Understanding the Iraq War in the Context of International Society

English School of Thought in International Relations

Describe The Iraq War In International Society Have To Be Relate ,Analysis Iraq War In International Society.

Hostility and conflict is a common phenomenon to be existing within the broader aspect of the international relations. The various nation states of the world have the common tendency to aspire for more power and authority within the international context (Buzan, 2014). In order to garner such authority and power, the first elements which are required for the increase in such authority are those of territories and that of resources. This is the main reason for the outbreak of wars and conflicts among such countries of the world. After the demise of the Soviet Union towards the end of the twentieth century, the structuring of the world order changed. From a bipolar world order, the global society moved towards a unipolar system where the United States of America emerged to be the only dominant hegemonic power to be ruling over the world affairs (Murray, 2015). Although the countries across the globe had the freedom to take their own decisions as a result of the inception of the idea of sovereignty, majority of the global political affairs were decided by the United States of America. This hegemonic power which was occupied by America was not acceptable by many countries of the world (Devetak, George & Percy, 2017). Many of them felt that the liberal and democratic ideals that were being advocated by the state leaders of America were conflicting with their own religious dictates. It was the conflict in such political and religious ideals that the Iraq War broke out in 2003 (Wilson, 2016). The purpose of this paper is to understand the issue of this Iraq War of 2003 in the broader context of the international society. The paper has also attempted to analyze the incident through the lens of the English School of thought as it exists within the field of international relations.

The international theories attempt to focus or lay emphasis on one single factor of smaller issues which are taken to the units of analysis. Such units or issues are examined and analyzed and the character derived from such a study is attributed to the larger realm of the entire globe. In the present world order, the international theorists are in the search for such indications which may point to the decline in the importance given to the power and the authority held by the different nation states of the world (Fawcett, 2016). Such scholars attempt to seek the alterations in the power structure of the countries from their desire to hold more power and authority to that of the work done for the progress of the entire human race. However, even in the twenty firs century, it can be observed that the desire of the states to attain more power has not reduced (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). They are still considered to be the main actors within the field of international relations. Thus, there was a need to get a fresh perspective about the nature of the states and their form of intercommunication in the international sphere.

Iraq War of 2003

In this context, The English School of Thought emerged. The English School is also known as the society of states approach (Booth & Erskine, 2016). It involves within itself three different methods which are used for the understanding of how the globe functions or operates. The English School was mainly designed to include within itself the attributes of the liberalism and that of realism (Brown, 2017). The main query that was posed by the theorists advocating this school of thought was that how can an individual incorporate the various cooperative elements of the international sphere in to the realist conception of the present hostile nature of the international relations.  

The first sphere which can be noticed within international politics is that of the international system (Hast, 2016). This element was first proposed by that of Hobbes and Machiavelli. They opined that the states of the world are mainly associated with each other in the form of power politics. The realists consider that the process and the structure of international anarchy is at the focus point of the international relations theory (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019).

The second sphere of focus is that of the international society (Devetak, George & Percy, 2017). The idea flowed mainly from that of Grotius. He believed that the international society consist of the institutionalization of the shared identity and interest amongst the countries. The theory of rationalism aids in the creation and the maintenance of the shared rules, norms and institutions within the field of international politics (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). The English School of Thought lays special focus on the idea of international society.

The third element developed is that of world society (Devetak, George & Percy, 2017). This idea was first advocated by that of Kant. Kant opines that the non-governmental organizations, the individuals and the entire global society focuses on the formation of the social identities. This element lays emphasis on the idea of Revolutionism which brings the state system in to the lime light of the international theory (Viotti & Kauppi, 2019). Revolutionism mainly refers to the idea of the Universalist cosmopolitan and that of communism. The English School of Thought is yet to develop on this idea of world society.

