Realist Liberal and Constructivist Appro PDF

Turkish Studies
International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic
Volume 11/2 Winter 2016, p. 113-126
DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9060
ISSN: 1308-2140, ANKARA-TURKEY
Article Info/Makale Bilgisi

 Received/Geliş: 20.12.2015 Accepted/Kabul: 18.02.2016
 Referees/Hakemler: Doç. Dr. Cemal BALTACI –
Doç. Dr. Fehmi AKIN - Yrd. Doç. Dr. İsmail ŞAHİN
This article was checked by iThenticate.
REALIST, LIBERAL AND CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHS TO

WAR ON TERROR IN IRAQ
Aydın AYDIN* - Oğuzhan TEKİN**
ABSTRACT
War on terror in Iraq is an appropriate case to evaluate IR theories
whether they can explain it or not. The aim of this his article is to
discuss why and how US decided to invade Iraq in terms of realist,
liberal and constructivist approach and why the US waged war because
the War on Terror in Iraq by the US in 2003 provides us a significant
case to work on. To understand how it happened and if and how ideas
shaped foreign policy of the United States, this article will discuss neo-
conservatism, realist, liberal and constructivist approaches. As an
ideational and ideological approach, neo-conservatism shaped US
foreign policy during the Iraq War in 2000-2008. Although only realism
and liberalism could not explain the decision of the invasion of Iraq and
their scholars criticized the invasion; constructivists successfully
carried out role of ideas and ideologies on behaviors of states and
foreign policy. The Iraq War has been a relevant to examine
constructivists’ arguments. Constructivist approach considers political
outcomes as products of a complex interaction of material. Therefore
constructivist theory will be applied to inquire causal relationship
between invasion of Iraq and social construction of ideas. This study
has shown that constructivism presents a relevant framework for
understanding motivations of the Iraq War.
STRUCTURED ABSTRACT
IR theories exist to interpret international relations and causes of
war and peace. One of the main pillars of IR theories is how they
explain motivations of war. Each theory introduces different sets of
hypothesis including causality to describe how states behave under
certain conditions to wage war against each other. One theory cannot
satisfactorily explain all cases; therefore there are different theories.
While a theory can explain origins of a war, it can fail to clarify another
*
Assist. Prof. Dr. Süleyman Demirel University, Faculty Of Economics And Administrative Sciences, International
Relations Department, E-mail: aydinaydin@sdu.edu.tr
**
PhD candidate, Political Science and International Relations Department, E-mail: oguzhantekin@gmail.com
114 Aydın AYDIN – Oğuzhan TEKİN
one. The more a theory is consistent interpretation for a particular case,

the more the theory is successful.
In this respect War on terror in Iraq can be seen a sound case to
compare level of explanations through different assumptions of IR
theories; realism, liberalism and conservatism. In this article we looked
for answers to following questions: Why the US waged war against Iraq
and invaded it in 2003? What foreign policy motivations dragged it to
the war? How the US foreign policy was shaped? Which IR theory has
much more steady premises in their interpretations for the Iraq War?
This study tries to examine why the US waged war because the
War on Terror in Iraq by the US in 2003 provides us a significant case
to work on and to understand how it happened and if and how ideas
shaped foreign policy of the United States, this article will discuss neo-
conservatism, realist, liberal and constructivist approaches. As an
ideational and ideological approach, neo-conservatism shaped US
foreign policy during the Iraq War in 2000’s. Although only realism and
liberalism could not explain the decision of the invasion of Iraq and
their scholars criticized the invasion; constructivists successfully
carried out role of ideas and ideologies on behaviors of states and
foreign policy. Answering these questions we test three IR theories
through a comparative analysis in a descriptive method. Firstly, origins
of the Iraq problem are shortly manifested. Secondly as an ideational
approach neo-conservatism is conceptualized. Then we compile
principal hypothesis of realism, liberalism and constructivism along
with their approach and criticisms on War on Terror in Iraq. At the
same time we discuss their approach and reaction to the Iraq War.
Realism and liberalism could not provide persistent explanation
for the decision of the invasion of Iraq. As a matter of fact their scholars
criticized the invasion by distinct grounds and fail to clarify why the war
happened and how the US foreign policy was shaped. Constructivists
argue that political consequences are products of a complex interaction
of material and ideational factors or social construction of ideas and the
approach considers political outcomes as products of a complex
interaction of material. Therefore constructivist theory will be applied to
inquire causal relationship between invasion of Iraq and social
construction of ideas. According to constructivist approach policy and
knowledge of states generated interaction between their values and
their experiences. Constructivists try to examine what kind of
interaction caused a given consequence and how an event happened.
How actors defining themselves and others, how they engage
interaction, and how they are socially constituted. In this sense,
constructivist can explain how the US elites decided to wage war to Iraq
after the 9/11 attack. The Bush administration achieved to get support
from their audiences in consequences of speech acts. The speech acts
provided comprising ‘terrorists’ and ‘rogue state’ perception on U.S.
citizens. While there was limited international support acquiring, the
administration succeeded in transforming speech act to domestic
support with a great patriotism. In this sense, invasion of Iraq can be
better understood and explained with constructivism. They are able to
put forth solid explanations why and how invasion of Iraq happened.
The finding suggests that constructivism has much more agreeable
propositions to recognize causes of the Iraq War. In 2000-2008 as an
Turkish Studies
Volume 11/2 Winter 2016
Realist, Liberal And Constructivist Approachs To War On Terror In Iraq 115
ideational and ideological approach, neo-conservatism intensively

influenced decisions of the US foreign policy makers and succeeded to
shape the US foreign policy. Iraq War is a good lesson for governing
elites that social interactions, act of speech, patriotism and hegemonic
ideal can lead wrong directions. Therefore, it is better to keep moderate
your ambitious. The case suggests that ideas whether they are rational
or irrational have capacity on states’ actions and foreign policy choices.
Keywords: Invasion of Iraq, Neo-conservatism, Realism,
Liberalism, Constructivism, War on terror.
REALİST, LİBERAL VE YAPILANDIRMACI YAKLAŞIMLARA

