Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

President Al Gore and the 2003 Iraq War: A Counterfactual Test of Conventional “W”isdom

  • Frank P. Harvey (a1)
Abstract

Abstract. The almost universally accepted explanation for the Iraq war is very clear and consistent, namely, the US decision to attack Saddam Hussein's regime on March 19, 2003, was a product of the ideological agenda, misguided priorities, intentional deceptions and grand strategies of President George W. Bush and prominent “neoconservatives” and “unilateralists” on his national security team. Notwithstanding the widespread appeal of this version of history, however, the Bush-neocon war thesis (which I have labelled neoconism) remains an unsubstantiated assertion, a “theory” without theoretical content or historical context, a position lacking perspective and a seriously underdeveloped argument absent a clearly articulated logical foundation. Neoconism is, in essence, a popular historical account that overlooks a substantial collection of historical facts and relevant causal mechanisms that, when combined, represent a serious challenge to the core premises of accepted wisdom. This article corrects these errors, in part, by providing a much stronger account of events and strategies that pushed the US-UK coalition closer to war. The analysis is based on both factual and counterfactual evidence, combines causal mechanisms derived from multiple levels of analysis and ultimately confirms the role of path dependence and momentum as a much stronger explanation for the sequence of decisions that led to war.

Résumé. L'explication quasi-universellement acceptée de la guerre d'Irak est très claire et sans équivoque : la décision des États-Unis de renverser le régime de Saddam Hussein le 19 mars 2003 était le résultat d'un programme idéologique, de priorités erronées, de déceptions intentionnelles, de grandes manœuvres stratégiques du président George W. Bush, d'éminents «néoconservateurs» et partisans de l'« unilatéralisme » présents dans l'équipe chargée de la sécurité nationale. Certes cette version de l'histoire constitue une idée largement répandue, mais la thèse de la guerre-néocon-de-Bush – que je désigne sous le terme neoconism – demeure une assertion dénuée de fondements, une ‘théorie’ sans contenu théorique ou contexte historique, un point de vue sans perspective, un argument qui ne fait pas de poids, et qui ne repose sur aucun raisonnement logique clairement articulé. Le neoconism est essentiellement un compte rendu historique populaire qui néglige une ensemble important de faits historiques et de mécanismes de causalité pertinents qui, mis ensemble, constituent un défi taille aux principaux prémisses de la sagesse acceptée. Le présent article se propose de corriger en partie les erreurs surévoquées, en en fournissant un compte rendu beaucoup plus solide des faits et stratégies qui ont amené la coalition États-Unis – Royaume-Uni à aller en guerre contre le régime irakien d'alors. L'analyse se fonde à la fois sur des preuves factuelles et contrefactuelles, avec l'appui des mécanismes de cause à effet inspirés de différents niveaux d'analyse, et confirme enfin le rôle joué par le concept de Path dependence (Dépendance au chemin emprunté) et de la dynamique comme explication beaucoup plus convaincante de la série de décisions ayant conduit à la guerre.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Frank P. Harvey, Department of Political Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H 4H6; Frank.Harvey@Dal.ca
References
Hide All
Aminzade, Ronald. 1993. “Class Analysis, Politics, and French Labor History.” In Rethinking Labor History, ed. Berlanstein, L.. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Bennett, Andrew and Elman, Colin. 2006. “Complex Causal Relations and Case Study Methods: The Example of Path Dependence.” Political Analysis 14(3): 250–67.
Betts, Richard K. 1978. “Analysis, War, and Decision: Why Intelligence Failures Are Inevitable.” World Politics 31(2): 6189.
Blix, H. 2003. “Briefing of the Security Council, 27 January 2003: An update on inspections,” http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/security_council_briefings.asp#5
Central Intelligence Agency. 2002. Unclassified Report to Congress on the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions. January 1 through June 30, 2001. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2001.htm#4
Cordyack, Brian. 2005. “Bush Approval Ratings.” Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/bushApproval_031305.gif
Daalder, Ivo H. and Lindsay, James M.. 2003. America Un-bound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Dodds, Klaus. 2008. “Counter-Factual Geopolitics: President Al Gore, September 11th and the Global War on Terror.” Geopolitics 13(1): 7399.
Falleti, Tulia G. 2009. Theory-Guided Process-Tracing in Comparative Politics: Something Old, Something New. Unpublished manuscript. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Fearon, James. 1991. “Counterfactuals and Hypothesis Testing in Political Science.” World Politics 43(2): 169–95.
Ferguson, Niall. 2000. Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals. New York: Basic Books.
Fukuyama, Francis. 2006. America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
George, Alexander L. and Bennett, Andrew. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
George, Alexander and McKeown, Timothy. 1985. “Case studies and theories of organizational decision making.” In Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, Volume II, Research on Public Organizations, ed. Coulam, Robert F. and Smith, Richard A.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press
