Myths, Motivations and 'Misunderestimations

The Bush Administration and Iraq

Bibliographic Data

ID3703088
AuthorsDavid H Dunn (0000-0001-5261-9161, University of Birmingham, corresponding author)
Year2003
Volume79
Issue2
Pages279-297
Publication date2003-03-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueInternational Affairs (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0020-5850 • E-ISSN: 1468-2346
PublisherOxford University Press (OUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1111/1468-2346.00308
OpenAlexW2095261603
LanguageEN
Citations received10

This article explores the myths and motivations behind US foreign policy towards Iraq in America's ‘war on terrorism’. It argues that the foreign policy of the Bush administration is widely misunderstood and that much of the debate about Iraq policy that has taken place has been conducted at an unhelpful level of analysis. It addresses arguments that the Bush administration is motivated by oil, revenge or hubris as well as the more mainstream arguments that an attack on Iraq would provoke instability through the entire Middle East, as well as encouraging further acts of and support for murderous terrorism; that there is no urgency to act against Iraq as containment and deterrence remain adequate means to manage this threat; and that Iraq should be a lower priority than dealing with North Korea. It does this by analysing the development of American foreign policy thinking on the war on terrorism, what motivates it, and why it rejects the arguments of its critics. The article explains the intellectual process by which the US decided upon this course of action and how Europe's failure to understand this process added to its incomprehension of American policy. It does not argue that European's opposition would have been swept aside had they better understood the Bush administration, the central disagreement about the necessity and prudence of military action versus containment remains, but that such an understanding would have allowed for a better and more focused level of debate than the one which has got us to this point. Nor does it argue that the Bush administration approach is necessarily persuasive or justified, merely that its case is reasoned and explicable in terms of America's foreign policy traditions

Administration (probate law) · Deterrence theory · Foreign policy · Hubris · Jihadism · Law and economics · Mainstream · Mythology · Opposition (politics) · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Prudence · Scrutiny · Sociology · Terrorism · Economic Sanctions and International Relations · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · History · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub