Endogenous Variables That Affecting The US Foreign Policy Decision to Invade Afghanistan - Essay Example

?Endogenous variables, affecting the U.S. foreign policy decision to invade Afghanistan During the 9/11 terror attack of United s, the Bush administration was in charge of the U.S government. It is the endogenous factors, which originated from within America, which therefore pressured Bush administration to decide the Afghanistan’s attack using its foreign policy. The endogenous variables are analysed using foreign policy analysis. This is a branch of science that deals with the study of factors that affect the decision making process of foreign policy and its outcome. The ideology underlying utilitarian and neorealist. The actor makes decisions based on the goals he or she intends to attain and the best course of action based on cost- benefit considerations. The primal objective, in this case, is the security of the state. Constructivists, on the other hand, approach the decision making process on the ideology of the state’s social role in its social environment. In addition, there is a consideration of the role to be achieved through the decisions in relation to other countries. The proximal goal is ensuring states security but in relation to the states social role. Foreign approaches therefore reveal the behaviour of actors, such as the president and the government, in decision making process regarding foreign policy. The 9/11 terror attacks of United States brought about a significant impact on the U.S. foreign policy. Indeed, the attack changed the focus of the foreign policy which was under the Bush administration moving from a focus on relations with great powers such as China and Russia to an emphasis on the nexus between non-state terrorist groups and “rogue states” with known or suspected WMD programs. Before the September 11, the attention of U.S Foreign policy was focused on three foreign affairs; establishing “a ballistic missile defence system with Russia and China,” participation in Kyoto Protocol “on world climate change” of 1998, support for the “international criminal court.” The terror attack shifted these focus and critical decisions were to be made on how to respond to the attack (Leffler, 2011). The first endogenous factor was the role of leadership in United States. Personal ambitions, traits, and beliefs of the president and members of congress, played a great role in the decision to attack Afghanistan. According to utilitarian and neorealist approach this can be explained through personalised goals that the president and the congress intended to meet. The desire for President George W. Bush and most of the members of congress to seek support in the 2004 elections contributed to the decision of Afghanistan’s attack. George. W Bush had a goal to convince the citizens that he could ensure their security and enact policies necessary for the security of the state. This desire led to his endorsement of the attack to demonstrate his active position of addressing issues affecting his nation. He had to demonstrate his courage and strict stand in this incidence by commanding an attack (Rittberger, 2002) so as to capture the head of the terrorism group. Another goal that Bush desired to meet was to demonstrate his power as the constitution of the greatest nation. He did not rush into new actions or policy changes but gave himself time to consider the administration’s policies. Similarly a great proportion of the members of the congress had to appear significantly in addressing this issue for the same reason. According to the constructivist approach, the role of the leadership can be interpreted through a critical look at America’s role globally. America is one of the super powers in the world, regarded for its great strength of its army, air force, and the navy. It is one of the custodians of peace on the globe giving it the role to ensure that peace is maintained at all costs. Due to the desire to still prove itself as a superpower and remain relevant as a custodian of peace on the globe, then the idea of eliminating the Al-Qaeda seemed persuasive enough. This therefore led to the Bush administration affecting the attack on Afghanistan. The effect of the individual persons within leadership is still seen even today. Every individual contesting for presidency demonstrates his or her desire to strengthen the defence forces as a way of ensuring safety (Jones, n.d.). The second endogenous factor was the bureaucratic leadership in United States. After world war (I) and world war (II) United States government developed statutes that had strict directions on Americas stand on wars and acts of terrorism. These statutes became part of the law that govern America’s government in issues of war and terrorism. For example, the provision which states that United States does not negotiate with terrorists. Since American government is a government under the rule of law and in respect of American constitution, the government had to follow the bureaucratic procedures laid down for such a situation (Wood & Jeffrey 1998). Through neorealist and utilitarian approach this can be explained through the goals set to be achieved by foreign policy in accordance to the American constitution. The American constitution stipulates the role of different arms of the government and the goals that any foreign policy decision should seek to attain. For example, any decision on foreign policy should seek to enhance beneficial interaction between countries and ensure the security of the American people. After the incidence of the 9/11 attack, the goals of the reaction towards the attack had to be determined in accordance with the American constitution and other legislations. The consideration of the provisions of the constitution and other legislatures in respect to the attack, singled out an attack on Afghanistan as the best way to achieve America’s interest in the situation (Snyder, 1991, p. 366). In analysing this factor, constructivists consider the global role of America alongside the provisions of the constitution in order to make a decision to take. This involved consideration of the role of America as a military super power; role in ensuring adherence to the nuclear weapon regulation; role in fighting terrorism; and role as a custodian of peace. These social roles were then considered alongside provision of America’s constitution. These provisions include zero tolerance to terrorism; mandate of the government to provide security to all citizens; and provision for environmental awareness and sustained development to arrive at the decision of attacking Afghanistan (Schlesinger 1974, p. 211). The bureaucratic expectation of U.S in relation to war and