GÖRE IRAK’TA TERÖRLE SAVAŞ
ÖZET
Irak’ta terörle savaş örneği, uluslararası ilişkiler teorilerinin
açıklayıp açıklayamadıklarını değerlendirmek için biçilmiş bir kaftandır.
Bu makalenin amacı, Amerika’nın neden ve nasıl Irak’a savaş açtığını
ve bu savaşı nasıl sürdürdüğünü realist, liberal ve konstrüktivist
yaklaşımlarla tartışmaktır. Amerika’nın Irak’taki bu durumunu, hangi
fikirlerin Amerikan dış politikasının oluşumunda etkili olduğunu
anlayabilmek için yeni-muhafazakârlık yaklaşımı, realist, liberal ve
konstrüktivist yaklaşımlar ayrıntılı olarak tartışılacaktır. Aynı zamanda
Irak Savaşı’nın ortaya çıkış sebepleri tarihsel perspektiften ele alınarak
hali hazırda ki durumun oluşmasındaki tarihsel süreç arasında bir
ilişki ortaya çıkarılmaya çalışılmıştır. Bir düşünsel ve ideolojik yaklaşım
olarak, yeni-muhafazakârlık 2000-2008 yılları arasında Irak Savaşı
sırasında ABD’nin dış politikasını şekillendiren en önemli düşünsel
fikirlerden biri olmuştur. Irak’ın işgal kararını sadece realizm ve
liberalizm açıklayamamış ve bu yaklaşımların önde gelen
akademisyenleri de işgal kararını eleştirmiş olmalarına rağmen;
konstrüktivistler başarılı bir şekilde fikirlerin ve ideolojilerin devletlerin
davranışlarını ve dış politikaları üzerinde oynadıkları rolü ortaya
koymuşlardır. Yeni-muhafazakârlık yaklaşımı temeline dayanan
Amerikan politikaları küresel sistemde Amerika’nın meşruiyet krizi ile
karşı karşıya kalmasına neden olmuştur. Irak Savaşı konstrüktivistlerin
argümanlarını test etmeleri için ilgili bir örnek olmuştur. Bu nedenden
dolayı Irak işgali ve sosyal insacılık felsefesi arasındaki sebepsel
ilişkileri sorgulamak için konstrüktivist teori bu çalışmaya
uygulanacaktır. Sonuç olarak görülmüştür ki yapısalcılık Irak
Savaşı’nın nedenlerinin anlamamız için yerinde bir çerçeve
sunmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Yeni-Muhafazakârlık, Realizm, Liberalizm,
Konstrüktivizm, Terör.
1. INTRODUCTION
One of the important questions of International relations is why states wage war each other
and how states sustain peace. This study tries to examine why the US waged war because the War
on Terror in Iraq by the US in 2003 provides us a significant case to work on. To understand how it
happened and if and how ideas shaped foreign policy of the United States, this article will discuss
neo-conservatism which impressed the US decision makers at this particular time intensively.
Turkish Studies
While neo-conservatism is not accepted as an International relations (IR) theory, having century
year’s experienced and evolved theories criticized neo-conservatism on decision war on terror in
Iraq. Neo-conservatism paved the way for the US cadres wage war against Iraq although all three
IR theoreticians objected the decision with different perspectives. Two opposed reflections to
clarify and test the theories. First of all, origins of the Iraq problem will be summarized, secondly
conceptualization of neo-conservatism concept is going to elaborated and at the last part shortly
stated fundamental concepts and arguments of realism, liberalism and constructivism along with
their criticism on War on Terror in Iraq. Evidences show that ideas can be powerful on states’
behavior and their foreign policy preferences depend on time and circumstances but it does not
necessarily rational. It is seen that neo-conservatism was an ideational or an ideological approach
which shaped the US foreign policy during the Bush’s tenure and the Iraq War can be better
explained by constructivist and ideational approaches.
2. ORIGINS OF THE IRAQ PROBLEM
On September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda agents hijacked two airplanes and attacked the World
Trade Center in New York to challenge the US security. The attack brought an earthquake in the
mind of American citizens and governing elites. Al-Qaeda undertook the responsibility of the
attack. Because the leader of al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, was residing in Afghanistan, the US
warned Afghanistan officials to surrender to the US. Osama bin Laden was not surrendered and
the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001. Taliban, the leader of Afghanistan, was thrown out his
country and was replaced with a pro-American leader.
As 2002 arrived, the US began to increase pressure on Iraq to open its territory to UN
weapon inspectors. Saddam Hussein, the president of Iraq, had invaded Kuwait in 1990 and the
UN-authorized coalition led by the US ousted the Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Aftermath, Hussein
was ordered to disarm in certain specified areas of weaponry under the supervision of the UN
inspectors. Inspections have confronted certain difficulties that in 1998 suspended and in 2002 be
resumed.
The United States insisted that President Hussein allow UN weapon inspectors full access
to investigate Iraqi weapons and storage sites. While Iraq complied with some of the US demands,
this was not satisfactory for the US administration. The president Bush openly favored that the US
military intervention in Iraq with or without the authorization of the UN. In 2002, Bush announced
three countries as the “axis of evil”, which included Iraq that was suspected of supporting al-Qaeda
and producing weapons of mass destruction. In the autumn of 2002, the UN Security Council
