Theory in Action: Analyzing the 2003 Iraq War 97gests a hierarchy of associations that often result in states giving unwarranted or coun-
terproductive priority to armed conflict as the core meaning of “security.” Some
countries are “feminine” or “childlike,” and therefore in need of guidance or disci-
pline from “masculine” or “grown up” states (e.g., Britain or Germany). This situation
creates incentives to intervene (rescue fantasies) and, at the same time, channels the
forms of “effective” intervention to military force at the high (masculine) end, and dip-
lomatic or economic intervention at the low (feminine) end.
Other feminists, such as Cynthia Enloe, have argued that contrary to Tickner’s
assertion that women have been absent from international politics, they have in fact
been key participants.^29 The prob lem, according to Enloe, is that their participation
goes almost entirely unnoticed (and, she might add, unrewarded). Enloe calls atten-
tion to the ways that the domestic roles for women condition our understanding of
their potential as leaders and agenda- setters in international politics.
Even today, we see a strong gap between women’s potential and women’s vis i ble par-
ticipation and leadership in international politics as compared to men. Perhaps, then,
the strongest argument is that, just as in science, technology, mathe matics, and engi-
neering, the core values of justice, peace, and prosperity, which both sexes share, can-
not help but be advanced by the active participation and leadership of more women.
And international relations theories can benefit from the vari ous critiques that femi-
nists of all theoretical persuasions offer.
Theory in Action: Analyzing
the 2003 Iraq War
The contending theoretical perspectives discussed in the preceding sections see the world
and even specific events quite differently. What theorists and policy makers choose to see,
what they each seek to explain, and what implications they draw— all these ele ments of
analy sis vary, even though the facts of an event seem identical. Analyzing the 2003 Iraq
War by applying these diff er ent theories allows us to compare and contrast them in action.
realist Perspectives
Realist interpretations of the 2003 Iraq War would focus on state- level and international-
level factors. Realists see the international system as anarchic: no international authority
governs and few states, other than the United States, are able and willing to act to rid
the world of the Iraq threat. Iraq posed a security threat to the United States with its
supposed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction; the United States therefore saw a
need to eliminate those weapons and, at the same time, to ensure a stable oil supply to
the West. The only way to achieve these objectives was to oust Saddam’s Baathist