Leadership and Foreign Policy Decision

Leadership and Foreign Policy

Decision making represents an essential process of analysis and negotiations. It is the result of a complex set of considerations concerning the actors involved, the circumstances, as well as the factors which could determine the eventual outcome of the policy meant to agree upon.

Foreign policy decisions are some of the most important ones taken by an administration in the course of history. They can determine the direction in which the country is heading at a particular time. This is why several models that explain the decision making process have been created that enable the decision making people to have a better and more organized process of analysis. It can be said that they have been used throughout history as well as in regard to the more recent events such as the war in Iraq. From this point-of-view, the present paper will address the way in which the decision to go to war in Iraq was taken from the perspective of two different explanatory models: the "unitary rational actor model," and the "domestic politics" (Softing, 2000). It will be pointed out that in the decision to go in Iraq both models were useful to an equal extent. However, in terms of the outcome, the issue of domestic politics appeared to be more important because the U.S. relies heavily on the way in which public opinion reacts.

The first model for explaining decision making includes the analysis of state behavior. More precisely, it represents the image of the state in connection with the internal aspects of the society as well as foreign aspect. Thus, in general terms it can be said that the ability of a state to conduct its foreign policy relies in the possibility of creating an image of a unitary actor. More precisely, it is a matter of providing an impression at least of a state who has one unitary point of action. It is also a manifestation of power in international relations as well as a prerequisite for exporting a coherent foreign policy aspect.

There are several aspects to be taken into account when discussing the model. They are generally applicable and can be adapted according to the precise area or policy sector. Thus, this model considers that "states are unitary, rational actors; decision-makers evaluate options in terms of costs and benefits to their nation, and only in those terms, and choose whichever option (is believed to) maximize(s) net national gain; states are in full control of "their" societies" (Softing, 2000). This approach represents a realistic point-of-view concerning the nation state. States are from this point-of-view endowed with rationality in the sense that before any foreign policy decision is taken, decision makers first assess the way in which the power of the state can be projected outside the borders and how they can benefit from this externalization of power (Nye, 2005). At the same time, the unity of the state concerns the way in which they can control, not necessarily influence their societies. This is an important aspect largely due to the fact that the public opinion holds the reins of power through the voting mechanism and state behavior largely depends on the direction of the voters' choice.

Concerning the United States and the way in which it managed to send the message of a coherent and unitary actor in the international scene, this can be pointed out in the way in which they handled the situation in Iraq. In this sense, the United States is powerful enough to support the idea of individual engagement in any part of the world. Thus, their prior success in terms of the Afghanistan intervention as well as their strong power politics in terms of the North Korean negotiations, their relationship with Iran, and their leading position in the Middle East Peace Process allowed them to project an image of victory for the intervention in Iraq. Moreover, there had been reasonable circumstances to support the idea of a morally justifiable intervention. These included the right of the Iraqis to live in a country of freedom, of human rights, and without a tyrant to lead their politics. These were the prerequisites for creating an image of a determined state willing to fight for the cause of those in peril.

From this point-of-view all the aspects of a unitary state were met, especially concerning the assessment of the national gain. The intervention in Iraq can be said to have had a humanitarian purpose; nonetheless, the U.S. then remained in the region to reconstruct the society and the country as a whole. This in turn brought up important financial gains as well as business opportunities. At the same time though, the overthrow of Saddam was important from the point-of-view of the stability in the region and for the oil markets the U.S. And the world is so dependent on.

The second model of analysis is the "domestic politics" model which is crucial for the well being of the American democracy. This is an approach based on the actual interests of the domestic actors involved. In this sense, political factors such as parties play a key role. This model, particularly adapted to the framing of the environmental policy stresses the need for consensus or at least for debate concerning a matter of national interests inside the institution most representative for the nation (Softing, 2000). This comes to point out the need for legitimacy from the people. Indeed, there is a stringent need for consensus in order to have the third element of the first model, which is control over the society; yet the simple fact that matters of national and global interest are discussed at the highest level of the democratic institution is essential. still, in order for this model to ensure a proper guideline for framing foreign policy it is important that this process offers a serious solution to the issues discussed.

The United States conducted impressive debates on the intervention in Iraq precisely because the decision making forums were well aware of the need for social consent. At the same time though, it was crucial that the Congress vote on the decision to go in Iraq and on the funding of this mission. Consequently, it can be said that there was a wide consensus on the support for Bush's approach to the Iraqi situation, taking into account a simple fact which is currently keeping the headlines in the U.S. presidential campaign. More precisely, it is important to point out the fact that before Barrack Obama' nomination as the Democrats' candidate, all major contenders including Hilary Clinton supported the intervention in Iraq. The outcome of the policy achieved through the support of the forces making up domestic politics however tends to point otherwise. At this moment, Obama marches for a rapid withdrawal of the troops in Iraq, while Hilary Clinton admits that the initial decision was a hasty one. Still, the most important aspect remains that the Administration took into account the need for acceptance from the political circles, and not only the capacity of the U.S. To have an image of a unitary actor in the world.