Thesis Brainstorming on LJ
So I've pretty much read enough that I can start getting in depth in my writing. The only problem is that there is still on question that bugs me: Why DID we go back to Iraq?
Obviously reasons such as WMDs, democracy, and terrorism are just marketing ploys to get the public behind the administration. Most of what I read points to the "oil" reason, but that doesn't make complete sense to me from an economic point of view. I have also read that it was the U.S.'s intention to spread their sphere of influence and just that phrasing reminds me of Cold War mentality. Both reasons are probably partially true, but the ultimate reason alludes me some reason. The Gulf War in 1991 is easy to explain and probably (unfortunately for my hypothesis) is explained by realism. The second war (2003) I figure can be more easily explained by Constructivism; however, this is tricky as well.
Ironically I had a mini political conversation with a guy at the gas station (when I got my Red Bull and laundry cash) and he did make a point about the previous Bush administration and the CIA, but that doesn't explain this war. The idea that the second Bush went back for revenge on his father is absurd to me. I mean I'm sure he wanted it and had no querrels going back, but that was not enough to garner the backing of the entire administration.
If I use the "oil" reason, then neither Realism or Constructivism explain the war, but Liberalism does, which isn't even part of my thesis.
Before my thesis got revamped, I had a definate hypothesis, but now I don't. My main goal is to prove that Realism is outdated since the end of the Cold War and constructivism can better explain events, albeit not predict them. Realism is too simple and doesn't account for "change," i.e. the end of the Cold War.
I think I'll just start by explaining the two theories and applying them to the first war in Iraq. But the current war has me stuck. For one thing, I know if I mention "oil" as the main reason, my advisor is going to have field day. My former TA professor from Iraq swears up and down it's all about oil, but then agian he and my advisor don't get along.
It's made more complicated by the fact that the Bush administration had to "sell" this war. All the stuff he threw at the public was just fancy window dressing for the actual motivations, which are hard to pinpoint. Ecomically oil doesn't make sense, because the US has spent so much money on the war, as well as lives of Americans and Iraqis. The payback in oil wouldn't cover it. However, the idea that the U.S. wants a sphere of influence in the Middle East to better influence OPEC and the flow of oil makes better sense. However, there is no real fear that the Saudies and other oil-rich Gulf states would ever withhold oil from us because it would affect their economy as well. I think I need to read more about the economical reasons/ explanations, but it poses a problem for my theories. Liberalism is an interesting theory, but it doesn't explain war very well, since anything traded is better than by force due to the cost/benefit analysis of going to war. I'm stuck.
Honestly, I think if it had been any other president and administration, the US would not have gone to war in Iraq. Aghanistan, perhaps, but not Iraq. Taking into account that Bush's advisors are basically hand-me-downs from his father's administration, there is a lack of awknowledgement that the world has changed since the Cold War. This is exactly the conclusion my advisor wants me to stress, but technically 1991 was after the Cold War. He still wants me to put in the category of "cold war battles" and contrast the differences between the two. Basically International Politics has changed, but U.S. foreign policy has not.
Okay, I'm going to go do the laundry now.
Obviously reasons such as WMDs, democracy, and terrorism are just marketing ploys to get the public behind the administration. Most of what I read points to the "oil" reason, but that doesn't make complete sense to me from an economic point of view. I have also read that it was the U.S.'s intention to spread their sphere of influence and just that phrasing reminds me of Cold War mentality. Both reasons are probably partially true, but the ultimate reason alludes me some reason. The Gulf War in 1991 is easy to explain and probably (unfortunately for my hypothesis) is explained by realism. The second war (2003) I figure can be more easily explained by Constructivism; however, this is tricky as well.
Ironically I had a mini political conversation with a guy at the gas station (when I got my Red Bull and laundry cash) and he did make a point about the previous Bush administration and the CIA, but that doesn't explain this war. The idea that the second Bush went back for revenge on his father is absurd to me. I mean I'm sure he wanted it and had no querrels going back, but that was not enough to garner the backing of the entire administration.
If I use the "oil" reason, then neither Realism or Constructivism explain the war, but Liberalism does, which isn't even part of my thesis.
Before my thesis got revamped, I had a definate hypothesis, but now I don't. My main goal is to prove that Realism is outdated since the end of the Cold War and constructivism can better explain events, albeit not predict them. Realism is too simple and doesn't account for "change," i.e. the end of the Cold War.
I think I'll just start by explaining the two theories and applying them to the first war in Iraq. But the current war has me stuck. For one thing, I know if I mention "oil" as the main reason, my advisor is going to have field day. My former TA professor from Iraq swears up and down it's all about oil, but then agian he and my advisor don't get along.
It's made more complicated by the fact that the Bush administration had to "sell" this war. All the stuff he threw at the public was just fancy window dressing for the actual motivations, which are hard to pinpoint. Ecomically oil doesn't make sense, because the US has spent so much money on the war, as well as lives of Americans and Iraqis. The payback in oil wouldn't cover it. However, the idea that the U.S. wants a sphere of influence in the Middle East to better influence OPEC and the flow of oil makes better sense. However, there is no real fear that the Saudies and other oil-rich Gulf states would ever withhold oil from us because it would affect their economy as well. I think I need to read more about the economical reasons/ explanations, but it poses a problem for my theories. Liberalism is an interesting theory, but it doesn't explain war very well, since anything traded is better than by force due to the cost/benefit analysis of going to war. I'm stuck.
Honestly, I think if it had been any other president and administration, the US would not have gone to war in Iraq. Aghanistan, perhaps, but not Iraq. Taking into account that Bush's advisors are basically hand-me-downs from his father's administration, there is a lack of awknowledgement that the world has changed since the Cold War. This is exactly the conclusion my advisor wants me to stress, but technically 1991 was after the Cold War. He still wants me to put in the category of "cold war battles" and contrast the differences between the two. Basically International Politics has changed, but U.S. foreign policy has not.
Okay, I'm going to go do the laundry now.