Ikram 1

Faiza Ikram
Elmhurst College: Fall 2014
POL 306: Politics of International Relations
Professor Boyle
Grade received: AIraq War: Military Power and War
Ideology, economic or political theories and policies based on a system of ideas or beliefs
(Business Dictionary, What is an Ideology?), a powerful tool. It is the belief of what states
should do in relation to international theory and politics. Ideology is the framework, motive,
and/or justification behind any organization, government, and actors actions .There are social,
political, and economic ideologies such as republicanism, democracy, communism, fascism,
among others. At times, the ideologies of organization, nations, and states are in conflict with
each other. For instance, from a constructivist point of view, the clash of Democracy and
Communism contributed to the start of the 19471991 Cold War. Similarly, ideology played a
significant role in the initiation and continuation of the 2003 US-Iraq war. The Iraq war, started
as a result of both US fear that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the 2003 US
led invasion to oust Saddam Hussein (BBC World News Middle East, Iraq Profile). Moreover,
there was a perception that the 9/11 attacks are linked to the war on terror in Iraq and other
Middle Eastern countries. Thus, ideology combined with situation came into play and ultimately
influenced the start and continuation of the Iraq war. Ideologies such as liberalism, realism,
democracy, nationalism, and extremism caused the initial US led invasion in Iraq, the start of the
war, and its continuation by garnering US public support for the war so Congress would
authorize operations, riling Iraqi civilians into nationalistic and extremist attitudes and thus,

Ikram 2

facilitating terrorist recruitments, and shaping US foreign policy to promote democracy by the
use of force.
Democracy played a significant role in the Iraq invasion. The promotion of democracy
was in the Bush doctrine of the Iraq war (Helena, Tavares, and Teixeira 131). The ideology of
democracy, the belief that the people should have power and liberty, fueled the moral notion in
the Bush doctrine. The Bush administration believed that the implementation of democracy
would fight terrorism. Based on the democratic theory of peace, the Bush administration held the
notion that if Iraq has democracy, there will be peace within the country. Furthermore, based on
the Kants liberal zone of peace theory if both Iraq and the U.S. are liberal states, then the
probability of war or escalating conflicts between both governments are slim. In fact, as this
discussion progresses, it will be revealed how the Bush doctrine is very much consistent with the
ideology of the American Liberal Tradition (Helena, Tavares, and Teixeira 132).
The promotion of democracy to implement peace was not the only justification utilized
for the U.S. invasion in Iraq. For instance, the moral concept of all people having the right
experience freedom, as part of the American Liberal Tradition ideology, was also used to justify
the Iraq war. For instance, George W. Bush said in his 2003 address of the Iraq war, carry on
the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will
prevail (The Guardian, George Bushs Address on the Start of the War). However, it is
essential to note that the American Liberal Tradition and democratic ideologies are not two
separate branches of beliefs. Instead, they are connected by the fact that both ideological systems
promote liberty and individualism (Helena, Tavares, and Teixeira 133).
Although the promotion of democracy was portrayed as being a tool to implement peace
and moral goals, some critics argue that this deep rooted liberal ideology was actually used to

Ikram 3

conceal U.S. oil motives and interests in the U.S. Making comparisons across states and
examining US key plans and documents indicates that oil-dependency and Iraqs tremendous
petroleum reserves were important motivations for war (Bonds 292). The moral and peaceful
ideals of democracy were important to use as a motive in order to both justify both US action and
obtain American public support for the Iraq war. The American public at large tend to believe
that their wars are fought for noble purposes and for national security or in terms of a mandate
to spread freedom and democracy (Bonds 292) instead of being fought for economic and power
interests. The US government and media further perpetuated this notion of a moral war in order
to keep domestic and international support alive for the US led invasion in Iraq, alive.
Reinforcing the idea that it was necessary to have a war for moral and security purposes was
successful, as evident when the ideology of defensive liberalism shifted to offensive liberalism in
military strategy after 9/11.
Offensive liberalism, the idea of promoting values through the use of force, was on the
rise after 9/11 (Miller 33). The approaches of both defensive liberalism, which is the idea of
promoting values through humanitarian assistance and institutions rather than military force
(Miller 33), and offensive liberalism are sets of ideas shared by policy makers about how to
maximize state security, and thus they are an ideational factor (Miller 29). Before the 9/11
attacks, the U.S. public supported defensive liberalism in military strategy, but after 9/11, it was
the changing international order that made offensive liberalism more appealing. Offensive
liberalism, promoting democracy through the use of military capability, is still a part of the
political ideology of American Liberal Tradition as defensive liberalism is. However, both
ideologies differ in military strategy not ideals. Offensive liberalism supported the promotion of
democracy through the use of force while defensive liberalism focused on promotion of

Ikram 4

democracy by cooperation and humanitarian work (Miller 34).Thus, the majority of Americans
during pre and post 9/11, supported the promotion of a liberal democracy globally, however, it
was the direct threat and the alteration of systematic conditions after 9/11 which promoted
domestic support for offensive liberalism (Miller 31). This support shaped the U.S. grand
strategy of invading Iraq and using hard power rather than soft power, which alludes to defensive
liberalism.
Although Americans support of offensive liberalism was essential for the operation in
Iraq to be underway, public support did not solely shape US military strategy. Several wellknown figures who believed in the offensive liberal ideology were appointed senior positions in
the Bush administration (Miller 51). However, public support was necessary in part for
Congress to authorize the US operation in Iraq. Congressional members re election terms could
be in jeopardy if they vote against their constituents opinions and interests. This was evident
when in 2003, according to polls, sixty nine percent of Americans supported U.S. military action
in Iraq (Roberts "Poll: Fading Support For Iraq War). The rise of public support for the Iraq
war influenced presidential candidates speeches and prompted promises to invade Iraq and
combat terrorism. When public support for the Iraq war waned, political candidates then pledged
to pull American troops back from Iraq. The correlation between US public opinion and public
figures Iraq military rhetoric is clear.
Elements of liberalism such as liberty and individualism promoted by America suggest
imperialistic and hegemonic traits of US intervention in Iraq. American citizens support for the
Iraq war based on the belief that the war will both combat terrorism by instilling peace and
freeing the Iraqi people so they can exercise individual choice and rights is what suggests an
Imperialistic ideology and belief rampant in US public discourse. This belief that liberalism is or

Ikram 5

should be universal and that the Wests political and social systems are the right way of state
order and structure reinforces the US as an imperial power. Author Niall Ferguson in his New
Republic editorial, True Lies which discusses the Iraq war, further explains how imperialism
is used to influence military strategy by saying the Bush administration-and the American
people-need to understand that successful imperialism (sorry, nation-building) requires a kind
ofhypocrisy. The United States must stay in Iraq, but never stop promising to leave (16).
This refers to the earlier discussion of how the publics opinion and ideologies affect US foreign
initiatives and policy makers rhetoric.
The imperialistic military tactics of the American led invasion in Iraq, as implied earlier,
suggest that that the US acts as a hegemon in the international system. For instance, Helena,
Santos, and Teixeria explain how Patrick (2002, 7) states that the countrys liberal principles
derives from their presumed universality and underpins a missionary element in US foreign
policy (133). This missionary element within US foreign policy alludes to the Wests
colonialism and expansionism particularly in the nineteenth century. Western imperialism
ideology encouraged Americans to support the military operation in Iraq because of the moral
belief held by the US and Europe that in order to change political, social and cultural systems
that are dissimilar from that of the West, imperialism is necessary. This promotion of moral
beliefs and values is necessary in public discourse due to imperialism being seen as ethically
reprehensible. Imperialism is often seen as objectionable because power and force are used.
Thus, the promotion of ideals that are advertised to benefit all of mankind acts as a structure for
US imperialism in Iraq and other nations (The Editors of Encyclopdia Britannica "Imperialism
(political Science)." It is clear that a strong connection between ideology and military strategy is

Ikram 6

seen in imperialism: the beliefs of a hegemonic state, in this case, the U.S.,

motivates and

justifies their expansionist powers and actions in Iraq.

The military strategies reflecting US imperialistic ideology during the Iraq reinforced the
sense of nationalism the America public experienced after 9/11.. Arguably, imperialism can lead
to nationalistic attitudes and this can be perpetuated by both, public figures and the media.
Nationalistic ideology impacting US military strategy is evident when the media frames
nationalistic ideology and identity and readers are influenced by such visual messages that it
shifts their opinion on US foreign policy. For instance, in a study, one of the TIME magazine
covers which portrayed images of the Iraq war from 2003-2007 showed an image of Saddam
Hussein with the caption We Got Him!(Moreno, Harp, and Bachmann 11). This us versus
them ideological representation of the Iraq war influenced the American publics perception of
war and the enemy through visual reporting. Moreover, images of armed men with their faces
covered combined with captions such as they or enemy further reinforce the us versus
them divide (Moreno, Harp, and Bachmann 11). This further divide between both people imply
an imperialistic notion, as discussed earlier, in US public discourse. The reinforcement of
nationalist ideology on the American public was essential to keep support for the Iraq war alive
during its early years otherwise the operations may have been met with strong hesitation in
Congress.
Nationalism was not only specific to the US. After the Iraq war in the 1980s, a slow
resentment against the US arose. Iraqi civilians began to resent Western imperial powers on
infringing their rights especially after the second Iraq war which began in 2003. Iraqis wanted to
maintain their sovereignty and self determination. They opposed the US in invading Iraq and
thus, a strong sense of nationalism became even more strengthened after the 2003 US led

Ikram 7

invasion in Iraq. This strong sense of nationalism in Iraq has arguably contributed to an
expansion of terrorism and extremism.
Jihadism, or Islamic extremism, stems from both religious and nationalistic ideology,
although some argue that extremism is only based on a political, nationalist agenda, not religion.
It is critical to note that extremist or jihadist groups use ideology as a motive, framework, and/or
justification for their actions or purpose in order to gain sympathy from Iraqi civilians and to
recruit members. This aligns with how the US may have used ideology, specially democracy
promotion, to gain support and justify their foreign policy in Iraq. The fight against an ideology,
by using another, in this case it is democracy vs. autocracy (although in the second Iraq war it
was more terrorism than autocracy), backfired. Instead, the extremist ideology the US fought
against expanded and was strengthened due to resentment against US invasions in Iraq. For
instance, Thomas Hegghammer, a research associate, states that most terrorism experts agree that
the US led invasion in March 2003 has contributed negatively to the so called war on terror
(11). Here, it is seen that the war has in fact contributed to extremist ideology rather than
diminish such ideology and the actions that are influenced by it. Hegghammer goes on to say,
occupation have increased the level of frustrationover American foreign policy and facilitated
recruitment by militant Islamist groups (11).
Civilians, especially the youth in war torn areas who are the most likely to be susceptible,
are taken in by the religious and nationalist rhetoric spewed by such extreme ideologies. Thus,
after seeing their homes destroyed or their families killed, they may join extremist groups in
retaliation against the US or in hopes of obtaining peace through religion. Unfortunately, it
becomes a vicious cycle among Iraq, Iraqi militants, and the US. The Iraq war has contributed to
jihadist ideology, the presumed factor the US is fighting against. However, the operations and

Ikram 8

fight in Iraq led by American troops has contributed to resentment which led to nationalistic
feelings which in turn, ultimately led to a further facilitation of extremist ideology and terrorist
recruitment. Thus, when the US sees such ideology being placed into action (e.g. terrorist attacks
or anti-West rhetoric) they carry out further operations or missile attacks which the further riles
up Iraqi civilians and raises the number of recruitment to jihadist groups.
Liberalism, Jihadism (or extremism), and nationalism are ideologies which either directly
or indirectly influenced US military strategy and. A popular approach to international politics is
Realism; however, it was arguably not utilized in the Iraq war. Realism was an ideational
approach to security (a grand strategy), realism is prescriptive-it suggests how the state should
maximize security (B. Miller 30). American strategists and policy makers quickly realized that
realism, the belief that states are self interested and seek power above all else (Korab-Karpowicz
"Political Realism in International Relations."), will be ineffective in combating the threat of
escalating terrorism. This is because realism is not as relevant to a non state threat (Miller 53).
The threat to the US came from terrorist organizations in Iraq, specifically non state actors, rather
than the state and government of Iraq. Both defensive and offensive realism ideologies shaping
military strategies were seen as ineffective. This is because defensive realism, the focus on
deterrence, was not an appropriate response to terrorists who follow a suicidal ideology. In
contrast, offensive realisms concentration on strengthening preventative attacks are insufficient
in ensuring that a WMD infrastructure will not be rebuilt once it is destroyed (53). There was a
strong probability that a WMD infrastructure would be restructured even after the US destroys
the framework due to a hostile regime in Iraq (53). Thus, the utilization of both offensive and
defensive realism in forming US military strategy in Iraq was seen as inadequate and
inappropriate. Placing realism ideology aside, the US could then move on to other ideologies

Ikram 9

they could promote, utilize in shaping US foreign policy, and decide to use in how to respond to
the threat of Iraq and terrorists. As discussed previously, these ideologies include democracy and
both defensive and offensive liberalism.
Although realism and liberalism differ, liberalism being focused on mutual cooperation,
liberty, and individualism, realism can include promoting such values as a moral cover or
justification for states actual interests. In previous discussions, academics argue that the US may
have had oil interests in Iraq which motivated them to initiate another Iraq war in 2003.
However, a moral motive and justification was needed and thus, the forceful promotion of
democracy and liberalism as being the moral action to take and a pathway to American security,
was used as such a motive. This is how realism may have influenced the start of war in Iraq
before it even began.
Such ideologies as realism, liberalism, nationalism, and extremism influence war through
the people, non state actors, and states within the international system. Ideologies such as
nationalism and extremism influence people and either prompt them to support or oppose state
actions. Liberalism and realism influence state foreign policy in terms of weighing the costs and
benefits. Clash of ideologies in regards to political systems between or among states often cause
conflict as seen in the Cold War and the 2003 Iraq war.

Ikram 10

Works Cited
Bonds, Eric. "Assessing The Oil Motive After The U.S. War In Iraq." Peace Review 25.2 (2013):
291-298. Academic Search Complete. Web. 19 Oct. 2014.

BBC. "Iraq Profile." BBC World News Middle East. BBC News, 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 21 Oct.
2014. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14546763

Business Dictionary. "What Is an Ideology? Definition and Meaning."BusinessDictionary.com.

Web Media, 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/ideology.html

DE CASTRO SANTOS, MARIA HELENA, and ULYSSES TAVARES TEIXEIRA. "The

Essential Role Of Democracy In The Bush Doctrine: The Invasions Of Iraq And
Afghanistan." Revista Brasileira De Poltica Internacional 56.2 (2013): 131-156. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.

Ferguson, Niall. "True Lies." New Republic 228.21 (2003): 16. Academic Search Complete.
Web. 21 Oct. 2014.

Ikram 11

Hegghammer, Thomas. "Global Jihadism After The Iraq War." Middle East Journal 60.1 (2006):
11-32. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.

Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian. "Political Realism in International Relations."Stanford University.

Stanford University, 26 July 2010. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realismintl-relations/>.

Miller, Benjamin. "Explaining Changes In U.S. Grand Strategy: 9/11, The Rise Of Offensive
Liberalism, And The War In Iraq."Security Studies 19.1 (2010): 26-65. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.

Roberts, Joel. "Poll: Fading Support For Iraq War." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 10 Oct. 205.
Web. 21 Oct. 2014. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-fading-support-for-iraq-war/>.

ROSAS-MORENO, TANIA CANTRELL, DUSTIN HARP, and INGRID BACHMANN.

"Framing Ideology: How Time Magazine Represents Nationalism And Identities Through Visual
Reporting." Comunicacin Y Sociedad 26.3 (2013): 1-20. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21
Oct. 2014.

The Guardian. "Full Text: George Bush's Address on the Start of War." World News. Guardian
News and Media Limited, 19 Mar. 2003. Web. 20 Oct. 2014. <http%3A%2F
%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2003%2Fmar%2F20%2Firaq.georgebush>.

Ikram 12

The Editors of Encyclopdia Britannica. "Imperialism (political Science)."Encyclopedia

Britannica Online. Encyclopedia Britannica, 17 Jan. 2014. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/283988/imperialism>.