Foreign policy outcome case study and analysis . Foreign policy question: Iraq’s decision to invade Kuwait in 1990, triggering the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91
apply IR realism, and see if there’s a good argument to be made that it was reasonable for Saddam Hussein to think invading Kuwait was good for Iraq’s national interests.”
Some arguments to consider:
1-Was Saddam Hussein’s recklessness as a leader, and the authoritarian government that empowered him best fit to to explain the catastrophic choice?
2-Was the fact that the US decided to intervene, which wasn’t really obvious at the time impacted the choice?
3- was it arrogance from Saddam’s side or was it a political manipulation from the IS side that impacted the decision ?
you may find that others have already been there, and attempted to apply FP theories to explain what was chosen. If so, then your main jobs will be to effectively summarize what’s been done, add on what you can with new research, and critically evaluate the different theoretical arguments to pick the one you think is best supported by the information that’s out there. Or you may find that you’re the first person to try to apply FP theories to your case. If that’s the case, then your job will be to make the connections between theories (realism) and what happened in the case.
1. Introduction (about 400 words): statement of, and explanation of, the research question; quick summary of the debate (see below); explanation of why you chose the case(s) you’re going to look at, and what kinds of things you have to have to find out about the case; brief discussion of why it’s interesting and/or important
2. Lit review (about 500 words): overview of theory research others have done about your research question; explanation of the main debate you want to get into, with explanations of the rival theories, their expectations about what you should see in the case, and how you might know if each one is “working” as an explanation for the outcome (e.g., “if I find X, then that’ll support theory A, but undermine theory B; if I find Y, that’ll support theory B, and undermine theory A…”)
3. Body (about 800 words): historical narrative about the cases, with emphasis on the specific aspects that are most relevant to the rival theories’ expectations; if you’re doing more than one case, you’ll have to do mini-narratives for each case; if you’re doing a statistical test, obviously you’ll do this entirely differently…
4. Conclusions (about 300 words): summary of what you found out about the case; summary of what your findings say about the usefulness of the rival theories; comment on the underlying theoretical debates, going back to the initial research question and related theory debates; comment on real-world implications or importance
Citation in text and reference page has to be done using APA citation styles.
