INTRODUCTİON:
In this study , I am going to examine USA’s
2003 invasion of Iraq according to traditional security approaches. I aim to
prove that George W.Bush’s administration’s way of defining national security
has affected its foreign policy attitude on Iraq war. Throughout foreign policy
decision making process in USA, by whom and how national security is defined,
which topics are consisted in national security, by which tools national
security is implemented, how and by whom threats are defined and which tools
are used to fight against threats are the topics which I am going to focus on
in this study.
After 9/11 attacks of Al-Kaide, Bush
administration has redefined its national security approach. President Bush’s
addressing to congress and nation after 9/11 shows clearly the new national
security understanding of administration. In this speech, he focus on global
war on terrorism. He defines terrorists and governments which support terrorism
as enemies. Also he states that military intervention was going to be one of
the the ways of fighting against terrorism. Every way to eradicate terror in
the world was going to used according to his speech. He also declared that ‘’
it is the time for every nation to decide whether you are with us or with
terrorists.’’ The last thing which I want to emphasize about this speech in
terms of whether this decision making process is democratic and multilateral or
not is that ,he stated in his speech that these decisions are not open to
negotiation.
With changing approach of national
security, USA’s implementations of foreign policy toward terrorism also
changed. Through a lot of ways administration has revealed that a war is close.
The reasons that USA asserted to invade Iraq also are important to understand
which kind of indicators were thought by USA as threats to national security.
First
one is, USA blamed Saddam regime for supporting Al-Kaide and terror. Also USA
claimed that regime had weapons of mass destruction and it was trying to
develope and increase its capacities of nuclear energy. These activities of
Iraq regime were threats for USA’s national security. To prevent and deter Iraq
from a new attack against USA, USA interfered
Iraq and USA came up with a new concept to legitimate its invasion: ‘’Preemptive
war’’. A preemptive war is a war that is started in an attempt to defeat a
perceived imminent offensive , or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending
and unavoidable war . With another saying, it is a war which preemptively
'breaks the peace'. Deterrence is another strategy of USA against Iraq. These
kind of strategies are important to determine USA’s ways of performing national security.
Second reason which is asserted by USA to
invade Iraq was that USA was going to bring Iraq democracy,freedom and peace.
We can exactly say that USA invasion of Iraq has never brought freedom, democracy
and peace to Iraq. From 2003 to 2011(withdrawal of USA troops from Iraq) and
also after USA’s withdrawal, a lot of civil wars, insurgents, sectarian
violence and casualties has took place in Iraq. This invasion built a suitable
foundation for developing terrorist networks in the world.
However, after the invasion, no substantial
evidence was found to verify the initial claims about WMDs. So, the reasons
which are putting forward by USA to invade Iraq was accepted by a lot of people
as illegitimate and activities of USA during war were declared by UN and other
authorities as against international law. There are also other
opinions about invasion. For example, Nelson Mandela voiced his opposition,
stating "All that (Mr. Bush) wants is Iraqi oil’’. USA took criticisms
from both internal and foreign public opinion. Because Bush administration’s
decision of invading of Iraq was not supported by a lot of people in USA. Also
this attempt of USA is a proof which shows us that USA’s foreing policy is
changed from multilateral foreign policy to unilateral foreing policy. Because
it did not take into consideration many
of criticisms from international area and states.
USA 2003 IRAQ İNVASİON
WİTHİN THE FRAME OF TRADİTİONAL SECURİTY APPROACH(REALİST APPROACH):
One of the approaches which explain the
relationship between national security and foreign policy is traditional
security approach ( classical strategic opinion ecol). This approach examine
security and its relationship with foreign policy through realist and neo-realist
point of view. Below I am going to mention about some understandings of
traditional security approach and I am going to link these understandings with
US foreign policy attitudes on Iraq war.
1)Realist approach defines security mainly
as state centric. It is believed that there are organic links between state and society. So, the attempts which
serve for state’s security, also serve automatically for society’s security .
State is defined as the most important subject of security and also it is believed
that security can be provided by state. In other words, issues about security
are essential therefore they can not be open to participation of public and
non-state actors. Defining threats and tools which are used for figting against
threats requires speciality, so only state(elites which take part in military
and foreign policy bureaucracy) is suitable for this task.
If we look at decisions about national
security which are taken by Bush administration before , during and after
invasion, we can easily say that the large part of public and non-state actor’s
opinions were not taken into consideration. In other words decision making
process was not democratic. So, this invasion took a lot of criticims
internally. U.S. citizens found many parallels with the Vietnam War in terms of
failure of Iraq war.
2) According to realist national security
understanding, the main aim of foreign policy is to guarantee national security
of states. Security is about survival of the state. All foreign policy
practices should serve to security of
state. In short, foreign policy have to be security oriented. Realist’s reason which
they show for this opinion is international system’s anarchic structure.
