Neo-conservative ideas as domestic source of American foreign policy- its influence on preventive war against Iraq in March 2003

Bush Doctrine9/11 attacks and development of neo-

conservative ideas

Results of war in Iraq;Failure to find WMDThe US mistreatment of prisoners in

Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prisonCivil war in Iraq

US causalities in the war increase public anger against Bush administration/ democrats took control of Senate in 2006 and put pressure on Bush administration to withdraw from Iraq

Demoralization of Bush administration domestically and internationally

• Factors behind decision making process leaded to Operation Iraqi Freedom;

• 9/11 terrorist attacks• Stopping S. Hussein’s WMD programme• Spreading democracy the in Middle East• Access to oil resources• Replacing Saudi Arabia with Iraq as

America’s security pillar in the region• Israeli lobby

The path to the war in Iraq;9/11Fears (perceptions of vulnerability)Ideas (neo-conservatism developed and put

in action following the 9/11) Guesses (probability estimates-military

operation will be easy and probability to find WMD)

9/11 (2001) and Pearl Harbor (1941)US choice to retaliate in Afghanistan and

in JapanPredictable foreign policy decision makingDomestic dynamics of foreign policy

decision making in US: president, his advisors, the relevant agencies, Congress, lobby groups, NGOs, public opinion, interest groups.

• For Ex: Containment as policy result of internal forces operating within the US

• Ideas of neo-conservatism as major source of internal force operating in US

• Neo-conservatism in the first generation: on social and economic issues criticized Democratic Party’s approach to the welfare state (1960s) disillusioned liberal intellectuals (neocons accept welfare but they are against social engineering and support for undesirable social behavior like single motherhood)

On foreign policy; neocons as anti-communists emphasized on superiority of democracy and maintenance of strong military

Neocons- Hawks; strong military budget to restore prestige and power of US military power (1970s because they believed that Soviet Union catching up)

• The ‘second generation neo-conservatives’: includes intellectuals and policy makers such as Ronald Regan, Francis Fukuyama, Daniel Pipes, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams.

• Some of them were part of decision making team, for instance Abrams as a assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, in the Regan administration's policy of providing funds, against prohibitions of Congress, to the Contra rebels seeking to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua (secret arm-trade agreement with Iran)

Conservative realism-Henry Kissinger; refuses moral values/purposes and doing what was necessary to maintain US military superiority

Hobbesian ideas about international relations during the Cold War

• Neo-Reganian foreign policy (Kristol and Kagan 1996)- Role of US as global hegemony;

• Strong defense budget• Educating Americans about their

responsibility to understanding and support US armed forces

• Having clear moral purpose behind US foreign policy; prompting democracy, free market and individual liberty

During 1980s they emphasized on ‘evil empire’, regime change in Third World during Regan administration

End of the Cold War; without external other (enemy) to maintain US military strength!!!

During the Clinton years neoconservatives as ideological political margins/they are carped from foreign policy sidelines

• Neoconservatives and the Slaying of the Iraqi Monster:

• Regime change in Iraq; a letter sent to Bill Clinton in 1998, co-signed by Project on the New American Century (PNAC) with Republican administrations (Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Zalmay Khalized, Richard Perle, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Willam Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz)

• Letter underlines that containment of Iraq was not working and only option is regime change

• This letter considered preventive war against Iraq but ignored by Clinton but George W. Bush appointed most of the signatories of letter to important position of his administration

• So neoconservative foreign policy ideas moved political center in US and 9/11 al-Qaeda attacks increase support and favor of neoconservative doctrine

Some of PNAC's members or signatories were appointed to key positions within the President's administration:• Elliott Abrams; Special Assistant to the

President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002),Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005–2009)

• John R. Bolton; Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001–2005)

• Paula Dobriansky; Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001–2007)

• Francis Fukuyama; Member of The President's Council on Bioethics (2001–2005)

• Zalmay Khalilzad; U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 - 3/2007) 

• Richard Perle; Chairman of Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

• Peter W. Rodman; Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001–2007)

• Donald Rumsfeld; Secretary of Defense (2001–2006)• Paul Wolfowitz; Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001–

2005)• Robert B. Zoellick; Office of the United States Trade

Representative, Deputy Secretary of State

Neoconservative ideas following the 9/11, Killing of innocents as legitimate policy in the pursuit of the Islamic interest by non-state actors

World Trade Center and the Pentagon-target of attacks which were symbols of American economic and military power

How to respond to non-state actors directly?

Lack of no real return address for al-Qaeda

Targeting Afghanistan- was symbolic moral clarity, and the war in Afghanistan was a case of taking care of things too late

Lesson of 9/11: take care of threats early (National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice) so Iraq case was the lesson of 9/11

First time Iraq threat US interest by annexing Kuwait

US led UN operation; Operation Desert Storm in 1991 expelling Iraq out of Kuwait and limiting operation not to move towards Baghdad to remove S. Hussein (under the father G. Bush administration)

Iraq expelled UN weapon inspector in 1998 and increased suspicions to intend on developing WMD

But still need more push to regime change in Iraq and 9/11 provided this extra push to set out the path of war to Iraq

• Operation Iraqi Freedom from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld point of view: necessity to remove S. Hussein regardless the proof of WMD and link with al Qaeda.