passed a resolution demanding that Iraq comply with the relevant resolutions. Although the US
attempted to convince the world states for a collective action in Iraq, unfortunately, the UN
Security Council did not issue a resolution that called on the necessity for a collective military
intervention to Iraq. For the US, there were four options: 1) the US and the supporting allies launch
an invasion of Iraq to dispose Saddam and replace him with an American-sponsored democratic
government, 2) push for a UN security Council resolution, or NATO resolution to justify an
invasion with multilateral forces, 3) get the UN security Council authorization to intensify the UN
inspections, and 4) do nothing. And the US chose the first option.
The US followed a policy of containment of the Soviet Union for forty five years that
defined national security and foreign policy of America. Political realism and liberal
internationalism have been fundamental logic of American foreign policy with respect to emphasis
on power and international cooperation. Presidents Bush and Clinton continued to pursue this logic
in the 1990s but both of them did not construct a grand strategy that would guide the nation into the
new century. Grand strategy was mainly defined how the US military forces could be used for the
foreign policy purposes. The 9/11 provided Bush II, a chance to forefront his grand strategy for the
Turkish Studies
US unlike his predecessors. It was later called as The Bush Doctrine; the doctrine was designed on
the basis of three critical concepts. The first strategy was preemptive war, which means proactive
and offensive move against terrorist attacks and terrorist organization instead of defensive
precautions; the second one is unilateralism in foreign policy, which means instead of spending
time to persuade allies for an action, it is better and quicker to move alone; the third one is
hegemony or primacy, which means no other states or actors should not be able to challenge the US
power. Many analysts have argued that the Bush Doctrine is a dramatic departure from the
historical patterns of American engagement in world politics. Some foreign policy analysts
described the Bush Doctrine as “revolutionary” and “transformational”. Three principles of the
doctrine were codified in the 2002 National Security Strategy statement. At the statement Iraq was
identified as a major threat to international security. Three pillars of the doctrine is: pursuing
terrorists and the states that harbor them, halting the proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of
mass destruction and, promoting the spread of liberty and democracy throughout the world
(Eugene, Wittkoph, and Charles, 2008: 7-13).
Although sanctions against Iraq failed to be effective, the Bush administration recklessly
sought the removal of Saddam Hussein. They hoped to remake the map of the Middle East and
dramatically increase US influence worldwide. They assumed that Iraqis would welcome American
‘liberators’ with open arms and that Saddam would be removed immediately by ‘shock and awe’
strategy.
2.1. Neo-Conservatism
Neo-conservatism attracted attention because of its influence on President George W. Bush
and his several top advisors. Although candidate Bush in a speech concerning his foreign policy
said that ‘a President must be a clear-eyed realist’ and his National Security advisor Condoleezza
Rice presented herself as ‘I am a realist’; it was agreed that they followed neoconservative policies
rather than realistic (Mazarr, 2003: 503). While neo-conservatism does offer some ideas, it is not
focused on international relations or foreign policy. It is an ideational approach or a
political/foreign policy ideology that can guide us analyze in this case. Francais Fukuyama, Robert
Kagan, Charles Krauthammer, Irving and William Kristol are leading intellectuals who contributed
to development of these principles. While liberalism and realism are thought incompatible, neo-
conservatism is composed of an amalgam of both theories. Neoconservatives emphasized that
power is the most important element in the international system and suspect about international
institutions. This approach was clearly very close to realistic ideas. On the other hand, realists do
not care moral values but neoconservatives suggest that the United States should act for moral
purposes.
Fukuyama offers four principles that have guided neoconservatives. The first one is a
concern with democracy, human rights, and the internal politics of states. This principle overlaps
with liberalism but is opposed to realism and neo-realism. The second is America should use its
power for moral purposes. This preposition seems closer to liberalism than realism. The third
assumption is crucial skepticism about international organizations, their efficiency and lack of
ability on international security. The forth one is skepticism about ambiguous social engineering
(Fukuyama,2006).
Kristol and Kagan advocated the idea of American exceptionalism and inherent morality,
holding that the US must be the world’s “benevolent global hegemony”. They endorsed that the US
follow intense internationalist foreign agenda favoring US interest and credibility in world affairs
(Kagan, 1996:23-24).
Turkish Studies
Kristol summarized neoconservative foreign policy attitudes as such: one, patriotism is