Goertz, Gary and Levy, Jack S.. 2007. “Causal Explanation, Necessary Conditions, and Case Studies.” In Explaining War and Peace: Case Studies and Necessary Condition Counterfactuals, ed. Goertz, Gary and Levy, Jack S.. New York: Routledge.
Goertz, Gary and Starr, Harvey, ed. 2003. Necessary Conditions: Theory, Methodology and Applications. Lanham: Rowan and Littlefield.
Gore, Al. 2002a. Interview, The Charlie Rose Show. November 19.
Gore, Al. 2002b. “A Commentary on the War against Terror: Our Larger Tasks.” Remarks to the US Council on Foreign Relations. Washington, DC. February 12. http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=4343
Gore, Al. 2002c. “Iraq and the War on Terror.” Remarks to the Commonwealth Club of California. San Francisco, CA. September 23. http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/02/02-09gore-speech.html
Greenwald, Glenn. 2008. Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Halper, Stefan and Clarke, Jonathan. 2005. America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Harvey, Frank. 2011. Explaining the Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Heilbrunn, Jacob. 2008. They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons. New York: Doubleday.
Holbrooke, Richard. 2002. Interview, The Charlie Rose Show, September 17. http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/2276
Isikoff, Michael and Corn, David. 2006. Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War. New York: Random House.
Janis, Irving L. 1972. Victims of Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Janis, Irving and Mann, Leon. 1977. Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York: Free Press.
Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jervis, Robert. 2006. “Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failure: The Case of Iraq.” The Journal of Strategic Studies 29(1): 352.
Kaplan, Fred. 2008. Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Kaufmann, Chaim. 2004. “Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War.” International Security 29(1): 548.
Kellett Cramer, Jane. 2007. “Militarized Patriotism: Why the US Marketplace of Ideas Failed Before the Iraq War.” Security Studies 16(3): 489524.
Knorr, K. 1983. Power, Strategy, and Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Krebs, Ronald R. and Lobasz, Jennifer K.. 2007. “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11: Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq.” Security Studies 16(3): 409–51.
Lebow, Richard Ned. 1984. Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis. Washington: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2000. “What's so Different about a Counterfactual?World Politics 52: 550–85.
Levy, Jack S. 2008a. “Preventive War and Democratic Politics.” International Studies Quarterly 52: 124.
Levy, Jack. 2008b. “Counterfactuals and Case Studies.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, ed. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet, Brady, Henry and Collier, David. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mahoney, James. 2006. “Analyzing path dependence: Lessons from the social sciences.” In Understanding change: Models, methodologies, and metaphors, ed. Wimmer, A. and Kössler, R.. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mann, James. 2007. Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet. New York: Penguin.
Most, Benjamin A., Starr, H. and Puchala, D.J.. 1989. Inquiry, Logic, and International Politics. Columbia SC: University of Southern Carolina Press.
New Republic, The “Fuerth In Line.” December 7, 1998, 16.
Oliphant, Thomas. 2007. Utter Incompetents: Ego and Ideology in the Age of Bush. New York: Thomas Dunne.
Pelley, Scott. 2008. “Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions.” 60 Minutes Online, January 27. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ricks, Thomas E. 2007. Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq. New York: Penguin.
Risen, James. 2006. State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration. New York: Free Press.
Ritter, S. 1999. Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem Once and for All. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Sanger, David. 2000. New York Times, October 30.
Schmidt, Brian C. and Williams, Michael C.. 2008. “The Bush Doctrine and the Iraq War: Neoconservatives versus Realists.” Security Studies 17(2): 191220.
Smith, Grant F. 2006. Deadly Dogma: How Neoconservatives Broke the Law to Deceive America. New York: Institute for Research.
Sniegoski, Stephen J. 2008. The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel. Norfolk: IHS Press.
Tenet, George. 2007. At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA. New York: HarperCollins.
Tetlock, Philip and Belkin, Aaron. 1996. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tetlock, Philip and Lebow, Richard Ned. 2001. “Poking Counterfactual Holes in Covering Laws: Cognitive Styles and Historical Reasoning.” American Political Science Review 95(4): 829–43.
Unger, Craig. 2007. The Fall of the House of Bush: The Untold Story of How a Band of True Believers Seized the Executive Branch, Started the Iraq War, and Still Imperils America's Future. New York: Scribner.
Unger, Craig. 2008. American Armageddon: How the Delusions of the Neoconservatives and the Christian Right Triggered the Descent of America. New York: Scribner.
Weisberg, Jacob. 2008. The Bush Tragedy. New York: Random House.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique
  • ISSN: 0008-4239
  • EISSN: 1744-9324
  • URL: /core/journals/canadian-journal-of-political-science-revue-canadienne-de-science-politique
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary materials

Harvey supplementary material
Speeches and Bibliography

 Unknown (156 KB)
156 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed