s): 108 ______________________________________________________________________

A2)
--------------------------------------PRIMARY DOCS CODES 1 2 Totals --------------------------------------*aggress* 5 3 8 aid* 4 5 9 allies 7 9 16 ally* 0 2 2 antago* 0 0 0 attack 10 9 19 calm 0 0 0 combat* 4 2 6 defend 13 6 19 diplo* 7 9 16 enem* 20 10 30 evil 2 1 3 good 1 2 3 help 16 19 35 hostile 3 2 5 influence 1 3 4 kind 0 0 0 strike 4 2 6 support 7 9 16 threaten* 12 9 21 --------------------------------------Totals 116 102 218

Page

Primary Document 1 is the 2002 United States National Security Strategy Primary Document 2 is the 2005 United States National Security Strategy Red terms indicate hawkishness, blue terms indicate dovishness. A * denotes a wild card, i.e. threaten* can be threaten, threatened or threatening,

43

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

A3)
1) A majority of the contracts for Lockheed Martin fall under the following categories provided by the Federal Procurement Data System: Systems Engineering Services, Research and Development Missile and Space Sys-Adv Development, Management Consulting Services, Maintenance-Repair of Communications Equipment, and Maintenance-Repair of Aircraft. 2) A majority of the contracts for Raytheon fall under the following categories provided by the Federal Procurement Data System: Engineering and Technical Services and the Maintenance-Repair of Training Aids-Devices. 3) A majority of the contracts for Northrop Grumman fall under the following categories provided by the Federal Procurement Data System: Automated Information Systems and Systems Engineering Services. 4) A majority of the contracts for Boeing fall under the following categories provided by the Federal Procurement Data System: Maintenance-Repair of Aircraft. 5) A majority of the contracts for General Dynamics fall under the following categories provided by the Federal Procurement Data System: Wireless Communications Equipment and Radio Navigation Equipment

Page

44

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

A4) Total Number of Iraqi Contracts Given to top five Weapons Contractors
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Lockeed Martin Raytheon Northrop Grumman Boeing General Dynamics

Total Number of Saudi Arabian Contracts Given to Weapons Contractors

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Lockheed Martin Raytheon Northrop Grumman Boeing General Dynamics

Page

45

DOMESTIC FACTORS OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY

A5)
Oil Lobby
30

25

20 ConocoPhillips Chevron 15 Exxon Mobil Royal Dutch Shell Koch Industries 10 British Petroleum

0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Annual lobbying in millions of dollars per year (Rounded to nearest ten thousand dollars)

Page

46