healthy and natural sentiment for Americans, and should be encouraged; secondly, a world
government is a terrible idea, and international organizations regarded with the deepest suspicion;
thirdly, statesmen should have the ability to divide friends from enemies; finally, “national interest”
for a great power is not limited with its border rather it seeks material and ideological interests
within unlimited geographical border. Its power burdens responsibilities, whether sought or not,
whether welcome or not; the US has to turn them opportunities before others discover them
(Kristol,2003:1-3). These pillars were guided the Bush administration to use its power for the
common good rather than reserve it.
Charles Krauthammer promoted unilateral actions by the US and encouraged Bush for an
intervention. In his column, looking his articles’ titles enough to understand his provokes: ‘This
war is different and must be won’ (Oct. 10, 2001), ‘The right to self-defense’ (July 7, 2001),
‘Enough with the negotiating at the UN’ (Nov. 1, 2002), ‘It’s time to act’ (Jan. 24, 2003), ‘Mr.
President, walk away from the U.N.’ (Mar. 3, 2003), ‘Mr. President, don’t go back to the U.N.’
(Mar. 21, 2003) (Krauthammer,2012). He adds also revisionary prepositions that the Security
Council is an old and an unbeneficial coalition of 1945. The United States has now ability to form a
new structure with the Iraq coalition (Krauthammer,2003).
Most IR scholars do not find neo-conservatism as a legitimate theoretical approach in IR
despite it played an important theoretical guide for foreign policy makers. There are three
criticisms which show why neo-conservatism cannot be accepted as a theory. First of all, the
assumptions and the principles of neo-conservatism was not published in an IR journal, instead the
ideas that shaped the foreign policy makers were only published in some newspapers. Secondly, the
power of a theory comes from testing which means you may be able to test your theory in different
cases. Neo-conservatism consists of amalgam of principles that can solely be tested for a particular
case. Thirdly, principles of neo-conservatism were not formulated. It is an amalgam of liberalism
and realism; yet, its principles are not clearly designed. Fukuyama asserted that the US should use
its power for moral purposes. How one can test this assumption and how it can be theorized
remained unanswered (Chernoff,2007:53). But actually, neoconservatives do not insist on their
proposal should be turn out to be a theory. So, their arguments show us how ideas or ideologies can
be effective on the world’s politics.
3. INTERVENTION AND IR APPROACHES
Liberals argues that states have to respect the other’s domestic affairs and territorial
integrity; therefore they look intervention or invasion of a country by other state as an illegal act.
Liberals emphasize on the importance of international organizations and its vital role on problem
solving, peace building, and collective security (Wilson,1918:26). The United Nation is one of the
primary international organizations serving the mentioned goals. Liberal could approve an
intervention as long as a UN Security Council resolution is issued and this intervention has to
contribute the World peace, and human rights. The intervention has to be done as a collective
action as well. Otherwise, they tend to see the intervention an illegitimate. Liberals also asserts that
international organizations enhance to interdependence among states in the international system:
“International institutions provide information and a frameworks that shapes expectations and
reduces the effect of anarchy” (Nye,2003:45). Military interventions were seen a vehicle to end
conflict within states. In the case of the War on Iraq, the US tried to get a resolution but it realized
that it was impossible convincing members of the UN Security Council. The US undermined the
UN and decided to invasion of Iraq with its allies instead of collective action of the UN. Unilateral
intervention is opposed to liberalism and the invasion of Iraq cannot be explained by liberal
Turkish Studies
approach. Invasion of Iraq for democratization or liberation of Iraqi people cannot be a reasonable
and a legitimate reason.
Realists, on the other hand, do not trust international organizations and tend to see them
effective and efficient as long as they serve for the sake of their state. If international organizations
contribute to benefit for their state in terms of power, then they would support those organizations.
Realists pointed out international organizations are not important elements to the conduct of a
state’s foreign policies. If an intervention, whether it is a unilateral or multilateral action, helps
increasing of a state’s power in a suitable environment and certain conditions, they would approve
for it. Mearsheimer argues that “great powers do not work together to promote world order for its
own sake. Instead, each seeks to maximize its own share of world order. The particular
international order that obtains at any time is mainly a by-product of the self-interested behavior of
the system’s great powers” (Mearsheimer,2001:49). But, as we will see on the next pages, many
realists did not approve the invasion of Iraq on the basis that there was no sufficient and clear
evidences available for an intervention, and an intervention would not provide increase on power of
the US. Again, the invasion of Iraq is not explained by realistic argumentations.
While realism and liberalism deals with “explaining why particular decisions resulting in
specific courses of actions are made”, constructivists’ center “upon how threat perceptions, the
object of security, are socially constructed”. The former ones are concerned with ‘why’ questions
and are thought as ‘explanatory’, while constructivist approach deals with ‘how’ questions and is
considered as ‘understanding.’ Therefore, constructivists try to find and understand how an event
happened. Constructivists try to examine what kind of interaction caused a given consequence.
How actors defining themselves and others, how they engage interaction, and how they are socially
constituted. In this sense, constructivist can explain how the US elites decided to wage war to Iraq
after the 9/11 attack. Because terrorists openly threatened the people of U.S., the Bush
administration defined who the terrorists are and which states support them in order to wage war
and legitimize it. Security and threat concepts are constituted notions. Michael Williams, “security
is what we make it. Different world views and political philosophies deliver different views and
discourses about security” (Uzgören:2008:27-48). The Bush administration achieved to get support
from their audiences in consequences of speech acts (Fierke,2011:189). The speech acts provided
comprising ‘terrorists’ and ‘rogue state’ perception on U.S. citizens. While there was limited
international support acquiring, the administration succeeded in transforming speech act to
