Securitization and the Iraq War

The rules of engagement in world politics

Faye Donnelly

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781135131883
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Military & Maritime History
• Index: History

This book critiques the conceptualization of security found in mainstream and critical theoretical debates, and applies this to the empirical case of the 2003 Iraq War.

The Iraq War represents one of the most puzzling, complex, and controversial events in the post-Cold War era. The manner in which the Bush administration finally decided to hold Saddam Hussein accountable through military intervention provoked a worldwide outcry due to the narratives they constructed to justify the "pre-emptive use of force" and "enhanced interrogation techniques."

Responding to constructivist and post-structuralist scholars' calls for a turn to discourse, and aligning its argument with critical security studies, particularly the Copenhagen School (CS), this book conceptualizes language as a pivotal mechanism of power. Adopting a Wittgensteinian approach, it moves away from thinking about the nexus between security and language from a single action, or speech act, to a series of actions or interactions. To illustrate this new approach, the author examines two cases in particular: the UN inspectors' finding that there was no credible evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in early 2003 and the Abu Ghraib scandal in 2004. Both events show that the boundaries and relations between securitized rules and environments are not pre-given but produced in a particular language game.

This book will be of much interest to students of critical security studies, US foreign policy, and IR in general.

1 Why language matters

Introduction

This chapter sets out to show why it is important to pay attention to language in IR. Rather than assuming talk is cheap, a critical constructivist approach is adopted to illustrate that words really do matter and can even be very expensive for agents acting within particular spheres of engagement. The discussion begins by outlining the origins of the “constructivist turn” in IR (Adler 1997; Checkel 1998; Price and Reus-Smit 1998). The next section turns a critical eye to the internal boundaries within this approach in order to address gaps at the heart of the literature that is being built upon. As shown, the dividing line between conventional and critical constructivists on the one hand and critical constructivism and post-structuralism have serious implications for how each strand understands and explains the construction of social identities, realities and language.

Having set the theoretical and methodological backdrop, the chapter turns to analyzing the Bush administration’s justification for the 2003 Iraq War. The main objective is to show that this particular foreign policy represents a socially constructed reality. More specifically the goal is to explicate that language was a powerful constitutive and constraining device in legitimating the Iraq War. Evidence is provided to show that the Bush administration’s justifications helped to constitute the rules of engagement for undertaking Operation Iraqi Freedom. Demonstrating that the Bush administration was constrained by these rules is much more difficult. At first glance it almost seems paradoxical, given the military prowess of the US and the pre-emptive manner in which they conducted their foreign policies post-September 11, 2001. This chapter intends to recollect this point on two levels. In conjunction with illustrating that President Bush and his team were constrained by the intersubjective context in which they were interacting, it is highlighted that they were also limited by the language they employed to legitimate the Iraq War. Sketching out the first defining moment illustrates the linguistic paradox in operation. Although the modifications that the Bush administration introduced to their justifications for undertaking the invasion gave them agency to proceed, it also constrained their actions at this moment and thereafter.

Origins of constructivism

At this point it is necessary to investigate the origins of constructivism as it sets the groundwork for later discussions about securitization and language games. Constructivism arose as a disciplinary study within IR as the Cold War drew to a close. This timing was not coincidental. As the prevailing wind began to change, constructivism appeared more amenable in coming to grips with the possibility and presence of unintended consequences in everyday as well as exceptional situations (Fierke 1998; Kegley 1993; Koslowski and Kratochwil 1994; Kratochwil 1993). Much of the groundwork for constructivism had been set before 1989. It belongs to a rich tradition of scholars attempting to move beyond “scientific” ways of studying our world. This is often referred to as the “third way” (Kurki and Wight 2010; Lapid 1989). Scholars working in this tradition reject the orthodoxies of positivism and rationalism. Traditionally, scientists who are relying on a positivist methodology begin by selecting variables to explore or test whether these categories correspond with the real world (Nicholson 1996; Popper 1959). While this mode of inquiry is useful for certain kinds of studies, it often fails to reflect upon or question established structures (Ashley 1986; Walker 1988, 1993). As James Der Derian explains, “in international relations the meaning of realism is more often than not presented as uniform, self-evident, and transparent – even by those critics who in debates great and not-so-great have questioned its historical relevance, political function, or heuristic value” (Der Derian, 1996: 277).

