Realism and War

[Shoua Yang]

A question on the issue of the Bush administration's hawkist policy
toward Iraq came up for inquiry: "How do you explain the
administration's current policy toward Saddam Hussein?" International
relations theory--realism--may be provided a good answer to this
question. Realism assumes that actors are egoistic and concerned about
power, so securing the national security is the top priority.
Moreover, actors are the state who is pessimistic and thus expected
the worst scenario, such as cybernetic terriorism, and preparing to
act is their primary response. Finally, it, furthermore, postulates
that actors view the world as a system of anarchy in which no
international system is capable resolving international conflicts, so
they must act either alone or with the help of allies. If these
theoretical propositions are held explaining President's and his top
adviors' philosphical views and practical actions, then realism is
applicable elucidating the administration's current foreign policy
toward Iraq. Will see.

Having followed the administration's policy toward Iraq for months, I
have learned these words from President Bush when he either addressed
the nation or the UN: American is under threatening, and my top
priority as your President is to secure the national security,
ensuring the welfare of the people in the US. This concern led to the
establishement of the Dept. of Homeland Security. Furthermore, the
President often used words, such as "acting without the UN approval"
[attacking Saddam Hussein alone], "the ditator," [Saddam] "with us or
against us," [allies or enemies] the "axis of evils," [Iraq, Iran, and
North Korea], "oppressive regime" [Saddam's government], and
"threatening to the world peace." This factor analysis coupled with
the establishment of the Dept of Homeland Security have explained
President's perceptions of the world that have closely related to how
realists have thought.

Sec. of State Colin Powell, Sec. of Defense Remsfeld, and Vice
President Cheney all have shared what realists have proposed dealing
with global issues. Vieweing what they have acted and what they have
done, these advisors fit into the category of realism. For example,
all three of them have backgrounds in the military who believe in the
use of force for deterence.

Releasing realism's assmptions, one can see that what realists have
viewed about international issues are resembled what have practically
been done and acted by the current administration.

SY