Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2005 Neoconservatism and Iraq Ryan Patrick McHargue Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES NEOCONSERVATISM AND IRAQ By RYAN PATRICK MCHARGUE A Thesis submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Summer Semester, 2005 The members of the Committee approve the Thesis of Ryan Patrick McHargue defended on June 2, 2005. ___________________________ Peter P. Garretson Professor Directing Thesis ___________________________ James P. Jones Committee Member ___________________________ Max Friedman Committee Member The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members. ii This thesis is dedicated to my father, Rod McHargue, without whom I would have never developed such a keen interest in politics and policy. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to give my utmost thanks to Dr. Peter Garretson for being just as interested as I am in the subject matter of this thesis. All of my friends, who put up with my constant complaining about the impending due date and subject matter of my thesis, all deserve many thanks for helping me through the writing process. And, of course, I would never be here if it wasn’t for the constant nagging (encouragement?) of my parents, who invested almost as much time and patience into my education as I did. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................... Page vi INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................. Page 1 1. NEOCONSERVATISM: A BRIEF BACKGROUND............................... Page 11 Common Misconceptions ......................................................................... Page 11 A History and Brief Overview of Neoconservative Policies.................. Page 15 Neoconservatism in the Bush Administration........................................ Page 30 Conservatism and the War in Iraq ......................................................... Page 41 2. IRAQ IN A NEOCONSERVATIVE FRAMEWORK .............................. Page 58 3. SEARCHING FOR A PRE-9/11 INVASION POLICY ............................ Page 79 1992-1994 ................................................................................................ Page 82 1995-1996 ................................................................................................ Page 86 1997-1998 ................................................................................................ Page 95 1999-2000 ................................................................................................ Page 104 2001-Present .............................................................................................. Page 109 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ Page 115 AFTERWARD ................................................................................................ Page 121 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. Page 128 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................... Page 142 v ABSTRACT The goal of this work is to answer a specific set of questions that have arisen concerning neoconservatism and its relationship with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. This thesis will begin by first giving the reader a broad background concerning the neoconservative movement, and aid in proving the assumptions necessary for the argument to be made. After showing that neoconservatism is in fact the “order of the day” for the Bush Administration’s foreign policy staff, and proving that the administration has espoused modern neoconservative policies, the role of Iraq in a neoconservative framework will be focused upon. This includes identifying and expounding upon key tenets of a neoconservative ideological framework and where Iraq fits within it. Once Iraq’s place within this framework is determined, this work will examine the statements of specific neoconservatives within the Bush administration who have written extensively concerning Iraq during the period between the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. By examining their words, it will be determined whether or not they were advocates of the invasion in 2003 prior to the events of September 11, 2001, which served as a pretext and justification for the invasion itself. By understanding the role of Iraq in a neoconservative framework, it is hoped that people will be able to better predict the possible outcomes of the conflict. It is important to note that this thesis was drafted in the early part of 2005, prior to the position changes of many of the executive officers mentioned. For example, Paul Wolfowitz has recently been given the position of head of the World Bank, Douglas Feith has since resigned his post as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and Zalmay Khalilzad has been given the position of Ambassador to Iraq, replacing John Negroponte, who filled the position of the newly-created office of Director of National Intelligence. vi INTRODUCTION “The neoconservative knows that a present without past memory and tradition is self-illusory and finally self-destructive.” 1 -David Tracy The goal of this thesis is to answer questions raised by the March 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States, and how it fits within the framework of a neoconservative ideology. Those questions are: 1. Amongst the three members of the “Axis of Evil,” why was Iraq chosen for invasion and regime change when it was arguably the weakest or the least dangerous of the three? 2. Where does Iraq fit within a neoconservative foreign policy framework? 3. Did the neoconservatives advocate the forced disarmament or toppling of the Hussein regime through military means prior to the events of September 11, 2001? Before embarking on such an endeavor, sufficient background must be given in order to place the analysis into context. This thesis will be organized in such a manner conducive to framing that context. The first chapter will provide background information necessary for understanding the arguments made in the final analysis, define terminology, and defend assumptions, all of which will serve in aiding in the nullification of a dismissal of the context or of the arguments presented. The first chapter of this thesis will also seek to prove assumptions made in later arguments. The term “neoconservative” will be defined and described in some detail, with mention of many of the specific policies championed by neoconservatives. It will discuss some common misconceptions of the neoconservative movement, and identify key players, highlighting their importance in the history of the neoconservative movement. Also included will be a brief discussion of the intellectual roots of the neoconservative movement, stemming from the political philosophies of Leo Strauss, Leon Trotsky, and theorist Albert Wohlstetter. Further, it will prove the assumption that the Bush administration is in fact a neoconservative one, or espouses to a great extent 1 Tracy, David, On Naming the Present: Reflections on God, Hermeneutics, and Church (New York: Orbis Books, 1994), 13. 1 neoconservative foreign and military policy. This chapter will show that many members of the Bush administration in policymaking positions are neoconservatives or are advocates of a neoconservative ideology. Any attempt to discuss policy in the context of neoconservatism is particularly futile if it cannot be demonstrated that the Bush administration is populated by neoconservatives and advocates policies that are neoconservative in nature. This chapter will also serve to differentiate between different factions of the conservative movement, and demonstrate that support for unilateral war in Iraq is one generally spurred on by adherents to a neoconservative ideology, and not traditional, libertarian, or moderate conservatives, when divorced from the lock-step of party politics. Without being able to adequately demonstrate that the advocacy of unilateral war in Iraq can be defined as neoconservative in nature, and not simply conservative, any argument concerning neoconservatism would be moot. Once these assumptions are substantiated, analysis can take place. The second chapter will answer the first two questions, as they fit neatly hand-in-glove. In broader terms, the question is simply “why Iraq?” In more specific terms, the questions concern the relevance of Iraq within the framework of a neoconservative foreign policy, and, of the several nations singled out as rogue regimes and for membership in the “axis of evil,” why Iraq was chosen in lieu of North Korea or Iran. The third and final chapter of this thesis seeks to dissect and analyze the public policy advocacy of the administration’s neoconservative policymakers between the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 and the beginning of the Iraq invasion in March 2003. This chapter will focus on the words of four specific men who were a part of the “original” group of neoconservatives, either through the University of Chicago or as a staffer for Democratic Senator “Scoop” Jackson: Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and Zalmay Khalilzad. These