Neo-conservatism and US Foreign Policy in Iraq March 6, 2014

Overview Neoconservatism as a domestic source of American foreign policy The four tenets of neoconservative foreign policy Neoconservatives and the slaying of the Iraqi monster Neoconservatism in the context of other factors

Why the neoconservative case? Example of the impact of domestic factors on foreign policy Examine how ideas impact foreign policy and what conditions help give them more influence

Neoconservatism as a domestic source of American foreign policy Neoconservatives as one of the more influential ‘internal forces’ operating within the United States. First generation in late 70s, especially strong on under Reagan With end of Cold War lose influence - lack of external other Reaction against realism (pragmatic realpolitik)  Not clear enough about its moral purpose, not doing enough to maintain US military dominance

However, still developing ideas that lay the intellectual foundations for future policy shifts, that would be triggered by September 11 argued for a moral regeneration of America.

Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy Kristol & Kagan 1996 US role as ‘benevolent global hegemony’  Military supremacy & moral confidence To achieve this three areas key: 1) Consistent & strong defence budget  Goal to reinforce power disparity with would be challengers

2 ) Educate Americans in their role supporting US forces in carrying hegemonic responsibilities 3) Clear moral purpose behind US foreign policy  Promoter of democracy, free markets & individual liberty

The four tenets of neoconservative foreign policy 1. Moral clarity about the forces of good and evil in the international arena 2. Benevolent US hegemony will be good for all 3. Willingness to use military force to pursue goals 4. Distrust in international law and institutions

Bush “Axis of Evil” speech States like these [Iraq], and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world…They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. Our enemies believed America was weak and materialistic, that we would splinter in fear and selfishness. They were as wrong as they are evil. The American people have responded magnificently, with courage and compassion, strength and resolve.

We can overcome evil with greater good. And we have a great opportunity during this time of war to lead the world toward the values that will bring lasting peace. The last time I spoke here, I expressed the hope that life would return to normal. In some ways, it has. In others, it never will. Those of us who have lived through these challenging times have been changed by them. We've come to know truths that we will never question: Evil is real, and it must be opposed.

The four tenets applied to Iraq Saddam as member of “axis of evil”  Regime change first step to democratizing Middle East Regime change in Iraq will US power in Middle East Saddam has WMDs, military force is the only option to deal with him Don’t need UN resolution, “coalition of the willing” is enough

Neoconservatives and slaying monsters As global superpower, US has responsibilities for maintaining global peace & stability This means going out and “slay monsters” that threaten that stability Not to do so as cowardly & dishonourable Don’t coexist with these regimes, transform them (regime change)

The Iraq monster 9/11 brought the neoconservative doctrine into favour See this in the importance of making the case for invading Iraq  Rumsfeld vs others The American lesson learned: ‘Take care of threats early.’

1% doctrine and preventative war one percent doctrine if there was even 1% chance of a threat materializing, the US should act to eliminate it. Not a neoconservative tenant - result more of impact of 9/11 - some neo-con ideas help reinforce it Two key estimates to consider in going to war: 1) probability of threat occurring if you don’t fight 2) probability of winning if you do fight

Probability of the threat occurring if don’t go to war Prospect theory - more risk acceptant in time of perceived loss Bush & advisors in domain of loss so more risk acceptant

Probability of success in war Bush administration massively confident in success  May 2007: 60,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, 3400 US troops, 250 coalition troops Neo-con belief in moral superiority & military prowess play into this Very little thought of post-war because moral force behind them

How important do you think these neoconservative values were in the decision to invade Iraq? Would the invasion have been as likely without them?

Neoconservatism in the context of other factors Other factors contributing to Operation Iraqi Freedom: 9/11 terrorist attacks Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction Desire to spread democracy in the Middle East Access to oil resources Saudi Arabia as the new regional security pillar Israel lobby

The future of Neoconservatism Neoconservatism is unlikely to be resurrected as the guiding philosophy of U.S. foreign policy any time soon: Neoconservatives failed to see that what was morally clear to them was not so clear to others. America’s prestige, reputation and might was damaged by the war in Iraq. A strong and vibrant U.S. economy, key unspoken assumptions of neoconservatism—imploded with the sub- prime and financial crisis of 2008.

New directions? Neoconservatives argue their principles still important. Obama confronted with a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and he chose to fight instead of withdrawing Obama’s administration showed willingness to ascribe to international institutions and law, contradicting one of the key tenets of the neoconservative approach. Preliminary accounts of the Libyan intervention suggest the Obama administration’s decision to use force, has to do with the lessons of Rwanda.

Conclusions Ideas have important role to play in foreign policy, but context and circumstance important in determining which come up when Domestic factors can have key role influencing foreign policy decisions