The term of 2001-2011 of USA foreign
policy was mainly security oriented. War preparations until 2003 and state of
war during 2001-2011 have obliged state to form a foreign policy which
prioritize security issues. In this term there are some criticsm of the War On
Terror. These criticism focus on the issues, morality, efficiency, economics,
and other questions surrounding the War on Terror(phrase itself). The notion of
a "war" against "terrorism" has been thought as highly
aggressive. Because they believed that a government with a this kind of
aggresssive national security approach was tend to pursue long-standing policy / military
objectives, reduce civil liberties, and infringe upon human rights.
3)The main concept which is used for
characterization of security is ‘’threat’’. Threats against national security
come generally from externally and they
generallly have military qualities. Also according to realists threats
are measurable. The measurable power capability of external actors is main
reference point for defining threats. If other state’s military and economic
power is increasing considerably, these states become potential threats. While
new security approaches think that threats consist both capabilities and
intentions, classical strategic opinion ecol mainly focus on capabilities.
Saddam regimes’s efforts to enhance
weapons of mass destruction , nuclear power and economic power has been
perceived by Bush Administration as threat against national security. It was
easy to determine these kind of measurable threats. We can make some inferences
from this point . USA predicted that if
we destroy these measurable capabilities
of Iraq, we can finish the terrorism. However, the think USA could not foresee
was the rising grudge and feeling of retaliation of Iraqis after invasion.
4)According
to realists, there are two main strategies to fight against material threats
which come from external. One of them is self-help. To provide self help states
increase material power capabilities(especially military and economic). When
self-help is not enough for countries, they apply second strategy; trying to
provide other states’ support.
Throughout Iraq crisis(2001-2011) we
see efforts of USA to enhance its military and economic capacities. Also, USA
try to have multilateral alliences to invade Iraq. UK, Australia and Poland has
supported USA politically, economically and militarily. While these alliances
provide USA more material power, also they increase USA’s legitimacy in the
international area.
5)According to traditional strategic
approach, using military power and deterrence are ways of providing national
security. In other words, deterrence is an essential security strategy for
realists. However deterrence’s being useful depends on whether enemy is
rational or not. Expecting rationality
from terrorist groups is how rational is doubtful. With the effect of
globalization, new kinds of war has occurred.Guerrilla war, cyber warfare,
pyschological war are some of them. One of the reason for failure of USA in
Iraq war is that USA’s war tactics were not entirely suitable for new emergent
kinds of war. İncreasing insurgencies, devoloping terrorist networks in the
world after 2003 invasion are proofs for this failure.
According to realists , security is seen
as a ‘’zero-sum game.’’ In other words other state’s insecurity means state’s
security. Contrary to expectations, like other realist tryings, USA’s realist
approach against terrorism caused ‘’security dilemma’’. Both sides perceived
each other armament as threat for its national security. So, this situation led
to arms race. Continuos armament caused insecurity rather than security.
Before come to an end , I want to make some criticisms. The discourses of USA’s
authorities and practices of them were contradictory . In the speeches of Bush
before invasion, he stated that USA was going to respect and protect Iraqis
during war on terror. However after war has started ,many humanitarian crises,
human right abuses and hundred of thousands casualties has occurred. Second
criticsm is that like other states do,
USA used national security as a
tool for achieving its aims. Third criticism is insensitivity of world during
war toward humanitarian crises, human right abuses and ‘’USA’s terrorism’’.
Even UN has declared invasion as illegal, as usual there was no useful attempt
by UN to stop massacre.
Thankfully, with the speeding of
globalization, to adopt this kind of security understing has got difficult for
states. Nowadays, human and society oriented security understanding has been
taking the place of old, traditional security understanding. I hope this kind
of shame of humanity won’t happen again in the history of humanity.
RESULT:
In this study I tried to explain the effect
of USA’s national security understanding on the Iraq war . To reach this
purpose I mentioned about five opinions of realism on national security. In the
light of these opinions, I tried to explain USA’s national security definition
and implementations before and during Iraq war. It is also possible to make
interference about the answers of these questions ; by whom and how national security is defined,
which topics are consisted in national security, by which tools national
security is implemented, how and by whom threats are defined and which tools
are used to fight against threats .
KAYNAKÇA
1)
Oğuzlu , Tarık, Ulusal Güvenlik ve Dış
Politika İlişkisi:Klasik Stratejik Düşünce Ekolü, Eleştirel Güvenlik Anlayışı
Ve Türk Dış Politikası,s.315-333.
2)
Efegil, Ertan, Dış Politika Analizi-Ders
Notları, 2012 Şubat ,1. Basım, s.50-54.
3)
Vikipedia
4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPuY5hI96U,
President
Bush Addresses Congress and the Nation After 9/11
5)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRClUg3xAY0,
Iraq War Full Documentary.
6)
Entman ,Robert, Cascading Activation:
Contesting the White House's Frame After 9/11
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder