Explaining The Iraq War By Sorensen, 2003

This essay will discuss to what extent realist approaches are useful for explaining the Iraq war 2003. However there are other theories as well, which might fulfill the gaps that were left by the realists.

Realism is theory, which describes different types of realism in different situations. Realism believes that individuals are considered as being preoccupied with their own welfare in their reasonable relations with each other. (Sorensen, 2007) Realism is the leading Theory of International Relations, because it provides the most influential explanation for the state of war that is the systematic situation of life in the international system. The key statements for the realism are: statism, self-help and survival. Firstly, the state is

Basically classical realism focuses on the central political morals of national security and state survival. The examples of the Classical realists are Thucydides, Machiavelli, and Hobbes. (Sorensen, 2007) Structural realists, sometimes called as neorealist, human nature has slight to do with, why states struggle for power. The structural realist theories ignore the cultural differences among states as well as differences in government type. This happens basically because of that the international system creates the same essential motivations for all great powers. (Smith, 2010) Structural realism claims that the anarchy plays the main role in international relations. The representative for the structural realism are John mearsheimer who is well-known as Offensive realist, while Kenneth Waltz is considered to be a Defensive realist. (Sorensen,

They believed that the explanations for the war with Iraq did not match US national interests. The USA seemed to be on the doctrine of Bush. Realists particularly argue that invading Iraq was a combination of economic agreements and pressures of massive payback. Furthermore, they claimed that even if Saddam Hussein influenced weapons of mass destruction, the prevention would continue. Realists also argue that even before there was only doubt about the war, the main reasons for that were large stores of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Furthermore they argued that the link between Iraq and the criminals of the 9/11 attacks were getting worse. (Baylis, 2008) As Charles Krauthammer clarifies The USA being as a hegemon would not accept any other country to become its competitor in this aspect. Bush and Krauthammer wanted to discourage upcoming military and political competition from the opponent powers in order to reach the national security document written in 2002 named ‘Balance of power that favours freedom ‘ (Baylis, 2008). According to (Lieberfield, 2005) USA had a goal to sustain their Global Hegemony. The speech what Bush has done was declared, “America has, and intends to keep, military strengths beyond challenge”. This declaration can be justified as a challenge in USA reputation and their symbolic power, especially after September 11, 2001, which made USA more