The 2003 Iraq War Decision

Every action has a cause, and to find the cause we must analyze how and why the action took place. In the year 2003, the United States decided to invade Iraq in order to disarm Saddam Hussein from Weapons of Mass Destruction and liberate the Iraqi people from an oppressive government (Spring). President Bush made the decision, and made sure he carried out his plans. But was it Bush by himself who took the decision? Did his cabinet affect him? Maybe certain lobbies gave him the push? Or did the international community pressure him? To fully understand the causes we must use one of the three levels of analysis: individual-level analysis, state-level analysis, and system-level analysis (Rourke 47). Each of these takes a special look into either a specific or a broader area of the vertical political spectrum, ranging from the world leaders, to the state itself, on to the international community. Each of these has its pros and cons, some being more favorable for analyzing this decision, while others less. In order from most efficient to least, I would choose the state-level analysis to begin, on to the individual-level, ending with the system-level. To fully understand something, a person must take all possible perspectives to get as much insight as possible.

The state-level analysis would be the most appropriate because it covers the wide area of American politics, which influence our foreign policy, from "legislators, the media, public opinion, and opposition parties, as well as those foreign policy--making actors that influence authoritarian government policy"(Rourke 57). It is of extreme importance to analyze the influence of lobbies on foreign policy such as AIPAC, as Virginia Democrat Jim Moran said in response to a question concerning the influence of AIPAC on a possible war with Iran "No one suggested that Iran is a potential threat to the United States, any more than Iraq could ever have been a threat to the US. It's a threat to our ally, and those in the Likud Party, and AIPAC, who agree pretty consistently with Likud, feel that the best way to eliminate a threat is to destroy it, and they want America to use its military might to eliminate the threat" (Lerner). Such statements by active politicians prove that our foreign policy is influenced by groups outside the government, giving the state-level analysis a solid reason to be used when dissecting the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq.

On the individual-level of analysis, it is important to analyze the individuals that make the final decisions, along with their cabinets. The only problem with this type of analysis would be its limit, as you will not be able to fully analyze world leaders due to the lack of honest information on their backgrounds, mental conditions, etc. As in the 2004 elections, when both candidates were asked concerning their memberships to "Skull and Bones", a secret society based at Yale University, both Bush and Kerry gave no answer other than laughter, which makes one doubt their honesty, when such societies have been accused of having the "skull of Pancho Villa" (Greenburg) a Mexican revolutionary. Although it might be viewed as unimportant, to understand and analyze a person, we must have full access to his life. Such barriers make it hard to examine a "leader's physical and mental health" which "can be important factors in decision making" (Rourke 55). On top of all the barriers, the individual-level of analysis can still be successful in analyzing certain traits of the President and if they influenced his decision to go to war with Iraq. As Hallenberg and Karlsson explained Bush's character "his tendency to see matters in black and white, often linked to his religiously-based beliefs in which there are few nuances, only a right way and a wrong way, are prominent here". (Hallenberg Karlsson 232-233)

If we were to analyze the foreign policy of a country such as Japan, I would definitely choose the system-level analysis which "focuses on the external restraints on foreign policy" (Rourke 61). But the United States, being the "single pole" in a "unipolar system" does not take into account other nations when it comes into foreign policy concerning conflicts with other nations, as it went to war backed up only by Britain, partially by Spain and minimally by Australia and Poland. Or as a journalist put it "there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion" (Tyler). When no one has the military capability to defend itself against the only superpower, their only option is compliance or they will be ignored by the superpower. This in a sense would be wonderful, if the dominating power was perfect in all ways, from military wise to justice and morals. The system-level analysis would be of greater importance in analyzing trade and the world economic system, as it takes into account all nations and their effects on the world economy, but concerning America's Foreign Policy, as America has no interest in the International Community's approval, this level of analyzing is the least proper to use.

Whether we use individual-level, state-level, or system-level analysis, all of them provide a deep look into one area of the vertical political chain of command, from leaders, to the international community. In order to successfully understand the reasons behind the 2003 decision to go to war with Iraq, one must use the state-level analysis to consider all possible factors. Along with the state-level, the individual-level analysis can be helpful, but will require lots of work which might be hard as the analyst will find various barriers along the way. And the least effective would be the system-level analysis, as concerning the superpower, the international community has little if any effect in changing decisions.

Works Cited

Spring, Baker. "Operation Iraqi Freedom: Military Objectives Met." The Heritage Foundation 18 Apr. 2003

Rourke, John T, and Mark A. Boyer. International Politics on the World Stage Brief 7^thEdition. New York: McGraw Hill, 2008 (47-69)

Lerner, Michael. "The Israel Lobby, Bad for the U.S., Bad for Israel, Bad for Jews" Tikkun Sep-Oct. 2007

Greenburg, Zach. "Bones may have Pancho Villa skull" The Yale Herald 23 Jan. 2004

Tyler, Patrick. "Threats and Responses: News Analysis; A New Power In the Streets"

The New York Times 17 Feb. 2003

Hallenberg, Jan and Hakan Karlsson. The Iraq War: European Perspectives on Politics,

Strategy, and Operations Routledge, 2005.