This paper analyzes the advantages and disadvantages of neoconservative foreign policy as applied to U.S. involvement in Iraq. It examines three core neoconservative concepts—unilateralism, regime change, and democracy promotion—alongside three counter-concepts: isolationism, a return to realism, and liberal "soft power." For each approach, the paper weighs the practical benefits and shortcomings as experienced in the Iraqi context, drawing on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, Kissinger's realist framework, and Joseph Nye's soft power theory. The paper concludes that no single policy offers a perfect solution, and that lasting freedom and democracy require sustained effort.
Although some believe that neoconservatism is no longer a distinguishable movement, the effect of this political movement remains a powerful force in American politics. Neoconservatism is based on three central ideas. First, economic policy should focus on cutting tax rates in order to stimulate widespread, steady economic growth; as such, government must accept the necessary risks of that growth, such as budget deficits. Second, domestic affairs policy centers on a strong but unobtrusive government. Third, foreign policy is based on patriotism that steers away from world government and protects national interests both at home and abroad, often necessitating a strong military.
It is this third pillar — foreign policy — and the benefits and disadvantages of neoconservative concepts including unilateralism, regime change, and democracy promotion, as well as counter-concepts such as isolationism, a return to realism, and liberal "soft power," and their application in Iraq, that will be examined in this paper.
Unilateralism is one policy often attributed to neoconservatism. This concept centers on one side acting independently in a conflict. In relation to American foreign policy in Iraq, this approach led to an American-led occupation force that proceeded without the support of multilateral global institutions such as NATO and the United Nations. Many of America's previous allies — including France, Germany, and Turkey — refused to participate in the conflict (Daalder & Lindsay).
The disadvantage of this policy has been the increased political turmoil experienced both nationally and internationally. The advantage, on the other hand, has been to ensure that American foreign policy is not dictated by a global community that may or may not have the United States' best interests at heart.
Regime change is another concept attributed to neoconservative policy. The ousting of one government by force and the placement of another in power was a declared goal of the United States when President Bill Clinton signed Public Law 105-338, the Iraq Liberation Act. That Act specifically states that it is the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove Saddam Hussein's regime from power in Iraq and to help facilitate the emergence of a democratic government to replace it.
The primary shortcoming of this policy in Iraq is that it created a power vacuum in the country. Living under the control of a powerful dictator such as Hussein, and then suddenly having that control removed with no central authority to replace it, resulted in chaos. The benefit, however, is that the country gained the opportunity to grow and prosper without the constant threat of crimes against humanity being committed by its leader.
Democracy promotion — even at the cost of war — is a third policy supported by neoconservatism. As Robinson notes regarding Iraq, promoting democracy there is a critical component of the broader interventionist project undertaken by the United States. Iraqi sovereignty is an important part of this policy. However, one of the central difficulties has been the country's inability to unite around a shared sense of patriotism and a commitment to making democracy work, which has limited the policy's effectiveness in the short term. The long-term advantage, neoconservatives argue, will become evident as Iraqi citizens begin to see the benefits of democratic society and shift from using force to using the political process to affect change — facilitated by what neoconservatives describe as America's benign hegemony.
"Alternative foreign policy approaches assessed for Iraq"
In the end, the war in Iraq is a complicated matter. There are advantages and disadvantages to every possible policy that has been implemented or considered for implementation. Regrettably, there is no simple solution that can instantly set the country on a course of prosperity and happiness. Freedom and democracy — just as was the case in America more than 200 years ago — must be hard fought to be eventually won.
You’re 63% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.