• War in Iraq was more important than Afghanistan because it would deter others to pose same threats to US

• The war was based on deterrence and demonstration of US power

• Many believe that Neocons (neoconservatives) responsible from war against Iraq

• Four tenets/principles of neoconservative foreign policy:

• 1-Moral Clarity: moral necessity to distinguish good and evil in the international arena, democratic leaders and liberal democracies are good/tyrannical regimes are bad (threat for democracies). For neoconservatives US morality and interest part of US foreign policy and according to its interest it has a right for regime change and promote democracy as it moral values

• Transformation of classical realist who disregard moral values for the interest of US (Henry Kissinger)

• 2-Milirat Pre-eminence/superiority; maintenance of US military predominance/US hegemony will be good for all. US should enjoy ideological and strategic predominance in the world

• 3- Leverage Its Military Power; willingness to use of force to pursue its foreign policy goals, military force in pursuit of its goals (use of force to promote democracy if necessary by disregarding institutions and international law/distinction from classical realist is use of moral sense in conservatism to achieve US interest)

• 4- Distrust of international law and institutions; skepticism about international law and institutions to bring peace and justice in this world

• Neoconservatives appreciate legitimating functions of international law and institutions but dismiss them when they challenge US policy

• Idea of using US power for moral good in the world give them justification to pursue its policies

• US as monster slayer/ Saddam Hussein missed opportunity of the 1990s in slaying monster

• Application of neoconservative foreign policies in S. Hussein’s Iraq according to four tenets;

• 1-Saddam is member of ‘axis of evil’ (moral clarity)

• 2-Regime change in Iraq will remove major challenge and promote US power in the Middle East (military preeminence)

• 3-Containment of Iraq’s WMD programme is not working only option is use of force (willingness to use of force)

• 4-UN resolution is unnecessary and ‘coalition of willing’ is sufficient (lack of trust to int. inst.)

• If neoconservative foreign policy ideas had not existed, would the Bush administration still have launched a preventive war against Iraq in the post 9/11 environment?

• Role of agenda setting war in Iraq and anti-Saddam policy in US

• Importance of 9/11 on US agenda to the top of its policy process

• S. Hussein was tyrant who emerged most fit for the neoconservative purpose (difficulty to apply neoconservative policies in North Korea and China because they already have WMD)

• Neo-conservatism is more than an ideological back drop but less than a decisive cause

• Remember other factors behind war in Iraq such as; access to oil resources, replacing Saudi Arabia with Iraq as America’s security pillar in the region, Israeli lobby

• These factors have not featured predominantly in Bush administration decision making on Iraq because even without these reasons Bush administration have gone ahead with Operation Iraqi Freedom because US concerned and focused on safeguarding the nation security (risk posed by WMD)

• Neo-conservatism became important factor in the Bush administration's decision to launch a preventive war against Iraq (not decisive but influential) but without 9/11 neoconservative ideas would not have had influence they did

• Policy makers unwilling to ignore even a one percent chance of Saddam’s proliferating WMD technology to those who may threaten the security of US

• One percent doctrine: even with one percent chance of threat US should treat the threats as a certainty and act to eliminate it. (not a part of neoconservative tenets)

• It is a probability estimate made by an administration fear of ‘smoking guns turning into mushroom clouds’

• Being 99% sure that Iraq do not do something or use WMD is not acceptable by Bush administration so doctrine provides key element of preventive war

• One percent doctrine suggest that even when the chances of such threats are very low, the US cannot afford to wait; it needs to act to remove the source of threat

• US would not tolerate a one percent chance of insecurity

• Relevance of neo-conservatism today;• Obama’s escalation of war in Afghanistan

in 2009 and creation of ‘no-fly zone’ in Libya 2011

• Obama’s action can be understand as use of leverage on US military strength in Afghanistan and use of force in Libya to protect human rights- seem consistent with neoconservative principle of moral rightness and use of military force pursue US goals.

• Result of neoconservative policies;• Problem of poor planning and implementation

by group of officials• Rejecting decent opinions of the rest of the

world and seeing US as role of moral arbiter• Pools results; rise of negative perception of

US by much of the rest of the world• Neoconservatives ideas; moral clarity, US

hegemony and military reputation have been undermined by their project in Iraq

• So Obama and his advisors are guided by neoconservative principles?

• After negative perceptions of neo-conservatism it is doubtful that it can be resurrected as a guidance of US foreign policy in near future

• Other reason for unlikely of resurrection of neo-conservatism is financial crisis in 2008, yet to recover and in the absence of strong economy the cost so sustaining wars is unlikely.

• Bush administration estimated that war would cost $200 billion but the wars in Iraq have cost $800 and in Afghanistan $443 billion (until 2011)

• 59% of Americans see Iraq was as a mistake and 72% feel that the cost exceeded the gains

• Obama had to deal with two unfinished war and a broken economy

• In 2010 Obama declared Operation Iraqi Freedom ended and started withdrawal process of troops from Iraq but remaining 50,000 troops to train Iraqi security forces/ resurrection of Taliban in Afghanistan in 2009 and limited response to Libya but this is not related with neo-conservatism but confrontation with detoriorating situations and choosing to fight in Afghanistan

• Key difference between Iraq and Libyan cases; in Libya US and NATO supported the UNSC (resolution 1973) instead of acting in the line of neoconservative ideas (unreliability of international institutions and international law)

• US guidance of use of force in Libya is the lesson learned from Rwanda (failure of Clinton administration)