Liberal Iraq War

September 11, 2001 (herein referred to as 9/11) was a day in American history, which will be remembered as the most horrific attack on American soil. This attack, carried out by nineteen Islamic extremists, was associated with al-Qaeda, and involved the hijacking of four airplanes. Two of those airplanes were hijacked and flown directly into the World Trade Center in New York City, New York. The third plane’s target was the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and the fourth plane was brought down in Pennsylvania where it is believed the passengers aboard fought the hijackers. This horrific day in history cost over 3,000 people their lives, and was labeled the worst attack on American soil since the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II.

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

In being so, liberalism possesses both economic and political components. Economic liberalism argues that, increasing economic interdependence would lead to a more peaceful international realm. Political liberalism bases itself on the belief that ‘A just world order assumes the establishment of republics ’. Thus, political liberalism as practiced by the United States during Cold War becomes a critical proponent of democracy promotion by noting that overlapping national interests will allow for a tamer international environment, engendering the notion that democracies do not engage in wars. Although democracy as interpreted by liberal theory on its own does not lead to free market, it may create the necessary infrastructure for such an event to occur. The promotion of democracy, to a great extent, increases economic interdependence through the alignment of core national values and therefore decreasing the probability of hegemony between the states. However, The notion of liberalism was undermined in the literature of the United States foreign policy after the Cold War. Even though the states were economically interdependent during the Cold War yet they engaged in rivalry for resources to the extent that if, assumingly, the “World Trade Organization” came to be perceived as a corrupt institution,

An event such as 9/11 was bound to occur at some point and time, due to the United States’ strained relationship with the Middle East, with roots back to the year 1910. However, it wasn’t until the Gulf War in 1991, when tensions began to run high. The Gulf War began due to an Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who ordered an invasion of Kuwait. Neighbouring countries were alarmed by the news and immediately asked for Western nations to intervene, fearing Hussein would continue to feed his power hunger and advance to other Arabian countries. Finally after forty two days at war, his troops surrendered. From this moment on, the events leading up to the attack on 9/11 snowballed. This is evidenced by, “After the Gulf War ended in 1991, the United

An important event that is known to be so far the most tragic attack in American history, it left Americans with a constant fear of another terrorist attack, this tragic event is known as 9/11. This tragedy occurred when an Islamic group known as al-Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in New York City. Al-Qaeda’s leader was Osama bin Laden, a Saudi fugitive seeking retaliation for America’s involvement in the Persian Gulf War, its support of Israel, and the military’s constant presence in the Middle East. Their plan to invade America began on the morning of September 11, 2001 when 19 militants hijacked 4 American Airline planes and were targeting attacks in the United States.

September 11th, 2001 marked the beginning of the war against terrorism. On that fateful day, thousands of Americans were killed in an attack instigated by the Al Qaeda terrorists. The aftermath of 9/11 was a time

On September 11, 2001, two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, New York. This was the very first contact that the United States of America had with the terrorism that went on in Iraq. March 20, 2003 marked the day that President George W. Bush announced the start of the war against Iraq (1). This was the beginning of a very costly war on both America and Iraq. The cost of the Iraq War was not just the amount of money spent, but the impact of war on the soldiers and the toll that it took on the families of those who were involved, as well as the amount of time and dedication of resources put into the war by the Government.

An example of the relevance of liberalism would be the United Nations, a global organization, which was developed for the intent of maintaining world peace. Anne-Marie Slaughter states that the world will be multilateral in the future because of the UN’s expansion. Liberalists would also say because of institutions such as the UN, states are more concerned with relative gains than absolute gains. Today, in the occurrence of a crisis, states

Since International Relations has been academically studied Realism has been the dominant theory of world politics. The theory’s inability to explain the end of the Cold War, however, brought strength and momentum to the Liberalism theory. Today Realism and Liberalism are the two major paradigms of International Relations. The aforementioned theories focus on the international system and the external factors that can lead to two phenomena - conflict and cooperation. Realism believes that as a result of anarchy and the security dilemma, conflict is inevitable. Liberalism argues that this conflict can be overcome through cooperative activities amongst states and international organizations. This paper will explore as well as compare and contrast the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. It will also debate which of the two theories is more valuable in the

Liberalism is an international-relations theory that relies heavily on interdependence among many different actors within our international system. Individuals, nongovernmental groups, international organizations all hold roles that are pivotal to international-relations (Arreguin-Toft and Mignst 88). Liberals believe that people are inherently “good”; they are rational and can make the correct choices to move society towards progress. However, it is crucial to the international system that all actors work together to build an efficient, sustainable society. Liberals believe that working under one international system would aid in the construction of appropriate social institutions to neutralize threats to the common good (83-84). Almost 200 countries signed the Paris Climate agreement to aid in the globe’s fight in preventing temperatures from increasing to 1.5 degrees Celsius from where they were before 1950. Though many countries signed it, only 164 fully accepted the terms.

Compare and contrast Realism and Liberalism as theories used in the study of International Relations

In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.

To define any perspective in International Relations, one must understand its’ origin and primary authors, including the context in which they were writing in. Liberalism is one of the more loosely defined perspectives as it has had a number of authors throughout history. Primarily, liberalism relies on the positive aspects of human nature. One of the most prominent liberal authors was Kant- who often wrote of the anarchical nature of international relations- referring to it as “the lawless state of savagery.” He also wrote of three primary routes to obtaining peace within this system, namely treating all aspects of human life with humanity, allowing for a federation of states and

Since the post-World War 1 period, Liberalism has been actively advanced by Western (or 'first-world') states as a desirable system of political theory. According to Dunne (in Baylis & Smith 2001, pp. 163), the basis for its appeal stems from the fact that Liberalism is viewed as inherently 'optimistic', making it a natural counter-theory to the Realist theories advanced by practitioners of realpolitik in the past (feudalism, dictatorships etc.). What makes Liberalism 'optimistic' in a sense is that, as an ideology, it is fundamentally anchored around the liberty of the individual, and furthermore, strives for global peace. Considering the rampant destruction and bloodshed experienced by many of the states involved in both the World Wars,