U.S. Foreign Policy and the Iraq War: Public Opinion

Introduction: The Iraq War and American Public Opinion

The Iraq War is one of the most controversial conflicts undertaken by the United States, given that the country's policy regarding the war was at times confusing. While President George W. Bush constantly pressed his case urging his countrymen to join a presumably just cause, the general public slowly but surely began to disapprove of the war. U.S. citizens engaged in debates on the topic of the war in Iraq throughout most of the George W. Bush administration and generated a series of political and idealistic convictions. It is uncertain whether the masses initially appreciated the actions initiated on March 20, 2003, but considering that the 2004 elections brought more votes for George W. Bush, it would seem that the majority of U.S. citizens were determined to support him in fighting the Iraq War (Klinkner, 2006).

The 9/11 events brought significant changes in the way war was perceived by the general public and made it clear that terrorism was a genuine threat. The George W. Bush administration immediately began preparing to go to war as a consequence, and less than two years after the terrorist attacks, U.S. troops were marching into Iraq. It was crucial for the U.S. to change its policies regarding international security and human rights. Certain measures taken by the government proved divisive, with the international public unable to determine whether the U.S. employed a multilateral approach in the situation — as most expected, given its superpower status — or whether it acted on behalf of its own interests (Weiss, Crahan, & Goering, 2004, p. 4).

The international public was both supportive and uncooperative concerning U.S. involvement in several wars fought with the intention of protecting human rights. The country's actions abroad are considered to reflect the American Dream and all the concepts related to it — freedom, equal rights for everyone regardless of their backgrounds, and condemnation of immorality. Some of the actions carried out by the U.S. as a result of the Iraq War are at least controversial, given that "the U.S.A. Patriot Act, the detention of immigrants without charges, together with the designation of the Guantánamo detainees as 'non-combatants,' rather than 'prisoners of war' under the Geneva Conventions" (Weiss, Crahan, & Goering, 2004, p. 4) led some to express a skeptical attitude toward the war.

Americans were essentially presented with what they identified as an ethical dilemma during the war in Iraq. They were uncertain whether they should support their government in fighting a war against the country believed to harbor terrorists, or whether they should concentrate on doing what was right and refrain from committing irremediable errors. Of course, given their position at the time, it was natural for most Americans to believe they were entitled to seek justice. Reprisal was, however, an extreme act, as ethical behavior involves setting emotions aside and acting on the basis of what is genuinely right.

It is in fact very difficult to decide what is right and what is wrong in particular situations. The U.S. behaves differently from other countries largely because it "was created differently, developed differently, and thus has to be understood differently — essentially on its own terms and within its own context" (Lichtenberg, 2004, p. 69). This theory was first devised by Alexis de Tocqueville in order to explain why the country never developed a prominent socialist or labor movement (Lichtenberg, 2004, p. 69). Even so, one can consider all countries to be unique in some way. It apparently seems that although all countries are exceptional, some are more extraordinary than most. This helps explain why the U.S. is likely to act differently when confronted with certain circumstances.

Humanitarian Intervention and U.S. Exceptionalism

The involvement of the U.S. in the Iraq War can be explained by reference to humanitarian intervention. The Iraq War was a military intervention initiated by the U.S. with the stated purpose of ending the violation of human rights. This stands in contrast to particular concepts the U.S. had promoted before the start of the war, when the country related primarily to notions such as national security and self-preservation. From a strictly moral point of view, it seems logical for a nation to believe it is acting in accordance with its principles when it intervenes in another country's internal affairs to prevent oppressors from violating human rights. Thus, it can be argued that the U.S. acted in defense of its convictions when it decided to go to war against Iraq.

The expression "you cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs" aptly applies to the American intervention in Iraq. The American authorities carefully analyzed all the factors involved in a military intervention in the Middle East and concluded that the success of their mission was sufficient motivation to risk harm to non-combatants in the process (Weiss, Crahan, & Goering, 2004, p. 72).

The U.S. was committed to protecting human rights long before the George W. Bush administration decided to go to war against Iraq. This commitment began in the 1970s, when it became a top priority for the country to intervene whenever it deemed its assistance necessary. There was considerable controversy regarding the country's involvement in the affairs of other nations — for example, Kosovo, Somalia, and Rwanda. Even so, most individuals approved of these interventions and did not hesitate to support the country in its effort to end what were obvious violations of human rights (Lichtenberg, 2004, p. 70). However, given that matters are more complicated in the context of the Iraq War, opinions are divided and most individuals are inclined to oppose the war (Forsythe, 2004, p. 77).

The U.S. was known to employ several ideologies in its effort to protect human rights. The Woodrow Wilson administration chose to use liberalism in this matter "through reliance on international law, organization, and human rights" (Forsythe, 2004, p. 78). In contrast, the more realist ideologies associated with American presidents such as Henry Kissinger and Theodore Roosevelt held that an effective international governing body to address human rights violations was absolutely necessary. Both of these figures believed that physical force was not mandatory when confronting incidents involving the violation of human rights. Ultimately, both the liberalist and realist foreign policies embraced by U.S. presidents stressed the importance of cooperative security (Forsythe, 2004, p. 78).

None of the humanitarian interventions undertaken by the U.S. before 2003 reached the magnitude of the Iraq War. It remains uncertain whether the Iraq War was fought primarily because of the 9/11 events or because of George W. Bush's strong determination to protect human rights. In either case, it is evident that the Iraq War would mark a period of change in the U.S.'s foreign policy agenda (Forsythe, 2004, p. 77).

The notion of U.S. exceptionalism was first developed by de Tocqueville and can, to some extent, be compared to the Manifest Destiny. The principal difference between the two is that the former is expected to involve ethics rather than promoting self-serving concepts. Most presidential administrations in the U.S. encouraged people to believe that the U.S. has a kind of divine mission to help the oppressed. This is partly reasonable, as it is morally appropriate for one to act on behalf of another when one has the capacity to do so. George W. Bush's involvement in the Iraq War is somewhat similar to Ronald Reagan's role in the Cold War. Americans began to perceive Saddam Hussein's dictatorship in a way similar to how they had perceived communism — both systems representing pure evil standing against everything the U.S. valued. As a result, those who believed themselves to be principled people considered it rational to support the actions undertaken by the U.S. government in various parts of the world.

U.S. Foreign Policy Before and During the Iraq War

People in the U.S. gradually became convinced that it is their country's role as a superpower to intervene wherever humanitarian assistance is needed. Notions such as "oppressed" and "oppressor" are sometimes contested, and it is virtually impossible to equate the situation of oppressed people in Rwanda with those in Iraq. Considering that the U.S.'s intervention in Rwanda was rather limited and came after disaster had already struck, it is understandable why the superpower was quicker to act when it was directly implicated through the 9/11 events. The exceptionalism projected by the U.S. is on some occasions equivalent to unilateralism, making it possible for the country to evade responsibility when it shows reluctance to intervene on behalf of oppressed peoples (Forsythe, 2004, p. 78).

It is difficult to determine precisely what foreign policy guided the George W. Bush administration during the Iraq War. U.S. foreign policy had been shaped by external factors up to the 9/11 events. The presidential administrations preceding George W. Bush's were aware that they had to adapt their foreign policies according to their own interests and those of the international community. Surprisingly, at the height of the Iraq War, a large number of Democrats in Congress offered only ambiguous criticism. Moreover, through their criticism, Republicans demonstrated that they were in fact supportive of the war (Forsythe, 2004, p. 79).

Throughout his first term, George W. Bush generated positive responses from the American public. "Culturally conservative voters and especially white evangelical Christians" appeared to have become fond of him and directed most of their votes toward re-electing him for a second term. One of the most probable reasons the public chose to elect him was his active involvement in the war against terrorism. There are few events in the history of U.S. elections where a single issue so decisively influenced voters. Unemployment and the Vietnam War were among the only concerns to have generated a comparably strong reaction from the public, with Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon respectively being elected in part as a result of public sentiment about those issues (Klinkner, 2006).

When asked what they considered to have been the most important foreign-policy-related event during the George W. Bush administration (2001–2009), most voters reportedly cited terrorism. Despite having been a major reason for Nixon's election, the Vietnam War received less emphasis than the war against terrorism did in 2004. When it comes to matters of warfare, Republicans appear more capable of persuading U.S. citizens to be supportive compared to Democrats, who have more limited influence over the public on such issues. This is somewhat surprising, as Republicans have historically had relatively little involvement in the conflicts the U.S. has engaged in, while Democrats are often recognized for their contributions in such events (Klinkner, 2006).

The 2004 Election and Public Support for the War

It is not surprising that George W. Bush managed to gain public support in the 2004 elections and in the war against terrorism in general. People did not necessarily decide that it was morally right to go to war, but rather that it was reasonable to engage in warfare because they had been directly provoked. They believed the 9/11 events posed a direct threat to their wellbeing and that George W. Bush's foreign policy concerning the war was the most appropriate response under those circumstances. It was as though George W. Bush wanted to protect them by putting an end to terrorism and immorality everywhere through his actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact that the Iraq War was preceded by the conflict in Afghanistan made it easier for Americans to support the war. Despite the support they showed for the war against terrorism, however, American citizens appeared to identify the Iraq War as a separate matter (Klinkner, 2006).

Although a large portion of the public supported the war against terrorism, a percentage of these individuals were also convinced that there was no connection between the 9/11 events and the Iraq War. As a consequence, they chose to vote for John Kerry, directly signaling that they did not wish to support George W. Bush, even despite his swift and apparently effective response to terrorism. Given that the largest part of George W. Bush's voters chose their candidate because they considered the war against terrorism to be the most important issue facing their country, it is understandable that the Iraq War was also seen as part of the broader war on terror by many. Many American voters were ambivalent toward the Iraq War itself yet were willing to vote for George W. Bush, because even if they did not fully approve of the war, they supported him for his anti-terrorist stance (Klinkner, 2006).

Among voters who considered the Iraq War to be a just war, 94% voted for George W. Bush while the remaining 6% voted for Kerry (Klinkner, 2006). While voters had previously paid more attention to issues such as a presidential candidate's political ideology, matters shifted during the 2004 elections and people began to display a stronger determination to support actions they considered to be moral.

The main concerns people had about the Iraq War related to its consequences and to its purpose in general. The majority of Republicans in Congress believed the war had reduced the terrorist threat previously faced by the country. In contrast, most Democrats believed the war had done nothing but increase that threat (Klinkner, 2006). This demonstrates that opinions on the war diverged sharply between the two parties, with Republicans generally supporting the war and Democrats opposing it. U.S. foreign policy during the George W. Bush administration was thus differently perceived by members of the two parties.

Despite their disagreement over the Iraq War, the two major parties in the U.S. share common ground when it comes to human rights. Both consider it essential for their country to pursue a foreign policy that includes the protection of human rights. For both parties, one of the most important measures the U.S. should take is to reinforce the United Nations (Klinkner, 2006).

Conclusion

The Iraq War is responsible for numerous discussions within the American public, as there are many factors that shape people's opinions. On the one hand, President Bush was seen by some as a privileged individual who did not merit his position and could not be expected to make rational decisions. On the other hand, the Bush administration was considered by others to act on the basis of religious and Republican principles, meaning that its actions were carefully considered and likely to benefit the United States. Obama's success in the 2008 presidential elections generated further controversy, given that the incoming president was a Democrat, an African American, and someone who appeared not to approve of the Iraq War.