The English School is known to incorporate the postulates belonging to the field of realism (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). In other words, it lays importance on the primacy of the nation states of the world who are found to be interacting with each other within an anarchic system. However, the English School attempts to bring about a human element and analyze them which are found to be emerging from the domestic sphere of activity (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). In this context, it can be seen that the most important element of the English School of Thought is that of the international society which operates as a result of the influence of the international system or realism and the world society or that of revolutionism.

The war in Iraq which broke out in 2003 occurred as a result of many different factors. The foreign policy of the United States of America as led by the then President, George Bush, shaped the course of the war (Pauly, 2017). The war of the United States of America with that of Iraq in 2003 was explained primarily through the lens of realism, owing to the unipolar structure of the world order and the anarchy that was involved therein (Dieterich, Hummel & Marschall, 2015). The scholars were of the idea that the state leaders of the United States took a recourse to offensive realism. Offensive realism states that there is a tendency among the states of the world to maintain the current status quo of the region by waging wars with each other in order to establish their dominance.

The need to invade Iraq by the United States of America in 2003 can be understood in the context of a changing international society (Robinson et al., 2016). The major reasons for such an attack was the rise in the form of globalized terrorism, the primacy of the United States of America and the issue of nuclear proliferation. The English School has tried to explain the implications of the war of Iraq and the consequences of this war on the international society.

The war with Iraq is largely considered to be illegitimate. Many scholars belonging to the English school were of the idea that the coercive stance of the United States of America to bring about a regime change within the country of Iraq was quite unnecessary (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). As a result of this, the intervention was considered to be illegitimate within the field of a pluralist international society. This illegitimacy was further strengthened by the fact that no weapons of mass destruction was found within Iraq as it was claimed by the United States of America. The American leaders launched this pre-emptive attack on the grounds that Iraq was on the path to create more chaos in the world and it was violating the human rights of its own citizens (Robinson et al., 2016). However, during the time of the attack, no such humanitarian atrocities were to be found within Iraq.

The scholars of the English School tried to understand the origin of the war. Dunne was of the idea the unilateralism of the United States of America within Iraq was an effect of the crisis which was prevalent in the international society and its prevailing dysfunction. The Westphalian pluralist system and its tendency of non-intervention is found to be contradictory with the old customs and traditions (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). International law initially intended to pose certain restrictions on the sovereignty of the countries. However, with the development of time, such international law sought the reinforcement of the national sovereignty of the countries. As a result of this, there is a perceivable tension which can be noticed within the entire gamut of such international law. Within the present contemporary international society, the debates surrounding the issues of humanitarian ad that of the legitimacy of the democratic principles are found to be contradictory to the issues of non-intervention and that of pluralism (Jackson, Sørensen & Møller, 2019). Vattel was of the idea that the sovereignty of the states should not be violated under any circumstances even though it may be contradictory to that of justice, as it might lead to the origin of zealotry. However, in this context, Vattel was of the idea that if the sovereign head of a country is found to break its own rules and regulations which leads to economic and political disability within the country, then the population of that nation state have the power to legally resist the activities of the sovereign and invite foreign countries to intervene and save them. This reasoning was used by the state leaders of the United States to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. However, the advocators of the English School was of the idea that the war on Iraq was unjustified as the citizens were not facing any crisis as such. The sovereign of the state was not at fault for the attack of 2001 (Robinson et al., 2016). Rather, it was the malicious activity of the members of the transnational non-state terrorist group for which the entire world community had to suffer. In this context, the English School opined that there is a necessity to maintain global peace by ensuring the harmonious activity of the states of the world as they are dependent upon each other.

A new perspective has emerged in the recent global system with regards to the English School of Thought. It is important to analyze the foreign policy of the United States of America through the lens of international societal frame work as espoused by that of Hedley Bull (Robinson et al., 2016). The foreign policies of this country have been primarily examined through the lens of realism and that of neo-liberalism. However, the English School sought to consider the implications of such policies on the wider frame work of the entire international society and hence, the need to understand the Iraq War through this lens (Cuhadar et al., 2017).

