Australia's Iraq War Dilemma: Political Science Perspectives on Decision-Making - Essay Sample

Introduction

In the first Gulf War, Australia was among the first countries to deploy forces in Iraq under the Coalition forces banner. While the country´s involvement in the first Persian Gulf War was only moderate, the army would increase its participation considerably in the second war. The decision by the Australian government led by John Howard to join the wars went sharply against public opinion. This second war included troops from the USA, Australia, Poland, and Britain to disarm the dictatorial regime, let by Saddam Hussein. The war has been mapped to have lasted between 2003 and 2009. Unsurprisingly, Howard and the Australian Government had to make decisions based on individual conceptions and misconceptions and the established allegiances created with the world-leading powers. In this essay, the researcher shall employ the political science theories (realism, constructivism, and liberalism) to investigate the possible motivating factors that might have guided the Australian government to join in a war that soon became an unpopular invasion among most non-corporation countries. Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright has since described the war as “the greatest disaster in American foreign policy.”

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

State-Level Analysis

Constructivism and the Allegiance Factor

The first crucial factor influencing John Howard to form an acquaintance with the US in the “illegal” was the ANZUS Treaty. Through the non-binding Treaty created in 1951, Australia agreed to corporate with the USA to corporate in security issues around the Pacific Ocean region. As such, the government argued that they had no choice but to ally with the US in the war. Failure to join in the war could have created a violation of the diplomatic and interactional objectives. From this perspective, it is safe to argue that the country acted through the constructivist viewpoint. Constructivism posits that the world is a social place that is a total of the interactions among communities. Influential citizens and actors thereby continue to shape the interactions with the international society based on created social interactions and allegiances. The world is thereby – according to constructivists – socially constructed.

Constructivist theorists are concerned about the lived realities of various societies. People possess the natural inclinations to become aligned in a political or social course. While aligning with the US and Britain in the war against Iraq, Australia then attempted to assess the social interactions affected by their non-involvement. They needed to retain the social and political allegiances with the allied countries – Especially the US – even if that meant following the directive to a war that they did not feel was legal and necessary.

According to various researchers, Howard, Abbott, and Turnbull made a grave strategic mistake by failing to analyze the social obligations they had with such countries objectively. In countries like Canada, the decision by the US to go to war in Iraq was considered anomalous. Australia´s decision to join the war despite its ambiguity and illegality set unfortunate precedence for the world. Even worse was Howard´s justification of the war despite a precise determination by analysts that the reasons for engaging in the war were based on misrepresentation of facts.

The constructivism theory may, however, be flawed in various ways, especially with the one-sided decision by government leaders to position themselves alongside an ally despite the wrongful engagement in aggressive acts. While Howard singled out the ANZUS Treaty as the reason for the country´s obligation to engage in the war, this allegiance did not justify their involvement in the Iraq War. The Treaty only allowed Australia to engage in conflicts that were within the Pacific Ocean region. As the Iraqi war did not fall within the regional description, the interpretation of the Treaty as a guiding factor for the war was systemically flawed. Furthermore, through constructivism, Australia should be a party to the UN. As a UN active member, they must thereby follow their guides to international collaboration.

Engagement in the war went against the essential requirement of the UN peace Treaty of non-violence. The leadership in Australia, however, decided to follow the requirement of the ANZUS Treaty but ignore the requirements of the UN Treaty. Such inconsistencies create a significant flaw in the theory as it may be interpreted by the concerned parties to justify their biased orientation towards one side. Howard might have, therefore, joined the war only because of his attachment with the US president of the moment. Brendon O´Connor claims that the 2000s saw some of the most American-centric foreign affairs inclinations by Australia in recent decades.

Realism versus Liberalism

According to the theory of realism, countries display actions including aggression and conflict in response to their needs to protect their national interests, struggle for power and security. Realists claim that countries always intend to defend their position in the world stage by working for economic and political power and national security. In 2007, Australian defence minister Brendan Nelson controversially claimed that Iraq was a key source of international oil and energy reserves. As such, Australia’s continued involvement in the Iraq war was thereby envisioned as a necessary evil in protecting the oil supply by Australia. Prime Minister Howard, however, hurried to dismiss such theories, claiming that oil reserves had nothing to do with the decision to invade Iraq.

