Political Science

For this assignment, first read the article, An Unnecessary War, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. You can find the article by clicking on the link above or by following the link from the on-line Work Schedule.

Mearsheimer and Walt published An Unnecessary War just before the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. The article refers to or touches upon several concepts that appeared in Chapter 3 of our textbook, including preventive war, deterrence, and credibility. For this assignment, respond to the following questions. Write one paragraph for each question and number your responses. Your paper may not exceed two pages.

1. Our textbook, World Politics, explains the logic of preventive war. How well does the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq fit the books definition of preventive war According to Mearsheimer and Walt, what did those who advocated an invasion of Iraq seek to prevent

Those who advocated the invasion of Iraq was trying to prevent the biological and chemical or a possible nuclear war. The article gives several reasons which were given by the advocates of the invasion of war and the counter arguments have been presented by Mearsheimer and Walt to avoid even a preventive war.

The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq doesnt fit quite rightly into the definition presented in the book. Every reason that has been given for invasion of Iraq seems to be unreasonable. The Saddam Hussain was at many times intimidated and it was certain that by using coercion and threat of deterrence his expansion or destructive aims could have been totally stopped hence there was no logic to attack
For example the proponents of the invasion claimed that if Saddam would have gained the nuclear weapons he might give it to Al-Qaeda, but it has been shown and proved at various occasions that both the parties didnt had any link or affinity for each other and it was highly unlikely that Saddam would do such a thing because of a possible retaliation by the US.

The biological weapons were not used by the Iraq against any time during the gulf war although Iraq could have as the US forces were continuously bombing and inflicting huge losses to the Iraq. These all show that that Saddam didnt had the courage to undertake a WMD or a nuclear war.

2. Mearsheimer and Walt argued that deterrence would work against Saddam Hussein, that Hussein could be deterred. According to the textbook, deterrence is a type of threat and threats only work if they are credible. For American deterrence to work against a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein, what threat would have to be credible Why did Mearsheimer and Walt think that American deterrence of a nuclear Iraq would be credible

Even if a country is able to achieve nuclear weapons, it cannot use it against any other nuclear nation or even against any other nation which has an ally country having nuclear power. The same is true when the Soviet Union and USA were at war, cold war, even though Soviet had nuclear power it couldnt use it because of the retaliation from USA.

Saddam had the knowledge that if he would use nuclear weapons against American soil or interests, he wouldnt be spared hence, rightly, Mearsheimer and Walt thought that the use of nuclear war was totally out of the question.

The threat that US would use nuclear weapons, in the case Saddam would use it, was sure and in that case Iraq would have been destroyed completely by a few US nukes only.

3. Why do you think that Mearsheimer and Walt paid considerable attention to the question of whether or not Saddam Hussein was rational How rational would Hussein have to have been in order for American deterrence to work

They paid great amount of thought to prove that he was or wasnt rational because this was the determining factor in a preventive war. If the Saddam would have been rational the war was evident but if he is not then the US invasion of Iraq could have been avoided.

They tried their best to prove that he was not rational and could be contained to use WMD or nuclear weapons and in the past Saddam waged war only when his country was vulnerable, hence there was no reason to wage war against Saddam as he could have be threatened and controlled.