In a series of posts Alexandre Debs
and Nuno P. Monteiro engage in a discussion with David Lake over the true cause
of the Iraq War. Debs and Monteiro tend to lean on the notion that the United
States did not have credible information on whether or not Iraq maintained
weapons of mass destruction, and therefore acted on a principle called, “One
Percent Doctrine.” Meanwhile, Lake focuses on the fact that Saddam Hussein
failed to give credible information to the international community that he did
not posses WMD’s. I agree with Debs and
Monteiro’s perspective and that asymmetric information is a main cause of the
Iraq War for if it had been known by both actors that WMD’s had no role in this
conflict than the Iraq War may never have occurred.
According
to the rationalist point of view war occurs based on notions such as credible
commitment, and or asymmetric information.
According to Debs and Monteiro asymmetric information is at the root
cause of the Iraq War. In this case Saddam Hussein is the actor that knows his
country did not maintain WMD’s, and the US is the actor that maintained
different information. Had Saddam Hussein made it very aware and public that
his country did not possess WMD’s the US perhaps would’ve never intervened in
the Middle East; for WMD’s in the
Middle East was not acceptable to
the United States and would’ve tipped the power scale. Although he denied
having WMD’s he did not make it public enough to stop US intelligence from believing
that he did, therefore leading to the Ira War.
Though
Lake believes that credible commitment is the true cause of the war, and that
irrational factors played a crucial role. While irrational factors can
undoubtedly lead to a war, in the case of Iraq and the US irrationality was not
at play. The United States still
believed that Iraq maintained WMD’s and on this basis going to war in Iraq,
according to US officials was crucial to maintaining peace in the Middle East.
While
both Lake and Debs and Monteiro all present notions that are absolutely the
causes of war in the situation of the Iraq War asymmetric information is the
most logical cause of the war. For if Saddam Hussein put all his effort into
making it known that his country did not maintain WMD’s the Iraq War may would
have never happened.
This is a really interesting viewpoint that I think has a lot of validity. While a lot of other theories are very arguable, I think that were it not for the assumed presence of WMD's in Iraq, we wouldn't have entered the war.
ReplyDeleteWe share a mutual agreement of Debs and Monteiro's perspective of asymmetric information being a central cause. If we had gained more knowledge on their nuclear programs and obtained conclusive evidence indicating there were no WMD's, I don't believe we would have invaded Iraq.
ReplyDeleteYou make a really good argument and I agree that due to the inconclusive information the United States possessed at the time, invading a state who is suspected to have WMD that could transfer power away from the United States seems not only rational but necessary.
ReplyDelete