Lauren Wilhelm

October 3, 2013

GVPT 200

Debs and Monteiro

            While the United States is only a regional hegemon that does not mean it doesn't have a large power influence throughout the rest of the world. In Debs and Monteiro’s blog post “What Caused the Iraq War? A Debate.” they argue that the U.S. motivation for invading Iraq was fear of too large a shift in the balance of power between the U.S. and Iraq if they did in fact possess nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. However, this is not the case because the U.S. possesses enough power that a power shift giving another country military power might deter the U.S. from going to war with them but is still not enough to threaten the United States’ power. This is illustrated in the U.S. government dealings with Syria currently. The U.S. government was actually more focused on engaging in a preventative war to keep Iraq from becoming untouchable like North Korea in the international scheme of things, and to make sure they weren't connected with Al Qaeda, it was not to keep Iraq under the U.S. government’s thumb.

            The first point Debs and Monteiro assert is that the U.S. invaded Iraq on suspicion to determine whether or not they were housing programs that developed weapons of mass destruction and the U.S. government was worried that potential acquisition of such weapons would drastically shift the balance of power. If this were the case then wouldn't the U.S. be worried about this same issue with Syria presently? The U.S. government is fully aware that the Syrian government possesses chemical weapons and was using them on their own people but they also suspect Syria to have 1,000 tons more of chemical agents that can be delivered anywhere by aircraft, missiles or rockets. If our government was that concerned with “potential” power fluctuations based on “suspicion” then we should be a lot more concerned with Syrian obtainment of chemical weapons because we have knowledge that they are willing and have used these weapons on innocent people. The U.S. has many reasons promoting and preventing war with Syria but none are to keep Syria under the U.S. control like D&M claim was the case with the Iraq war. Instead advocates for war with Syria want war to prevent Syria from causing too much damage in the international system and also want to stop further murder of innocent people.

 D&M further claim that the U.S. was so worried that increased Iraqi military power on such a large scale would make war with Iraq in the future more costly and harder to control because the U.S. would be viewed as less of a threat to them. This cannot be the case because if the U.S. government were that concerned with balance of power due to potential increased military threats then they wouldn't be so reluctant to go to war with Syria currently. If they stick with that argument then it would make sense to invade Syria now to prevent them from acquiring more chemical weapons rather than wait until they finally due, making war a non-option.

            Finally, there was also the eminent question that if Saddam Hussein was in fact proliferating WMD programs, would he allow terrorist groups like Al Qaeda access to these weapons. This issue was of concern because it was a huge international security quandary, not a factor in whether the U.S. would lose power to Iraq. The U.S. is at an impasse with Syria presently for similar reasons, which don’t involve a power shift. The U.S. is uncertain if the rebels are receiving assistance from terrorist groups and therefore don’t know what the international implications of going to war with them would be. It is not a matter of who would be on top of the power scale in the end.

            While Debs and Monteiro do make many excellent points, they are slightly misguided in their argument. The United States possesses enough power that military achievements of other countries are not going to threaten the United States’ power. However it may affect the international system enough that the U.S. engages in a preventative war to keep the consequences from being to grave worldwide. The U.S. did not go to war with Iraq to keep itself on top in that particular power balance but in order to prevent future devastation. If the U.S. were solely concerned with the distribution of power between itself and other countries, then Syria would be considered a much larger threat currently. It is not the individual power distribution between the U.S. and Iraq that they were concerned about because the U.S. is too large a power to be threatened easily, but it was the repercussions that could occur internationally if they didn't prevent Iraq from developing WMD’s.