The theory around oil reserves, however, reignited protests among the anti-war proponents, further empowering the possibility that oil might have been a factor in the decision to go to war with Iraq. If proven correct, the intention to protect the oil reserves in Iraq appears to be a complete realist perspective. The government might, as such, have been interested in protecting national economic interests. However, this theory does not appear to contain as much weight as the constructivism theory.

The next state-level theory that could have ignited Australia´s involvement in the war is the liberalism theory. As opposed to the conflict focused realism approach, liberalism aims to promote the utilitarian good of the national and international citizens. In this approach, governments may look to encourage people´s rights by facilitating liberal democracies. The liberals posit that people´s wellbeing is grounded on working and just political system. In the Iraq war, it was evident that Saddam Hussein did not provide a democratic and free society. Australian government thereby used the liberalism theory to justify their involvement in the war. However, this theory came only as an additional reason for the participation of Howard and the Australian Army. The significant factors that were posited by the government included allegiance and suspicions of conflict preparation by Saddam.

The Role of John Howard and His Character – Individual-Level Analysis

To understand the impacts of constructivism in conflict involvement decisions of a country, we must investigate the influential characters at an individual level. As already implied in this essay, John Howard was the most influential figure in the Australian decision to be involved in the war. In his previous Parliamentary briefing regarding the engagement of Australian troops in the war, Howard proclaimed that Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. Furthermore, he expressed concerns about the slow response by the UN to control Iraq’s WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). However, an intelligence briefing by the government´s intelligence before the engagement in the war reported that all these claims were false. Howard thereby lied about the reasons for engaging in the war. As an individual, thereby, the leader was deceptive and misguiding in his reasoning.

Howard´s misconceptions and misrepresentation of evidence was thereby a ploy to push the country into war with Iraq from his value judgment and links to President Bush and Tony Blair. On different occasions, John Howard and Tony Blair have appeared to make similar justifications for going to war in Iraq alongside the USA. Blair was a sworn enemy of the dictator – Saddam Hussein – and had committed to support President Bush at all costs. Since the end of the war, Blair has consistently been investigated for such involvement in the war. Calls are also growing for Howard to face similar scrutiny. Due to their shared personal friendships with Mr Bush, the two heads of states are often theorized to have had their inclinations influence their choices to join the war. Bush and Howard also made several personal engagements around the period for the Persian Gulf War.

Mr Howard´s decision to commit troops in Iraq without parliamentary vote has continued to raise eyebrows. A trend of events and justifications by Blair and Howard continue to increase the trust of the public on their trustworthiness. Furthermore, Howard continued to falsify why he put forward to justify his decision to join the war. The fact that Howard has not conceded to his strategic flaws in the war despite new evidence proves that he knew about the lies he told about the war but opted to go to war.

System-Level Analysis

Both realism and liberalism agree that the world is a complex anarchist system. In such scenarios, the sovereign states do not report to any forces above them. They have achieved a level of independence that could drive them into chaos, conflict, or diplomacy. As such, neorealism and neoliberalism are the schools of thought that may be evidence in the global system. In the case of Australia, they may appear to have been working through neoliberal standpoints by supporting the USA in the war. Their respect for the power dynamics in the war against a perceived national enemy might be seen to assist the already justified course of action. From a neorealist perspective, the inherent wishes to gain control and power may have led Australia to engage in the war and create financial and military power.

Conclusion

From the brief study, it is evident that Australian foreign policy that pushed them into the strategically flawed US-led war in Iraq was based on factors other than the deeper utilitarian concerns for overall well good. In this analysis, the researcher notes strong evidence for the constructivist theory as a motivator for the engagement of Australia in the war. As such, the country´s debt with the US-led, the leaders to force the country´s attention in the war without complete intelligence investigation on the strategic need and direction of the war. Howard´s relationship with Bush, as well as his flawed and deceptive nature, made him bypass the legislative procedures and push the country into an unnecessary war. While various theories are proposed for the war, they do not appear to hold as much weight as the state level and individual level relationships.