Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy

By Henry R. Nau

Different perspectives yield different conclusions.

Why do we disagree so stridently about foreign policy? An easy answer is because leaders lie about events abroad. Take the decision to invade Iraq. Didn’t Tony Blair say before the war that Iraq could assemble a nuclear weapon in 45 minutes? He was obviously lying, right? Or what about George W. Bush, whose cia director said at the time that it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq had nuclear weapons? He obviously knew better. Didn’t he?

Well, maybe. But what if we disagree not because leaders are wicked and lie but because they, like we, see the world differently and assemble and emphasize different facts that lead to different conclusions? Saddam Hussein evaded UN inspectors. That’s a fact. But was he hiding something like weapons of mass destruction (wmd)? Or was he behaving as might any leader of a country that comes under external threat? Answers to those questions are interpretations. Some looked at Iraq’s glass and saw it was half full of wmd; others concluded that it was half empty.


Continued here:

Hoover Institution - Policy Review - Why We Fight Over Foreign Policy

We fight over foreign policy because there are those who wish to economically exploit other nations in the name of capitalism and free trade, and there are those who see such actions as infringing on the rights of others, and as violations of human rights, as in other countries there are not stringent laws protecting workers, who are exposed to hazardous working conditions.

BD i'm with you on this. Every situation has a myriad of possible perspectives and thus an almost infinite number of interpretations.

That said, i still believe that there can be no doubt that Bush and Blair's administrations wilfully attempted to disregard, dismiss and outright repress certain perspectives.

In the sense that it was not possible to state in the US that maybe Saddam didn't have WMDs. There should DEFINATELY have been some sort of coverage covering the aspect that NO leader in this world would wilfully subject his nation to inspection, judgement and approval by an outside power. It runs contrary to the concept of sovereignty.

However there was virtually none. Any differeing perspective was pushed down because the proponents of those perspective didn't have the "incontrovertible intelligence" ( conveniently classified) that PROVED Saddam had WMDs.

It is possible that Bush and Blair believed in the Iraq war. It is also possible that they ensured through a variety of means that anybody believing differently was not heard. Remember the mysterious suicide of a British weapons inspector (David Kelly) who had spoken out against the war? I've always wondered why that story fizzled out so quickly.

Well, a primary conclusion of the paper that I posted was the reality that politicians are bound by functional purpose to make decisions based on facts, however incomplete those facts may be. And, it is quite impossible for any politician to enact policies that could acknowledge every single imaginable perspective of those facts.

Using Iraq prior to March 2003, for example, it would have been functional impossible for a politician to BOTH promote economically isolating Iraq in order to help force Iraq to become more transparent regarding her weapons program (the "realist" perspective) AND promote economic development within Iraq in order to help force Iraq to become more transparent regarding her weapons program (the "liberal" perspective).

Thus, in other words, in order to develop any governmental policy at all based on whatever facts are available, a politician would undoubtedly have to disregard some perspectives of those facts since policies drawn from different perspectives conflict with one another. In short, ALL politicians have to act emphasizing one particular perspective in the end since they cannot functionally act in a way that emphasizes all possible perspectives.

And, in 2003, the Bush Administration chose to see the facts surrounding Iraq and promoted public policy from the "identity" perspective in the sense that they thought that "only a change in the identity of regimes in the Middle East that creates a more common dialogue can discipline the use of force and realize the promises of diplomacy."

So, one can argue that different perspectives weren't acknowledged by the Bush Administration in 2003. But, it really would not have made any difference if they had all been acknowledged because politicians could only act using one particular perspective. And the same "you can only act using one perspective only" reality would be forced on any single politician or collection of politicians.

Then I think you see the world from an "identity" perspective since...

"The identity perspective sees the world in terms of dialogue and dispute about values, norms, and identities. How groups and states envision themselves and others drives their use of power and their behavior in common institutions. States don’t just seek to survive; they seek to survive as a particular kind of society — for example, a democratic or a theocratic society — and they use international institutions to shape a common discourse and develop shared identities. Ideas influence power and institutions, not the other way around."

Not repressed. Media selectively chooses what stories to push and publish.

It was stated, freely, no one got any particular press because they weren't necessarily government leaders. Clearly those in power we saying what the media was reporting. There were a few who were reluctant, and they spoke out. They didn't get wide coverage. That's the obvious shortcoming of a free press. They DECIDE what is news.

If the government or Bush were controlling the media, his approval rating would not be 28% today.
At the time, remember, the entire Congress voted with Bush. It's NOW they are crying, "no, it wasn't me! I didn't approve" but their votes stand. The media wasn't going to say anything against their favorite politicians who sided with the hated Bush.

Approximately 90% of the media here vote democratic, by their own admission.