American foreign policy has since its establishment been dominated by two primary theories. These are Realism (Neorealism in recent years) and Liberalism (also referred to as Idealism). While each of these theories were originally tools of academia used to understand the workings of international relations, increasingly they are being implemented by politicians as templates on how to act. With this background in mind, let's examine the current state of affairs in the international system, specifically President Bush's foreign policy.

Many have been puzzled by the recent turn of international events. It seems that even in academia (Political Science in particular) the level of bewilderment is especially high. This, I will argue, lends itself to the phenomenon of an administration which appears to be carrying out Liberalist policy, though they are, and quite often proclaim themselves to be, Realist politicians. This discrepancy raises some important questions concerning our national security which I think all of us should consider.

In order to make a judgment as to whether Bush is actually a Realist carrying out Liberalist policy, we must first understand the underlying characteristics of each theory. Realism stresses a state centric explanation of the international arena: Because the international system is anarchical, it is up to all states to fend for themselves. This creates a situation that ultimately develops into confrontation because states will fight for dominance (security) and resources. Another key aspect of Realism is a pessimistic view of human nature. Humans are inherently selfish, power hungry, and greedy, and this has not--nor will ever--change. Because the state is a reflection of the individuals within it, the state is self-centered and power hungry.

In stark contrast to this theory is Liberalism. It has a much more optimistic view of human nature, arguing that humans are learning from their mistakes and can be better in the future. Furthermore, Liberalists claim that ideology does make a difference as to how states act. Whereas Realists believe all states act the same, liberalists would argue that the type of government a state chooses makes a difference. (Democracies are less likely to attack fellow democracies, etc.)

In addition to the optimistic view about human nature, Liberalists stress the importance of international organizations, like the UN. In essence, Liberalists hold that dialogue between nations can overcome the fear which exists between them. Doubters might wonder why a nation would necessarily choose to cooperate, to which Liberalists would reply that all nations wish to see peace and prosperity, a "harmony of interests."

It would appear, applying these theories to the recent war in Iraq, that our President's Administration is taking a Liberalist outlook towards the world. In a sort of idealistic fashion, President Bush said many times that the war in Iraq was about spreading democracy to the Middle East. It was also about upholding human rights and implanting American ideals to a population that was without them. Oddly enough, Bush stated during his election campaign that he would not use US troops to carry out "nation building" as the Liberalist President Clinton had done throughout his term in office. Fortunately for Liberalists, he didn't keep his word.

Another sign of Liberalism was the Administration's support of the UN. After all, one of the reasons this war was fought was to preserve the integrity of the United Nations, which couldn't enforce its rules and keep Saddam from creating weapons of mass destruction. So we can undoubtedly conclude that Bush and his Administration are actually carrying out Liberalist policy.

Why are they not categorized as Liberalists then? Why doesn't the Bush administration (who call themselves Realists) believe that we need to acquire as much power and resources as we possibly can so as to create a secure United States? Isn't it the case that we must take what we can while we can (oil)? Shouldn't we be concerned with our own interests instead of looking out for the Iraqi people? And why should we care about legitimizing the United Nations if they are going to undercut our ability to protect ourselves from Weapons of Mass Destruction?

All of these questions are perfectly valid. Realist theory holds the priority of the state to be its own existents, regardless of international institutions (as we did by taking action without a UN Security Council resolution). Could it be possible that that is what the Bush administration is actually doing? That their policy is driven by the wish to protect our country, and not nice-sounding arguments about democracy and human rights?

This is in fact the subject of Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince. Specifically, that leaders must abandon moral strivings and instead do what is necessary to protect the people they serve. In E.H.Carr's book The Twenty Years Crisis, he states that while many leaders exhibit a Liberal front (a mask if you will), they are essentially all Realists. Carr makes it clear that a leader must present the public with an idealistic world view of cooperation (with other states) or "harmony of interests," not the harsh realities of what is required for state survival. So, it would then seem that President Bush and company are in fact Realists who sold this war to the American people using Liberalist language, wishing all along to carry out Realist policy.

So we've finally distinguished the ideology of our current administration. Or have we? Recently, many Realists have come out against the administrations policy and handling of the Iraq situation, claiming that the war was an unnecessary extension of American power.