Theorists working in a constructivist tradition argue that it is counterproductive to start out by assuming actors behave in predetermined ways (Parenti 1970). Instead they claim that agents and structures are co-constituted. As argued by Audie Klotz and Cecelia Lynch (2007: 106), “[b]ecause constructivist ontology rejects the notion of an objective reality against which analysts test the accuracy of interpretations, ‘falsifiabilty’ cannot be the goal. Researchers can do no more than contrast interpretations against other interpretations.” Meanwhile Stefano Guzzini (2000: 159) writes “what counts as a socially meaningful object or event is always the result of an interpretative construction of the world out there.” Assuming that nothing exists in a vacuum, the goal of constructivism is to see “the world as a project under construction, as becoming rather than being” (Adler 2005: 11).

Thus a major advantage of constructivism is to demonstrate that causality and constitution operate according to different logics (Checkel 1998; Farrell 2002: Wendt 1995). Martin Hollis and Steve Smith’s (1990) distinction between explanation and understanding captures this essential difference. According to them, the causal approaches explain phenomena, whereas the constitutive approaches seek to understand them first and foremost (Cox 1981; Hollis and Smith 1990). A concern with agency and constitution also leads constructivists to have different research foci. Causal modes of enquiry ask “why necessary” questions. With regards to the Iraq War, for instance, this style of reasoning would ask “why did the events of September 11, 2001 result in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003?” or why did the Bush administration undertake this invasion as part of their Global War on Terrorism?” In comparison, constitutive modes employed by constructivists ask “how possible” questions (Barnett 1999; Doty 1993). Returning to the example of the Iraq War, they would ask, “how did it become possible that the events of September 11, 2001 resulted in Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003?” or “how was it possible for the Bush administration to undertake invasion as part of their Global War on Terrorism?” Whereas “why” questions seek an explanation that corresponds to the invasion, “how possible” questions are interested in the groundwork that enabled this policy to materialize.

It is important to note that the dichotomies between explanation and understanding, between why and how possible questions and between “hard scientific” and “soft interpretative” modes of analysis can be seen in a more pluralistic light (Jackson 2010). Indeed the boundary between them may not always be so clear cut. Attempts to bridge these boundaries can be found in “constructivist realism” (Barkin 2003; Jackson and Nexon 2004) and “critical realists” (Patomäki and Wight 2000) alike. Regardless of which version of any theory one chooses to adopt, for there will always be a choice, it is still essential to be aware that fundamental distinctions can and do exist between causation and constitution. Centrally, one assumes that the world can exist independent of knowledge, whereas the other assumes the former cannot be the case. Evidently these two positions are not easily reconcilable, nor would their proponents necessarily wish them to be.

Starting from the belief that humans are social, constructivists argue that agents always have a choice in how they act. Moreover, they may alter their preferences through processes of interactions. Thus, without denying that material structures exist, constructivists “hold the view that the building blocks of international reality are ideational as well as material; that ideational factors have normative as well as instrumental dimensions” (Ruggie 1998: 33). Paying attention to the ideational aspects draws further attention to the inherent links between norms, rules, interests and identity (Crawford 2002; Price and Tannewald 1996). In general constructivism claims that shared normative understandings and cultures infuse actors with a shared sense of belongingness or identity (Jepperson et al. 1996: 33; Laffey and Weldes 1997: 209). This is important in two respects. On the one hand by attaining membership in social communities agents are able to gain a sense of who they are. On the other hand, this sense of individual and collective self enables actors to distinguish who they are not (Connolly 1974). What is most important from a constructivist viewpoint is that agents attain a sense of self and other through processes of interaction (Wendt 1992: 396–397, 1994). In this respect, identities do not only tell people who they are, they also tell them what they want (Kratochwil and Ruggie 1986; Mattern 2001).

Although rules and norms influence and regulate human behavior fundamentally, constructivists are adamant that they do not determine it. Instead, they posit that rules exert power because they are internalized as the right thing to do or “logics of appropriateness” (Finnemore 1996; March and Olsen 1989; Risse 2000: 4; Kubalkova 2001). Constructivists do not claim that material interests are unimportant in determining actor’s calculations or preferences, nor do they suggest that actors are totally free to choose or interpret their circumstances. Choices are not unlimited, as we will see in the case of the Bush administration later on. With this in mind, constructivists do not give in to pure idealism. Instead they argue that “norms guide action and make action possible, enabling agents to criticize assertions and justify action” (Frederking 2003: 365). This last claim reinforces that social reality is constructed and intersubjectively real because other people agree it is (Berger and Luckman 1966; Kratochwil 1989; Neufeld 1995: 77; Onuf 1989, 1998; Searle 1995). One common example here would be money (Searle 2006). Another example would be a flag. In material terms alone, neither a piece of paper nor a piece of cloth means much. However, when invested with social and normative meanings, both the former and the latter come to recognized as extremely valuable objects.

Conventional and critical constructivism

Since its infancy, constructivism has diversified, and can now be seen through different prisms (Farrell 2002; Hopf 1998). The expansion of this field is testimony to the increasing acceptance of the constructivist position as a way of analyzing international politics (Finnemore and Sikkink 2001; Walt 1998: 38). Despite the ascendancy of constructivism, however, its identity as a theory per se remains disputed (Adler 1997: 109; Pouliot 2007: 359).

The most distinctive fault line in constructivism is between conventional and critical strands (Barnett 1999: 258; Farrell 2002; Hopf 1998; Pouliot 2007). Each adheres to a social ontology, but in terms of epistemology they fundamentally disagree. Reflecting its point of origin, conventional constructivism does not reject the epistemological assumptions of positivist science (Widmaier et al. 2007). In fact, authors who contributed to The Culture of National Security (Katzenstein 1996) explicitly deny the use of “any special interpretativist methodology” or that they depart from “normal science” (Jepperson et al. 1996: 67). Similarly, Jeffrey Checkel argues “the quarrel with rationalists is not epistemological but ontological” (1998: 327).

By retaining a positivist epistemology, conventional constructivists remain heavily indebted to more causal modes of analysis. Indeed it is the world out there which is independent of our thoughts that they want to explain (Joseph and Wight 2010; Wendt and Shapiro 1992; Wight 2007). Following Wendt’s “scientific realism,” “this requirement follows directly both from the scientific realist’s conception of explanation as identifying causal mechanisms, and from the ontological claims of structuration theory about the relationship of agents and structures” (Wendt 1987: 365).

Critical constructivism

Acknowledging that Wendt and other conventional constructivists offer an entry point to bring the social back into a discipline that has been under-socialized (Wiener 2003: 256), some constructivists suggest their accounts do so in a limited capacity (Price and Reus Smit 1998). The biggest bone of contention critical constructivists have with their conventional counterparts is the way that they marry a social ontology to a positivist epistemology. As Karin Fierke notes, this union produces an inconsistent methodology (Fierke 2007). On the one hand, Wendt and other conventional constructivists argue that social relationships are formed in interactions and can thus be changed. On the other hand, they contend an objective world exists “out there,” contradicting the basic constructivist tenet that material conditions need to be created instead of being scientifically assumed. As Ian Hacking relays, to say that X is socially constructed is to show that X is neither “natural” nor “inevitable” (Hacking 1999: 6).

A principled refusal by conventional constructivists to question “scientific” certainties is evidenced in their treatment of identity formation. For example, in Wendt’s account of Alter and Ego, two aliens interacting for the first time, identities are linked to interests to the point of compelling and causing action. The missing link in Wendt’s account is that he does not fully examine how the social context that Alter and Ego operate in originates (Smith 2000). Nor does he pause to ask how knowledge is produced either in or by existing structures. Rather, Wendt presents a first time encounter between ahistorical actors. As Maja Zehfuss (2002: 92) argues, “Wendt’s treatment of identity as something which is attached to and negotiated between pre-existing anthropomorphic actors requires conceptualizing identity as a unitary, circumscribable concept.” Karin Fierke also questions the relevance of Wendt’s approach, “to a situation where alter and ego have a past, and are, therefore, already embedded in a context of social interaction” (2000: 337, italics in original). As such Wendt and other conventional constructivists are not able to cope with uncertainties (Copeland 2000).

Premised on the above, it is possible to argue that conventional constructivism would not fully capture how it was possible for the Bush administration to justify or undertake military action in Iraq. Whilst the Iraq War was certainly what these agents and other agents made of it, retaining a scientific epistemology would overlook how this war became understood as a war, or how pre-emptive action came to be understood as a common-sense assumption with which to respond to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Rather than assuming we can determine what caused the Bush administration to act and interact the way they did, it is necessary to explore the process of ascription that took place within this particular context. This requires taking language seriously.

To overcome the aforementioned limitations, critical constructivism offers a more consistent theoretical follow-through (Hopf 1998: 181). This is achieved by their merger of a social ontology with a social epistemology. Adopting a “consistent constructivism” is far-reaching, for it suggests that knowledge does not have ontological foundations (Fierke 2007a). Contrary to Wendt, critical constructivists argue that the nature of being cannot be separated from ways of knowing. As Kratochwil (2000a: 91) points out,

hardly anyone – even among the most ardent constructivists or pragmatists – doubts that the “world” exists independent from our minds. The question is rather whether we can recognize it in a pure and direct fashion, that is, without any “description,” or whether what we recognize is always already formed by certain categorical and theoretical elements.

A critical constructivist account thus creates sensitivity to the recovery of where meanings come from and how they came to be. What they add to conventional approaches is to take socializing the concepts of knowledge and epistemology as their starting point (Schmidt 2001).

Adopting a social epistemology paints a different picture of language. A positivist epistemology rests on a correspondence theory of language, where words act as labels for objects which mirror reality (King et al. 1994). By contrast, critical constructivism contends that language is more than a mere description of a reality. Building on the “linguistic turn,” they illustrate how being in the world and knowledge about the world are intertwined (Palan 2000; Rorty 1992). As Thomas Risse establishes, “if we want to understand and explain social behavior, we need to take words, language, and communicative utterances seriously. It is through discursive practices that agents make sense of the world and attribute meaning to their activities” (2004: 164). In this respect, critical constructivists concentrate on the constitutive role played by language in the construction of knowledge (Wittgenstein 1979). This enables a more sophisticated understanding of language as an inherent feature of our world, not just an expression of it. As Nicholas Onuf claims, “talking is undoubtedly the most important way we go about making the world what it is” (Onuf 1998: 59). Acknowledging that knowledge only finds expression in and through language reaffirms the need for a social epistemology.

Revisiting the linguistic paradox

The foundational claims that critical constructivists make about epistemology and language align them closely with post-structuralism. Both approaches set out to analyze the mutually constitutive relationship between agency, structure and language (Ashley 1986; Connolly 1974; Walker 1990). François Debrix argues

this more relativistic reflection meant that there was no given vocabulary, no master IR-language, that once learned, would deliver the clues to the meaning of international relations […] instead, language in/about IR would have to be the product of one’s interaction with the world.

(2003: 4)

Despite these similarities, however, fundamental theoretical and methodological distinctions remain between critical constructivism and post-structuralism. At this point it is worthwhile to pause and ask why it is important to understand the points of divergence between these two approaches. Why not unite them? After all, they both spring from a critique of orthodox IR theories and ask questions about knowledge. For our purposes the...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Why language matters
• 2 Speaking security: securitization and its limitations
• 3 From a speech act towards a language game
• 4 Abu Ghraib: the limits of a language game
• A different way of speaking security: conclusions and developments
• Bibliography
• Index