domestic support with a great patriotism. In this sense, invasion of Iraq can be better understood
and explained with constructivism.
3.1. Criticism of Realists
Realism finds its roots at famous philosophers like Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes.
Realism has few assumptions to understand behavior of a state. Morgenthau suggested six
principles of political realism in his famous book “Politics among Nations”. His first assumption is
that human nature is evil. Because human nature is evil, each man has to seek power to survive that
in this insecure nature-anarchical system- the security brings to forefront. Morgenthau took these
features and behaviors to understand states’ behaviors. Classical realists put security as primary
concern for a state and military power is the ultimate power to be secure in an unsecured world.
Realists are further interested in material strength, not ideological. He tended to look international
organizations useless, and great powers’ instrument in International relations. Realism begins with
the premise that all nations, regardless of regime, struggle for power. Morgenthau asserts that
“International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power. Whatever ultimate aims of
international politics, power is always the immediate aim” (Morgenthau,2006:4-16). Economic,
cultural, geographic or other resources are seen less important next to military power. State is
Turkish Studies
accepted unitary actor, rational and like a block box for realists. Realists believe that there is a
balance of power in the international system and these balances constantly occur. Of course, there
are different varieties of realism. Moreover the essence of realist thinking is clear: human nature
causes war; military power and material forms of power trump other kinds; only balance of power
protect war; international system is and will remain lawless; morality has no place in foreign policy
(Ainley,2005).
Opposed to liberalistic optimism, Mearsheimer claimed that bipolar world provided a
balance of power between great powers. When this polarity was dissolved, it would bring
unbalanced power capabilities that might lead to volatility and war. Even if the unbalanced power
belongs to America; it may not guarantee stability and balance in the world (Mearsheimer,2011:77-
94). In his article published in 1990, Mearsheimer argued that sooner or later we will miss the Cold
War (Mearsheimer,1990:35-30). As realists expected, the post-Cold War era showed conflicts in
Balkans, in former Soviet Union states, Somalia and Rwanda during the 1990s. But, in the 2000s,
the world faced two wars-Afghanistan and Iraq which was waged by the US that realists predicted
earlier.
Realist assumptions contributed to making of the US foreign policy during the Cold War.
Realism was criticized when realist scholars failed to predict collapse of the Soviet Union. But after
the 9/11, realist assumptions once again came on the table to explain the US foreign policies.
Realism can provide a useful theoretical milieu to explain the US’ military response after the 9/11.
When a state grows vastly more powerful than any opponent, realists expect that it will in the short
or long term try to use that power to expand its domination. However, Realists faced difficulty to
examine the 9/11. First of all, war on terror was to be conducted against al-Qaeda, which was a
terrorist organization, not a state. Yet the war was waged against two states rather than al-Qaeda.
Secondly, one of the pillars of realism, balance of power, did not occur, meaning that weaker states
did not ally to protect themselves from the stronger ones. Instead, the states tried to undermine the
US moral legitimacy, by referring to the US violation of the signed treaties and its disrespect
towards international organizations. Walt explains the situation as soft balancing instead of
counterbalancing that France, Germany and Russia achieved to formulate and maintain a unified
position by this way Bush administration and diplomacy has been weakened (Walt,2011:100).
This response couldn’t be explained from the orthodox realistic approach. Despite these conceptual
difficulties, realism provides a concrete explanation for the US foreign policy following 9/11.
Nevertheless, most realists stood against the US’ invasion of Iraq. On September 26, 2002, a letter
published in the New York Times, three dozen scholars, some of them prominent realist scholars,
emphasized six points (Art,2002).
1. No one has shown evidence that Iraq is cooperating with al-Qaeda.
2. Saddam Hussein could not use nuclear weapons, even if he had them, without suffering
massive U.S. or Israeli retaliation.
3. An attempt to conquer Iraq could spread instability in the Middle East, threatening U.S.
interests.
4. Iraq could use chemical and biological weapons or urban combat tactics that would
impose significant costs to U.S. forces.
5. Even if victory comes easily, the United States has no plausible exit strategy. Because its
society is deeply divided, the United States would have to occupy and police Iraq for many years to
create a successful state.
Turkish Studies
6. Al-Qaeda poses a greater threat to the United States than Iraq does, and a war with Iraq
will reduce the United States’ ability to fight al-Qaeda by increasing anti-Americanism and
diverting resources.
While realists’ main concern was the security of the state, prominent realists’ scholars,
such as Mearsheimer and Walt argued that Iraq was not a real danger for the US. They did not find
the invasion of Iraq beneficial for the US interests. Mearsheimer also challenged US intervention
by referring to its undesirable effect on spreading nationalism in the county that is invaded. He also
asserted that the people of Iraq would prefer a dictator and a violent Saddam instead of a ‘just’
occupation. There was no strategic rationality for the United States and this war was hence an
unnecessary one even if its long-term consequences might be positive. On the other hand, if the war
goes badly somehow, the responsible elites would confront serious domestic and international
pressure which would be again against the US national interests (Walt,2003:50-58). Mearshiemer
also contextualizes his dissent: “The dispute about whether to go to war in Iraq was between two
competing theories of international politics: realism and the neo-conservatism that underpins the
Bush doctrine” (Mearsheimer,2005:1-7)
From another non-orthodox realist view, Lebow explains the situation of the US with a
Greek philosophical approach. He says that appetite, spirit and reason are motivating elements not
only for individuals but also for states. If spirit (honor and glory) and appetite (wealth) are not
balanced in competition by reason, it would lead to a rapid unraveling of order. He argues that the
US elites moved the country with respect to enhance its spirit (honor) without reason and rational
check. He concludes that The Bush administration’s experience in Iraq drives home the most
important insight of classical realism: those great powers are their own worst enemies