terror, therefore, influenced the decision of the Bush administration foreign policy to establish a “war on terror” campaign. The aim of the campaign was to find, stop, and defeat the global terrorist group (Vasquez, 1985, p. 643). A military campaign was launched by the American Forces in Afghanistan. The campaign overthrew Afghanistan’s Taliban government and captured Bin Laden. However, the “war on terror” campaign influenced many states across the globe to join. They adopted harsh laws, established domestic intelligent work and policing, and lifted long standing legal protections. The third endogenous factor was the neoconservatives. Epstein and Brook (2007, p. 344) states that, according to neorealist and utilitarianism the aim of this factor was promotion of nation building and transformation of democracy as an essential foreign policy. Neoconservatives recognises that the best way of dealing with terrorism is by implementing democracies in emerging states and assist them to adopt democratic governments. It also recognises the interests of the citizens within the nations by enforcing morality to establish more civil societies. The need to bring about a change in the administration of Afghanistan and establish a democratic government, that could help curtail terrorism and act in the interest of the people, was a leading motivator of the Afghanistan attack. There are two reasons why Bush administration adopted the neoconservatives’ position. The first one was to enhance the interest of the people by promoting the security and improving the economy. The second reason was to promote nation building and transformation of democracy in Afghanistan (Quinn, n.d). This triggered the idea of sending American military to Afghanistan not only with the aim of overthrowing the Taliban government, but also to establish Afghanistan into peaceful, democratic, and prosperous nation. The political ideology of Americans is another endogenous factor that influenced the decision of foreign policy to invade Afghanistan. Political ideology refers to a belief system that describes a governmental order for a particular nation and offers its maintenance strategies hence give meaning to public events. Through adopting neorealist and utilitarianism approaches to explain this factor, the main goal under this factor can be seen as the aim of United State of American to preserve social human rights and uphold individual’s rights. We find that after the invasion, the right to life of many innocent civilians was infringed because most of them lost their lives in the attack. This motivated America’s decision to demonstrate its value for human rights and also prevent a similar attack on America or another nation. According to these approaches the means chosen had to give the greatest benefit at the minimum cost. The considerations in this case were placed upon Americans interest of ensuring that human rights are respected and that no similar attacks happened in the future. This was a most viable means of ensuring that the results was an act of war upon the Al- Qaeda group with intent to stop them and end their existence (Russet 1990, p. 412). Another endogenous factor is the public opinion. These are views prevalent among the country’s general public. By analysing this factor, we find out that the preferences of the general public on the decision making process of the foreign policy, was a major force that influenced the decision. The goal was to ensure that the voice of Americans was part of the decision in an attempt to demonstrate unity in America. The majority of the citizens felt that a retaliatory attack should be carried out. This was even demonstrated in the public opinion expressed through the mass media and social media hence leading to America’s decision to attack Afghanistan (Reilly 1995, p. 212). In conclusion, endogenous factors were among the many factors that pressured the Bush administration foreign policy to decide on the attack of Afghanistan in 2001. These factors include public opinion, role of leadership, bureaucratic leadership, neoconservatives, and the political ideology. However, the foreign policy analysis reveals a clear understanding of how the endogenous factors influenced the U.S foreign policy’s decision making process. The constructivists approach explains the decision making process on the ideology of the nation’s social role in its social environment. On the other hand, the ideology underlying utilitarian and neorealist methodology is a self-interested or goal oriented approach to decision making process. Bibliography: Brooks, G. (1997). Dueling Realisms. International Organization , 51(3), 445-477. Epstein, A., & Brook, Y. (2007). The Rise and Fall of Neoconservative Foreign Policy. Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy, 2(2), 422-432. Finnemore, M. (1996) National Interests in International Society. London: Cornell University Press. Jones, S. (n.d.). The Bush Doctrine. Retrieved from http://usforeignpolicy.about.com/od/defense/a/The-Bush-Doctrine.htm Leffler, P. (2011) September 11 In Retrospect. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68201/melvyn-p-leffler/september-11-in- retrospect Legro, J. (1997). Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the, Failure of Internationalism. International Organization, 51(1), 31-64. Quinn, J. (n.d.). Neoconservatism, Retrieved from, http://usconservatives.about.com/od/conservativepolitics101/a/NeoCons.htm Reilly, E. (1995). American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy 1995. Chicago:Chicago Councilon Foreign Relations. Rittberger, V (2002). Approaches to the Study of Foreign Policy Derived From International Relations Theories. Retrieved from http://isanet.ccit.arizona.edu/noarchive/rittberger.html Russett, B. (1990). Controlling the Sword. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Schlesinger, A. (1974). The Imperial Presidency. New York: Popular Library. Small, M. (1988). Johnson, Nixon, and the Doves. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. Smith, A. (1998). International Crises and Domestic Politics. American Political Science Review, 92(3), 623–638. Snyder, J. (1991). Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Cornell: Ithaca University Press. Sobel, R. (2001). The Impact Of Public Opinion On U.S. Foreign Policy Since Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press. Vasquez, A. (1985). Domestic Contention on Critical Foreign-Policy Issues: The Case of the United States. International Organization, 39(4), 643–666. Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wood, B., & Jeffrey, S. (1998). The Dynamics of Foreign Policy Agenda Setting. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 173–184. Read More