alfred 2 - University of Winchester

The Influence of Neoconservativism on the George W.
Bush Administration’s Policies towards Iraq
Caterina Perlini
Abstract
Much has been written about the influence of
neoconservatism on the George W. Bush administration in the
aftermath of the 9/11 bombings. This paper examines the rise
of neoconservatism, both before the events of 2001 and after,
and assesses its impact on decision making in the lead up to
the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In particular it examines other
potential influences on policy making during this time period,
suggesting that neoconservatism is not the dominant force it is
often purported to be.
Introduction
As instability continues to prevail in Iraq and the entire
Gulf region, academics, politicians and the informed public
are seeking an explanation as to why George W. Bush’s
administration decided to venture down the road of regime
change in Baghdad. This has given rise to close scrutiny of
the initial rationale for war, with increasing focus on the role
and influence of neoconservatives, who have become a cause
célèbre in American and international politics. There is a flood
of literature illustrating how, after the attacks of 11 September
2001, neoconservatives manipulated the United States’
response to terrorism in order to push through their agenda
for regime change in Iraq. However, this paper argues that the
conservative nationalist character of the principle members of
the Bush administration actually played a much greater role in
decisions than these commentators on neoconservatism have
presumed.
Neoconservatism
The complex character of neoconservatism has been
suggested by Halper and Clarke who state that there
is no absolute divide “between who is and who isn’t a
neoconservative” (Halper and Clarke, 2004 p. 10), and that
the word ‘movement’, often used to describe it, may overstate
its academic cohesion (ibid., p. 10-11). Analysis of the origins
of neoconservativism have been the focus of many detailed
studies (see Ehrman, 1995; Heilbrunn, 2008; Steinfels 1979),
with continuing interest in its ideas and impacts (Fukuyama,
2006; Halper and Clarke, 2004; Kristol and Kagan, 2000).
Fukuyama singles out three core principles that characterise
neoconservatism’s approach to foreign policy. Firstly,
neoconservatives advocate that a democratic regime founded
on an idea of equality permeates the conduct and beliefs of its
citizens, and that regimes that treat their own citizens unjustly
are expected to act in a similar way towards foreigners. The
second characteristic is the belief that “American power has
been and could be used for moral purposes and that the US
needs to remain engaged in international affairs”, and finally,
a deep scepticism about “the legitimacy and effectiveness of
international law and institutions to achieve either security or
justice” (Fukuyama, 2006 p. 48-49).
Neoconservatism developed within the context of the end
of the Cold War, which left the United States seeking to
define its role as the world’s preeminent power within
a new international environment. The neoconservatives
sought a solution by lobbying for a foreign policy agenda
involving concepts like unipolarity, preemption, regime
change, benevolent hegemony and American exceptionalism.
For example, Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist
Charles Krauthammer urged the US to seize its position as the
leader of the international order and embrace the virtues of
preemptive military action (the elimination of a threat before
it materialises, based on incontrovertible evidence that an
enemy attack is imminent), in order to impose its priorities on
27