The aim of this article is to contribute to our understanding of both the debate over the war in Iraq and its implications for the future of U.S. foreign policy by examining the relationship between neoconservatism and realism. The article begins by establishing the connection between the tenets of neoconservatism and the arguments for war against Iraq. The primary focus is on the neoconservative Bush Doctrine that served as the primary justification for the Iraq War. Next, we turn to the arguments that realists put forth in their attempt to steer America away from the road to war. The realists, however, proved to be unsuccessful in their attempt to prevent war and in the final section we address the central question of the article; why did realism fail in the debate over Iraq?

Additional Metadata
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1080/09636410802098990
Journal Security Studies
Citation
Schmidt, B, & Williams, M.C. (Michael C.). (2008). The bush doctrine and the Iraq war: Neoconservatives versus realists. Security Studies, 17(2), 191–220. doi:10.1080/09636410802098990