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.
|