Hedley Bull, in his book titled “The Anarchical Society” stated that there is a need to understand the international reality in a broader framework and not only through the narrow conservative lens of realism. The present world order has been structured along the lines of a “society of states” (Conte, 2017). This points to the fact that within the contemporary global society, the states are aware about the existence of certain norms and interests which are mutual t each other. This is widely different from the prevailing structure of the earlier days where each nation state was only concerned with the fulfillment of their own national interests and objectives. In the present times, the states are found to be interdependent on each other for the achievement of their own national objectives. As a consequence of this, the states have developed a common general set of rules and regulations which guide and formulate their dealings with one another. One of the major goals which is shared within such a society of states is that of preserving the contemporary existing system and ensuring the maintenance of the independence of the states of the world (Moens, 2017). For the achievement of such goals, the primary goal is the maintenance of peace for which there is a need to limit the violence and hostility which leads to the anarchy inherent within the very nature of the states. In this respect, it can be seen that the basic objective of the states is the preservation of the goals so that the international order is maintained. In this respect, there is a difference between the neo-realist approach and the English School of Thought. The neo-realist approach states that international order is a natural consequence of the institution of the various balancing mechanisms (Buzan & Gonzalez-Pelaez, 2015). On the other hand, the English School propounds that there is a necessity of the active participation of the states to maintain such an international order and the balancing mechanisms.

However, in the opinion of Hedley Bull, this structure of the society of the states faced a continuing challenge, which turned more severe after September 2001. The primary challenge that was posed was to the identity of the states as the main actors within the international sphere (Murray, 2015). This is due to the reason that globalization has strictly undermined the element of sovereignty of the various nation states and their control over the activities which occurred within their own territorial boundaries. Furthermore, another emerging challenge that was noticed was in the field of politics. For so long, the main threat to the existence of a state was with regards to their economic resources (Messerschmidt, 2015). However, the attack on the hegemon of the world on their political arena, had led to the rise in the belief that the security threats are no longer simply statist in nature. Such security threats have now started to emerge from the transnational activity and functioning of the various non-state terrorist groupings of the world who operate from within the territorial boundary of such nation states of the world (Göl, 2015).

The advocators of the English School of Thought are wary about the unipolar structure of the world. They are of the idea that the prevalence of a single predominating state or a hegemon is considered to be a menace to the existence of the other nation states of the world (Schwartz, 2016). The hegemon have the power to punish any other state of the world who break the rules and regulations, thereby adversely affecting the maintenance of the status quo. In this regard, it can be seen that the existence of a hegemonic power is against the advocation of the English School of Thought and its need to form a society of states (Dodge, 2017). They state that the countries have their own internal system of checks and balances on the power and authority exercised by their own people. This has created the need to change the present status quo by the other states of the world who do not exercise the requisite power and authority as done by the hegemonic state of the United States (Beyer, 2016).

The attack on the United States of American September 2001 can be attributed to this specific orientation of the world order. The transnational non-state terrorist groupings of the world have their own agenda and objectives which they try to achieve. This is usually done with the aid of hostility and that of violence that goes against the need to maintain the status quo of the world (Norrlof, 2014). However, the United States of America retaliated to this attack by launching a pre-emptive war on Iraq in 2003. This attack of the United States, the leading hegemon of the world, was criticized and condemned by many nation states of the world. However, none of them had the courage to stop the United States in its act of vengeance and they decided to go ahead with the attack on Iraq.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it can be observed that the Iraq war of 2003 has been analyzed by the various scholars of the world through different lenses. While one category of theorists stated that the war was necessary as a result of the existence of a dominating hegemon in the world, the scholars advocating the English School of Thought, stated that the war was illegitimate in orientation. The world was largely organized as a unipolar after the demise of the Soviet Union. The liberal ideology that was propended by the state leaders of the United State of America gained wide spread favor around the world as a result of the ideas of democracy and sovereignty. The idea about the society of states developed whereby the nation states were found to be interdependent on each other as a consequence of the achievement of their common goal. In the contemporary world order, the United States of America share a strategic relationship with that of Iraq. This strategic relationship is needed by America as it allows them to involve themselves within the military and the political field of the region of Middle East. Middle East has always occupied a center stage for the United States because of the richness in natural resources. In return of access to such rich resources, the United States of America provide security to the Iraqi forces by giving them financial assistance of millions of dollars. They also provide Iraq with military aid in the form of advanced military and that of efficient training regime. Thus, the states are found to be diplomatically dependent on each other and the activities of one have the potential to impact the functioning of the other countries. In this regard, the scholars of the English School believe that there is a need to maintain the status quo of the international order through the mechanisms of peace and harmony.