They assert that it is necessary to establish a balance of power within the international system, but there is a point at which a state begins to create enemies because of its overarching dominance. In fact, Realists claim that the most stable occurrence in the international system is a two dyad setup: When there are two great powers (as during the cold war) instead of many (as before WWI), war is less likely to occur. The chance of conflict lessens with fewer great powers, and non-great powers don't create significant conflicts. So it is actually better to have a balance of power because it benefits the great powers. But who in the international system is balancing the United States?

Some would argue that France, Germany, Russia, and China have stepped up to the plate to oppose America's power. But what power do they have in regards to stopping military actions by this country? Virtually none. They may oppose us on the UN Security Council, and not help to clean up the chaos we leave behind (Afghanistan, Iraq) but they really can't do much.

John Mearsheimer, the leading Realist scholar of our time and currently a Professor of Political Science at the University of Illinois in Chicago, is a prime example of skepticism arising from the Realist establishment. In an interview with the Institute of International Studies at UC Berkeley in 2002, he argued that the Bush administration's "War on Terror" is wrong-headed because it places too much emphasis on military power and not enough on diplomacy.

He believes that by using the military to the extent we have, we have burned diplomatic bridges that could have been useful in helping us fight terrorism in the future. He stated furthermore that, "I think that if we hope to win the war on terrorism or to put it in more modest terms, to ameliorate the problem, what we have to do is win hearts and minds in the Arab and Islamic world."

So we can see that Realists are actually quiet conservative in terms of the necessity of military force. It should be used when it has to be, with our security interests as its principal objective, but not used if it causes us to acquire more enemies then before. And to Mearsheimer that was the mistake of the Iraq war. It was not a necessary action with regards to national security and it caused us a lot of trouble, in terms of lives lost, enemies gained, and economic expenditure.

The question still remains then as to why the Bush Administration, being Realists, called for a preemptive strike against Iraq. Why did they claim that Saddam was trying to acquire uranium from Niger when we later found out that the evidence for this was forged? Why did they consistently try to make a connection between September 11th and Saddam Hussein (which caused 75% of the US population to believe he was responsible) when clearly there was no connection (which they recently had to come out and say)? Furthermore, why did they stress the importance of disarming Saddam and his WMD when the UN inspection teams claimed they couldn't find any, and there really weren't any? It seems obvious that they hyped the threat of Saddam Hussein in order to carry out a war against Iraq. But if they weren't interested in spreading democracy (a Liberalist objective) and weren't interested in the security of the United States (because as Mearsheimer claimed, this will cause us more problems in the long run) then what was the reason?

Money. As simple as that. This war was about profit in relation to three things: the military establishment, the big oil corporations, and the reconstruction contractors. It was about billions of dollars that would be gained in these three areas if we went to war. Is there any proof? Certainly.

The Bush Administration is full of connections to oil companies, military arms manufacturers, and reconstruction firms. Vice President Dick Cheney was a former CEO of Halliburton, a contracting firm that is now responsible for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The contract given to Halliburton was a no-bid contract, handed out by "executive order." National Security Advisor Condaleezza Rice spent ten years as director of Chevron before joining the administration. President Bush has a long history of connections to oil companies as well as being the beneficiary of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from countless oil companies.

Bush's father, former secretary of State James Baker and former defense secretary Frank Carlucci are all leading figures of the Carlyle Group, military contractors who quite obviously benefit from war. And, it just so happens, that our defense budget was raised from about $325,000,000,000 a year to around $400,000,000,000 during our President's term in office. The list of connections, in donations, investments, and personal ties goes on, but mentioning them all would require another article. Regardless, the fundamental point here is that war is great business, and the people deciding whether we go to war or not are the ones who profit most from it.

In fact, with $87 billion + being asked from tax payers to rebuild Iraq, hundreds of billions of dollars profit for oil companies that are currently scrambling to pick up contracts (which are also being handed out) and a $75 billion increase in our defense budget, this war could easily rack up profits near half a trillion dollars.

If what I am positing is the case, that the Iraq war was about billions in profits and not about spreading democracy, upholding human rights, abolishing WMD and nuclear arms, or connections between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, then our President and his Administration should be held accountable for their actions. They have lied to the American people, are responsible for the deaths of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and have used the blood and lives of our men and women in service, all for their own profit. Which is arguably worse than claiming you didn't have an affair with your intern.