After reading the Fearon article for this week, I started to think about how rationalists would explain the Iraq and Lebanon wars. Here's how I see it:
Benefits Outweigh the Costs
This seems pretty obvious to me. The administration thought that Iraq wouldn't turn out the way that it has. Rumsfield said that we could draw down to 30,000 troops after a year, Wolfowitz said that oil revenue would pay for reconstruction, etc.
Anarchy
This applies to both Lebanon and Iraq because neither Israel or the US feel there is an international hegemonic power (i.e. United Nations) that exists to credibly threaten states with punishment when they step out of line. Saddam broke UN sanctions for over a decade, and Lebanon never disarmed Hezbollah after Resolution 1441.
Preventative War
This is Iraq from the standpoint that in the future Saddam could have nukes, and it was believed that he already possessed CB weapons. He had to be stopped before he gained too much power, and threatened the stability of the region.
Miscalculation Due to Lack of Info
This seems to be a stretch, but it could also be Iraq from the standpoint that we thought our European allies would join us in Iraq to prevent future threats. Hey, don't laugh. I said it was a stretch.
Miscalcuation About Relative Power
This is definitely postwar Iraq. The insurgents were seen as "dead-enders", and the insurgency was suppose to be in "its last throes" over a year ago. The biggest historical mistake of this war will be not planning for the strength of a postwar insurgency. The Israel-Lebanon war also fits this category. Israel was in no way prepared for how well armed and how well trained Hezbollah would be.
Thoughts?
2 comments:
I think the real miscalculation on the invasion of Iraq, rationalist of not, was the lack of understanding that the REAL threat stems not from rogue states (probably with the exception of North Korea) but rather from non-state groups (Al-Queida, Hezbollah, Hamas). When are confronted with the fall of a rogue state, you create pockets of ungoverned space and give rise to the creation of radical idealism who's message seems only to be conveyed through violence. Toppling nation-states, even rogue states, just seems to create a perfect breeding ground for these non-state groups to thrive and just thwarts the development of the nation-state.
The pockets of people subscribing to often radical schools of through pop up randomly in places such as London, Madrid and then just multiplies the destruction there as we've seem since the Iraq war began. I don't have doubts that pockets are growing within the US either.
But, the point is that I think we've unwillingly opened a Pandora's box of catastrophe in which the US still has to continue to be engaged financially via the military, ultimately shifting money away from tackling our domestic agenda. If our nations interest does rest partly in oil acquisition, then we ought to seriously rethink the reverberations that this tactic is creating.
This bring me to another question. I wonder if those who the US deems 'terrorists' are really discontent over our values and freedom or just that fact the we're occupying their territory? Although the invasion of the Soviets in Afghanistan didn't produce suicide bombers.
From the Six Principals of Realism, certainly I understand the Iraq approach from their lens (a struggle for power and interest derived from power and warfare) And a rationalists policy always being viewed as a good policy because it minimizes the risks and maximizes the benefits (taken from Morganthau). But, in this Iraq case, I think this approach has backfired on us.
Thoughts?
I think the real miscalculation on the invasion of Iraq, rationalist or not, was the lack of understanding that the REAL threat stems not from rogue states (possibly with the exception of North Korea) but rather from non-state groups (Al-Queida, Hezbollah, Hamas). When we are confronted with the fall of a rogue state, you create pockets of ungoverned space and give rise to the creation of radical idealism who's message seems only to be conveyed through violence. (I guess that how the US is conveying their message too?)Toppling nation-states, even rogue states, just seems to create a perfect breeding ground for these non-state groups to thrive and just thwarts the development of the nation-state.
The pockets of people subscribing to often radical schools of thought pop up randomly in places such as London and Madrid and then just multiplies the destruction there as we've seem since the Iraq war began. I don't have doubts that pockets are growing within the US either.
But, the point is that I think we've unwillingly opened a Pandora's box of catastrophe in which the US still has to continue to be engaged financially via the military, ultimately shifting money away from tackling our domestic agenda. If our nations interest does rest partly in oil acquisition, then we ought to seriously rethink the reverberations that this tactic is creating, for the sack of the oil market.
This bring me to another question. I wonder if those who the US deems 'terrorists' are really discontent over our values and freedom or just that fact the we're occupying their territory? Although the invasion of the Soviets in Afghanistan didn't produce suicide bombers.
From the Six Principals of Realism, certainly I understand the Iraq approach from their lens (a struggle for power and interest derived from power and warfare) And a rationalists policy always being viewed as a good policy because it minimizes the risks and maximizes the benefits (taken from Morganthau). But in this Iraq case, I think this approach has backfired on us.
Thoughts?
Post a Comment