References

Beyer, A. C. (2016). Inequality and violence: a re-appraisal of Man, the state and war. Routledge.

Booth, K., & Erskine, T. (Eds.). (2016). International relations theory today. John Wiley & Sons.

Brown, C. (2017). Political thought, international relations theory and international political theory: an interpretation. International Relations, 31(3), 227-240.

Buzan, B. (2014). An introduction to the English school of international relations: The societal approach. John Wiley & Sons.

Buzan, B., & Gonzalez-Pelaez, A. (2015). International society and the Middle East. PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.

Conte, A. (2017). Security in the 21st century: the United Nations, Afghanistan and Iraq. Routledge.

Cuhadar, E., Kaarbo, J., Kesgin, B., & Ozkececi-Taner, B. (2017). Examining leaders’ orientations to structural constraints: Turkey’s 1991 and 2003 Iraq war decisions. Journal of International Relations and Development, 20(1), 29-54.

Devetak, R., George, J., & Percy, S. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to international relations. Cambridge University Press.

Dieterich, S., Hummel, H., & Marschall, S. (2015). Bringing democracy back in: The democratic peace, parliamentary war powers and European participation in the 2003 Iraq War. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 87-106.

Dodge, T. (2017). Iraq–from war to a new authoritarianism. Routledge.

Fawcett, L. (Ed.). (2016). International relations of the Middle East. Oxford University Press.

Göl, A. (2015). Imagining the Middle East: the state, nationalism and regional international society. Global Discourse, 5(3), 379-394.

Hast, S. (2016). Spheres of influence in international relations: History, theory and politics. Routledge.

Jackson, R., Sørensen, G., & Møller, J. (2019). Introduction to international relations: theories and approaches. Oxford University Press, USA.

Messerschmidt, J. W. (2015). Hegemonic masculinities and camouflaged politics: Unmasking the Bush dynasty and its war against Iraq. Routledge.

Moens, A. (2017). The foreign policy of George W. Bush: Values, strategy, and loyalty. Routledge.

Murray, R. W. (Ed.). (2015). System, society and the world: Exploring the English School of international relations. E-International Relations Publishing.

Murray, R. W. (Ed.). (2015). System, society and the world: Exploring the English School of international relations. E-International Relations Publishing.

Norrlof, C. (2014). Dollar hegemony: A power analysis. Review of International Political Economy, 21(5), 1042-1070.

Pauly, R. J. (2017). Strategic Preemption: US Foreign Policy and the Second Iraq War. Routledge.

Robinson, P., Goddard, P., Parry, K., Murray, C., & Taylor, P. M. (2016). Pockets of resistance: British news media, war and theory in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Schwartz, M. (2016). War without end: The Iraq war in context. Haymarket books.

Viotti, P. R., & Kauppi, M. V. (2019). International relations theory. Rowman & Littlefield.

Wilson, P. (2016). The English School in retrospect and prospect: Barry Buzan’s an introduction to the english school of international relations: The societal approach. Cooperation and Conflict, 51(1), 94-136.