The Iraq War and US intervention - Western Idealism or Realism?

Fukuyama (2022) describes Liberalism as a ‘political and moral philosophy that advocates for individual autonomy, protection of property rights, and the promotion of economic growth, while also emphasizing tolerance, diversity, and the role of liberal institutions in the regulation of power and the promotion of peace.' According to Fukuyama, one of the main tenets of Liberalism focuses on the protection of individual autonomy, allowing individuals to make their own choices without interference from the state or others. According to Fukuyama (1992), Liberalism promotes tolerance and diversity, recognizing and accommodating a wide range of cultural traditions and beliefs within society. According to this understanding, Liberalism suggests that international organizations and States cooperate to execute global affairs. Hence, Liberals would argue that a US invasion of Iraq was unilateral and undermined international institutions like the United Nations, which are essential in global affairs.

Through his work, Fukuyama also suggests that Liberalism advocates for the protection of individual rights, which is essential for economic growth, and as an ideology Liberalism is therefore critical of war. In such a case, Liberalism would therefore suggest that such aggressive actions of the US lead to suffering of Iraqi civilians and, therefore, the rights of individuals were violated. Along with this, Fukuyama (2022, p. 1) also states that the role of the State is to protect the rights of individuals and act in a peaceful manner in favor of global stability, prioritizing peaceful negotiation over military action.

Mearsheimer (2018), talks about Realism and how it differs from Liberalism in global affairs. He mentions Realism is ‘a school of thought in international relations that emphasizes the primacy of states as rational actors pursuing their own self-interest in a competitive and anarchic international system.’ He talks of the need for states to prioritize security and survival in an effort to protect their citizens and achieve their national interests. As mentioned by Mearsheimer, one of the goals of Realism is for the State to focus on survival, and that included military intervention in an effort to secure national interests. 

To truly understand which perspective was more significant in the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, we need to review the reasons each perspective offers about the invasion and which perspective has a more conclusive and convincing argument. The first question that should be asked is the reason for invasion; Why did the US invade Iraq? Liberals would argue that the invasion was driven by a desire to promote human rights and democracy, remove a dictator, and foster a more democratic government in Iraq. It is the duty of a Liberal system to protect the rights of individuals, and in Iraq this was absent. This is one of the reasons why Liberals would argue in favor of the invasion (Cohen, 2017). The invasion was an attempt to execute a humanitarian intervention in a State that was impinging on human rights and individual freedoms, like that of Kurdish minorities in the region.

On the other hand, Realists might argue that the invasion was driven by perceived threats to national security, including concerns about weapons of mass destruction and the potential influence of Iraq on the balance of power in the region. In an international world order that is based on anarchy, it is the duty of a State to act in its own interest (Deudney & Ikenberry, 2017, pp. 18-22). Realists could also highlight the role of natural resources in the decision to invade, framing it as a strategic move to secure access to valuable resources and control over the region's energy assets. This follows the point put forward in Realism that a State should work in its own survival and security over the long term. This idea conforms to the notion that it was in the national interest of the US to protect these natural resources against hostile powers.

The second significant issue, which increases the lack of clear interpretation regarding its political perspectives, is the lack of international support for the US invasion. A large number of countries were against this decision because they believed that such actions were not supported by the UN. A large number of American citizens were against the war as well (CBSNews, 2003). Liberals might argue that the reliance on hard power and military force is a final solution, and there are multiple options before such steps are taken. Liberals might also argue that such invasions violated the United Nations Charter and lacked legal justification. This is debatable since there were many international and regional stability problems in Iraq that drove the UK to become involved in the war as well.

A third Liberal argument that could be made is the need for a more cooperative, multilateral approach that would have better reflected liberal values. Nevertheless, restating Fukuyama (2022), the argument made is that a Liberal State should protect the principles of Liberalism, i.e. the liberal international order of free trade. Liberals could contend that there were several diplomatic alternatives that were not exhausted before the military invasion. However, the argument behind the intervention is nonetheless supported through a Liberal perspective, with an emphasis on protection of an international liberal order.

Liberals argued that the invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003 was a humanitarian intervention. They argued that it was the duty of the Liberal world to ensure that individuals had their individual rights secured in the world. Liberals also argued that it was the duty of the international system to work together and ensure a unified and multilateral approach. They argued that the military intervention was rushed and that other channels were not exhausted. Realists argued that in an anarchic international order, it is the duty of the state to ensure survival. It is the duty of the Realists to ensure that resources for the survival of the State are secured. Realists must ensure that States act preemptively against threats and protect the global balance of power. Realists also argued that prioritizing pragmatic considerations is the duty of the State and therefore provided justification for the intervention.