(Lebow,2010:52).
G.John Ikenberry also asserts that the misguided policy of hyper-moral, unilateral-oriented
neoconservatives is rapidly damaging the country’s “prestige, credibility, security partnerships, and
goodwill of other countries”. He describes neoconservative policies as a mistake by warning that
the bill of invasion of Iraq will force U.S. foreign policy back into its multilateral orientation.
Neoconservatives harm American legitimacy and moral authority by moving unilaterally and
exposing other states fear and intimidation. Neoconservative ideology is unstable, crude and
ethnocentric (Ikenberry,2004:10). Ikenberry and Kupchan suggested that liberal realism is seen
more advantageous than neoconservative ideology; it would enhance both U.S. security and
international stability (Kupchan,2004:38).
Historians have generally skeptical about waging war as a response to terrorist attack. After
a few month later Sep. 11, the American historian Paul Schroeder wrote:
“Three lessons emerge from reasoning by historical analogy from the early summer of
1914 to the late summer of 2001. The first is that a great power must avoid giving terrorists the war
they want, but that the great power does not want. The second is that a great power must reckon the
effects of its actions not only on its immediate circumstances, but also with regard to the larger
structure of international politics in which it clearly has a significant stake. The third is that a great
power must beware the risks of victory as well as the dangers of defeat. If it is not careful and wise,
the United States could find itself enmeshed even deeper in the Middle East and Southeast Asia
than it is today and risk generating greater prospective dangers in the process of containing smaller
near-term ones” (Roberts,2005).
3.2. Criticism of liberal institutionalisms
Liberalism is a theory; a school that tries to explain IR, a philosophical position and an
antithesis of realism. Liberalism is a part of the enlightenment project and developed by some
Turkish Studies
social contract thinkers and utilitarians. Social contract thinkers like Kant and Locke tried rational
justification for government that the people obey on what reasons other than holy or spiritual
causes. For liberals, a state’ legitimacy comes from consent of people. Individuals are thought to be
rational. Human nature is accepted as good and cooperative; therefore states are accepted to be
cooperative. Liberals stress that although international system has an anarchical nature, it can be
kept peaceful by the existence of international institutions. They pay attention to international
organizations, individual liberty, human rights, free trade, rule of law, expression of thought,
legitimacy, consent of people, and cooperation. Woodrow Wilson is one of prominent liberals,
paved the way for the establishment of the League of Nation in 1919. Although the League of
Nations failed to prevent states from World War II, just after the war a new world order was
established with the United Nations. Today, the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade
Organization, the IMF and the World Bank can be shown examples of liberal institutions that
provide cooperation and coordination between states. Non-governmental organizations are also
taken into consideration in the liberal approach. They believe that the more interdependency
between states, the more peaceful world order could be (Ainley,2005:22).
Joseph Nye criticizes neo-conservatists that they focused on too heavily on military power
alone first of all. While al Qaeda had established cells more than sixty countries, a unilateral
military intervention and invasion, and replacing a pro-American president would not solve
terrorism in the World. Therefore, military action could make little effect on fighting with
terrorism. Power is the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants. Fighting with terrorism also
contends other dimensions such as economic and cross-border issues. Although The US is powerful
enough in terms of militarily and, will be years to come; it has little to do with economic, trade and
financial regulation issues without support of EU, Japan and others. So, “American hegemony”
makes no sense in a multi polar power distributed world. He also argues that the unilateralists’
policies tend to decrease US soft power. Even the US with its preponderant military power does not
have ability to solve today’s key issues such as, international financial stability, drug trafficking,
the spread of diseases, and the new terrorism; without international coalitions and international
organizations’ support (Nye,2003:67) Instead of encouraging liberal values by openness, common
vision and common interest, the US expected to accommodate its universal values by force. But the
idealistic foundation of neo-conservatism failed to assure international community. American
unilateralism damaged the unity of the West and persuaded many people that America was seeking
an empire (Jervis,2005:351-377).
3.3. Constructivist Approach
Wendt argues that state interests, identities, even power itself are constituted by ideas.
Ideas, norms and cultural background shape political elites and their politics affect the foreign
policy of a state. While states are accepted as key actors and the main unit of analysis in realism,
from a constructivist approach, ideas, ideology, norms, identities, culture, society, religion and
region contribute to form state’s behavior. The structure of international politics is constructed by
values, ideas, identities and cultures. Norms are learned and internalized and humans are socially
embedded. Knowledge is socially constructed. Identities are formed inter-subjectively. It means
that identities, interests and state behaviors are always in interaction and they constantly reproduce
themselves through interaction. Individuals form their identity through interaction by socialization.
States, also, have different identities, e.g. national, religious, regional and ideological according to
Wendt (Wendt,1992).
“Anarchy is what states make of it” is an expression means that states construct the idea of
anarchy and they describe what the anarchy is in the international relations. In constructivist idea,
states construct their ideas not only domestic determinants but also from other states and
Turkish Studies
international system. So, whether the international system is anarchical or not anarchical can be
constructed through interactions of people, states and international environment. States can
determine whether states are friends, rivals or enemies for him inter-subjectively constructed.
Anarchy is relative for constructivists. The process of interaction not only determines identities,
state behaviors and state interest but also describe nature of international relations. Constructivists
argue that increase on the interaction in different social groups contributes to the exchange of ideas
