The realist approach to International Relations assumes that power determines outcomes in world affairs. Most analysts suggest that the United States and its allies had far more military power than Iraq did in 2003.
Write an essay that uses the core assumptions of realism to explain why the United States and its allies invaded Iraq in 2003, why it appears that power did not determine the outcome of this war, AND how a realist would argue that this conflict was resolved. Your essay must begin with a clear single hypothesis or statement of purpose.
CITATIONS: footnotes and/or endnotes
Notes On realism (just to help out)
– Power determines outcomes : peace achieve through power balance
– State is one of anarchy- without authority
– State centered
– States interact in world politics based on their own interests
– Biggest power: military (ability to influence people into doing something they wouldn’t have done otherwise)
– States with difference in power (some more, some less- hence the need for regulations) –
– Assumes states are rational actors (needed to calculate probability of outcomes before they make any actions)
– Deterrence theory: threats from one party, also discourages other people from committing similar offenses (basis of realism)