and mutual understanding and at the end cooperation could be facilitated. If it is achieved, states
are not in a condition of self-help, and conflict among states can be diminished. Constructivist
explains conflict; yet, do not only focuses on how cooperation can be achieve (Hopf,1998).
Constructivist regarded security as an issue of inter-subjectivity, a social construct, and
focused on culture and civilization. The security context is formed by ideas, norms, and values in
the historical context. Collective identity formation contributes security understanding within
settled opposition of inside/outside, self/other, particularity/universality, and identity/difference
(Wendt,1992).
One of the main argumentation of the Bush Doctrine was to deliver democracy over
suppressed regimes like Iraqi regime. The argument is more idealistic even more idealistic than
liberals do. The Bush administration’s ideology was too optimistic that they thought the people of
Iraq would thank them to liberalize. They later understood that you cannot force people to be
democratic, this is not necessary. All that is needed is to allow people to be democratic
(Jervis,2005:120). Intervention for democratization is not seen a motivation for realists and even
for liberals. But, constructivists can explain this motivation on the basis of ideological stand drag
into a state to use of force.
From this position, one can argue that the Bush administration’s war on terror was made
possible by the discursive techniques that between the 9/11 attacks, weapons of mass destructions,
and Saddam Hussein’s regime. The US administration used speech acts in to persuade the domestic
population in emphasizing that the values adhered at home can and should be transferred to non-
democratic states. The rhetoric also contributed to impress the leaders of states and their publics
(Finnemore,2011:73). In an address to CIA employees on September 26, 2001, Bush told that they
should expect a long and unprecedented war, aimed at uprooting terrorism once for all
(Washintonpost,2011). And he gave a concrete message to other nation by warning them “[in this
war on terror] you are either with us or with the terrorists” (CNN,2001). Bush declared in his
famous State of the Union address he delivered to Congress in January 2002, “First, we will shut
down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans and bring terrorist to justice. And second, we must
prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from
threatening the United States and the world. States, North Korea, Iran and Iraq, and their terrorist
allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world” (Washingtonpost,2002).
The National Security Strategy states that “The US national security strategy will be based on a
distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests
(Bush,2002:48).
Unlike realist, neo-conservatists in Bush’s administration were carrying on idealistic notion
of ‘democratic peace’. They also tended to see the threat of terrorism in strikingly ideological
rather than material, terms. After the 9/11, Bush said that ‘This is the world’s fights. This is the
fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom’. Moreover, Bush was
seen a faith-inspired tendency toward the US’ foreign policy. Bush suggested that America has
divine assignment in the world to spread. In a speech in 2003, Bush said ‘there is a dedication and
purpose, set by hand of a just and faithful God’ (Mazarr,2003). It shows that idealistic, religious
and ideational base were directed foreign policy behavior of the US during the War on Iraq.
Turkish Studies
Realists undermine moral values and effect of moral values in foreign affairs. Constructivist
approach can best explain how ideology and ideas shape a state’s behavior in the international
system. The approach advises that culture, religion ideology contribute to emergence of our
political actions.
The Bush administration thought that the decisive U.S. leadership and assertion of power
would generate a bandwagon of support in favor of U.S. policy goals. The bandwagon expectation
was the case of the victory with a clear support from international politics and secondly the US
military power would produce a benign form of the domino dynamic in the region itself. As Bush
argued that a “free Iraq can be an example of reform and progress to all the Middle East.” Despite
democracy promotion is not a new idea in the US foreign policy; the Iraq War illustrates how
ideological and material forces were mobilized to form foreign policy. Scholars are gradually
coming into consensus that both power and ideas interact to produce outcomes of interests of in
international politics” (Monten,2005:123). Political beliefs and optimistic expectation shaped the
US intervention to Iraq.
Constructivism argues that nations are constructed through the production of foreign
enemies in a clear distinction of a virtuous inside from a vicious outside. The American governing
elites achieved to overcome the 9/11 by using it not only for legitimizing the US foreign policy but
also recreating an American national identity using humiliation of the 9/11. In his article William
A. Callahan examined how national identity project involve more than elites instrumentally taken
as sources of symbolic power to emphasize sovereignty, gain legitimacy, and unite the masses.
Neo-conservatism used ‘America’s National Day of Humility, Fasting and Prayer’ at the days of
the Iraq War in 2003 to infiltrate American exceptionalism idea to American people. BBC
announced in its evening news on Sep. 11, 2001 as ‘America Humiliated’ rather than ‘America
Attacked’. In March 2003, American Congress passed a nonbinding resolution that called upon the
president to proclaim a “national day of humility, prayer and fasting” to remark the invasion of
Iraq. National humiliation days provide an alternative way of remarking the emergence and
maintaining of nations in international society (Callahan,2006).
Studies (Lindssay,2003) of post-Cold War US foreign policy has found evidences that US
decision makers value their country’s status of primacy. Since the beginning of 1991 until the 9/11,
US strategist referred to the rhetoric of “maintaining U.S. predominance” (Wohlforth,2011:61)
4. CONCLUSION
As we have seen above, liberals and realists opposed to invasion of Iraq with different
perspectives and argumentations. They denied the war on the one hand, but also they failed to
explain why and how it happened on the other. To examine the case in comparative prospect
facilitate to conceive causal relationships. Constructivists have substantial arguments to explain
causal relationship between invasion of Iraq and social construction of ideas. Despite the fact that
we agree with constructivists are more suitable claims to understand causes, they are seen weak to
predict alternative scenarios, problem solving and guidance capability for statesmen. We think the
Iraq War is a good lesson for all IR students and governing elites that social interactions, act of
speech, patriotism and hegemonic ideal can lead you wrong directions. Therefore, it is better to
keep moderate your ambitious.
The neoconservative persuasion has caused a crisis of legitimacy of the US in the global
system. The neoconservative policies damaged legitimacy discussion and were came out crisis
solving deficiency of the UN. Neo-conservatism was awake in 1970s, was asleep for a while,
returned back between 2000 and 2008, and started to sleep again. No one guarantee it will not turn
back again. The Iraq War showed that how a powerful ideology may ability to manipulate domestic
Turkish Studies
politics and to effect the international system. The Iraq War has been a relevant to examine
constructivists’ arguments. Constructivist approach considers political outcomes as products of a
complex interaction of material and ideational factors. Today, we live in a very complex and
globalized world that theories and ideologies confront to challenge. We would like to conclude
with a quotation from Jervis: “We are headed for a difficult world, one that is not likely to fit any
of our ideologies or simple theories.” (Jervis; 2005: 138).
REFERENCES
Aınley, C. B. W. K. (2005). Understanding International Relations. New York, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Art, R. J. (September 26, 2002). "War With Iraq İs Not İn America's National İnterest." From
Http://Www.Bear-Left.Com/Archive/2002/0926oped.Html.
Bush, G. W. (2002). The National Security Strategy Of The United States Of America. New York,
W.W. Norton & Company.
Callahan, W. A. (2006). "War, Shame, And Time: Pastoral Governance And National Identity İn
England And America " International Studies Quarterly 50(2): 395-419.
Chernoff, F. (2007). Theory And Metatheory İn International Relations: Concepts And Contending
Accounts. New York, Palgrave Macmillian.
Cnn (2001). "Transcript Of President Bush's Address To A Joint Session Of Congress On Thursday
Night, September 20, 2001.". From
Http://Edition.Cnn.Com/2001/Us/09/20/Gen.Bush.Transcript/.
Daalder, I. H., & Lındsay, J. M. (2003). America Unbound: The Bush Revolution İn Foreign
Policy. Washington Dc, Brookings Institution.
Fıerke, F. M. (2011). Constructivism. New York, Oxford University Press.
Fınnemore, M. (2011). Legitimacy, Hypocricy, And The Social Structure Of Unipolarity: Why
Being A Unipole İsn't All İt's Cracked Up To Be. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2006). America At The Crossroads: Democracy, Power, And The Neoconservative
Legacy. New Haven, Yale University Press.
Hopf, T. (1998). "The Preomise Of Constructivism İn International Relations Theory."
International Security 23(1): 171-200.
Ikenberry, G. J. (2004). "The End Of The Neo-Conservative Moment." Survival 46(1): 7-22.
Jervıs, J. (2005). "The Roots Of The Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, And Democracy
Promotion İn U.S. Strategy." International Security 29(4): 112-156.
Jervıs, R. (2005). "Why The Bush Doctrine Cannot Be Sustained." Political Science Quarterly
120(3): 351-377.
Joseph S. Nye, J. (2003). "U.S. Power And Strategy After Iraq." Foreign Affairs(July/August): 60-
73.
Kagan, W. K. A. R. (1996). "Toward A Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy." Foreign Affairs
July/August.
Krauthammer, C. (2003). "Mr. President, Walk Away From The U.N.". From
Http://Townhall.Com/Columnists/Charleskrauthammer/2003/03/12/Mr_President,_
Walk_Away_From_The_Un.
Krauthammer, C. (2012). "Townhall-Columnists-Charles Krauthammer." From
Http://Townhall.Com/Columnists/Charleskrauthammer/.
Turkish Studies
Krıstol, I. (2003). The Neoconservative Persuasion. The Weekly Standards Washington. 47: 1-3.
Kupchan, G. J. I. A. C. A. (2004). "Liberal Realism: The Foundation Of A Democratic Foreign
Policy." The National Interest Fall.
Lebow, R. N. (2010). Classical Realism. New York, Oxford University Press.
Mazarr, M. J. (2003). "George W. Bush, Idealist." International Affairs 73(3): 503-522.
Mearsheımer, J. (2005). Hans Morgenthau And The Iraq War: Realism Versus Neo-Conservatism.
London, Opendemocracy.
Mearsheımer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics New York, Norton.
Mearsheımer, J. J. (2011). Structural Realism. New York, Oxford University Press.
Mearsheımer, J. J. (August 1990). "Why We Will Soon Miss The Cold War." The Atlantic
Monthly 266(2): 35-50.
Monten, J. (2005). "The Roots Of The Bush Doctrine: Power, Nationalism, And Democracy
Promotion İn U.S." International Security 29(4): 112-156.
Morgenthau, H. (2006). Politics Among Nations: The Struggle For Power And Pea. New York,
Mcgrawhill.
Roberts, A. (Summer 2005). "The 'War On Terror' İn Historical Perspective." Survival 42(2): 101-
130.
Uzgören, N. K. A. E. (2007). "Explainig Social Constructivist Contributions To Security Studies."
Perceptions Summer/Autumn: 27-48.
Walt, J. J. M. A. S. M. (2003). "An Unnecessary War." Foreign Policy January.
Walt, S. M. (2011). Alliances İn A Unipolar Worl. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Washıngtonpost (2002). "Text Of President Bush's Jan. 29, 2002 State Of The Union Address."
From Http://Www.Washingtonpost.Com/Wp-
Srv/Onpolitics/Transcripts/Sou012902.Htm.
Washınton Post (2001). "Text: President Bush At The Cıa On Sept. 26, 2001." From
Http://Www.Washingtonpost.Com/Wp-
Srv/Nation/Specials/Attacked/Transcripts/Bushtext_092601.Html.
Wendt, A. (1992). "Anarchy İs What States Make Of İt: The Social Construction Of Power
Politics." International Organization, 46(2): 391-425.
Wılson, W. (1918). The Fourteen Points: From Woodrow Wilson's Address To The U.S. Congress.
New York, W.W.Norton & Company.
Wıttkopf, E., Jones, C., & Kegley Jr, C. (2008). American Foreign Policy: Pattern And Process.
Belmont, Thomson Wadsworth.
Wohlforth, W. C. (2011). Unipolarity, Competition, And War. Cambridge Cambridge University
Press.
Citation Information/Kaynakça Bilgisi

Aydın, A. – Tekin, O. (2016). “Realist, Liberal And Constructivist Approachs To War On Terror In
Iraq / Realist, Liberal ve Yapılandırmacı Yaklaşımlara Göre Irak’ta Terörle Savaş”,
TURKISH STUDIES -International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History
of Turkish or Turkic-, ISSN: 1308-2140, (Prof. Dr. Hayati Akyol Armağanı), Volume 11/2
Winter 2016, ANKARA/TURKEY, www.turkishstudies.net, DOI Number:
http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.9060, p. 113-126.
Turkish Studies

Realist Liberal and Constructivist Appro PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Realist Liberal and Constructivist Appro PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Turkish Studies

Article Info/Makale Bilgisi

This article was checked by iThenticate.

REALIST, LIBERAL AND CONSTRUCTIVIST APPROACHS TO

Aydın AYDIN* - Oğuzhan TEKİN**

one. The more a theory is consistent interpretation for a particular case,

ideational and ideological approach, neo-conservatism intensively

REALİST, LİBERAL VE YAPILANDIRMACI YAKLAŞIMLARA

Kristol summarized neoconservative foreign policy attitudes as such: one, patriotism is

Citation Information/Kaynakça Bilgisi

You might also like