Is the US acting rationally? Are any of us?
Q: What are the assumptions of the "rational actor model"? Are they too strong?
The first assumption is that people are rational. "Rational" is a very subjective term, so when one ascribes rationality to an individual or governing power, one must understand what rationality entails. "Rationality does not carry any connotations of normative behavior. That is, behaving rationally does not necessarily mean that one behaves morally or ethically... Rational behavior is purposeful behavior." (Notes)
The leadership of a nation may be considered rational if that leadership (whether an individual or a group) considers and prioritizes the foreign policy of its nation and the goals contained therein. The rational actor must impartially determine which goals are of first priority and then assemble an agenda accordingly, weighing costs and benefits, and weighing outcomes. Through this process the actor becomes cognizant of the "optimal choice": one that balances the costs of that course of action for the payoff to be sufficiently high.
Another assumption from the lecture notes is that actors are unable, for whatever bureaucratic or political constraints, to pursue that optimal outcome. This "principal-agent problem" or "organizational critique" occurs when "the decision maker, the principal, has to delegate to an agent the execution of the policy." (Notes) Whether through ineptitude or sabotage the desired course of action may not be pursued. The agent may simply be unable to enact the policy legislation well enough to bring about the desired changes. However, if the agent (whether individual or organizational) does not wish to see that policy change take place, intentional sabotage may occur, thus dooming the rational agent's well-thought-out policy changes.
Are these assumptions "too strong"? Probably they are -- yet the assumptions are valid points indeed.
It was desired that we address the rationale for war in Iraq in 2003 in light of these rational actor criteria. Allison explained that the "rational actor model" considers the following:
1. Relevant values and objectives,
2. Perceived alternative courses of action,
3. Estimates of various sets of consequences, and
4. Evaluation of each set of consequences. (Kaufman 657)
What were the relevant values and objectives for war in Iraq? It really depends on whom you ask and when you ask. According to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the incoming Bush administration wanted war with Iraq at the outset of its tenure. According to the administration itself, the decision was made after 9/11 in light of Iraq's ties to al Qaeda. The alternatives were to have Saddam Hussein continue to flaunt international sanctions from the United Nations and have Iraq continue to support terrorism.
In addition,
I also feel that the US wanted to invade Iraq. Of course, feeling something and proving something are completely different. While I, too, am not against the Iraq invasion and the toppling of an evil dictator like Saddam (better that one man should fall than an entire nation dwindle), I deeply believe that the US saw what it wanted to see when presenting its justification for war.
Does a rational actor follow flawed intelligence in order to pursue a larger agenda?
I believe so, and here's why: a rational actor, by definition, follows the assessments given it by its perceptions of the world. Iraq was a troublespot: it sits on lots of oil, had a brutal dictator constantly thumbing its nose towards the UN... but it was weakened by a decade of economic sanctions and a no-fly zone. The costs were present and assessed (loss of American lives, huge outlay of capital for invasion and reestablishment of government) but minimal when compared to the benefits, namely stability in region, deposition of said dictator, and the problem-free flow of oil from Iraq. The challenge was presenting it to the international community, the US Congress (who could authorize war), and the American people.
The international community was swayed by Secretary of State Colin Powell. He appeared before the UN Security Council three times in February-March 2003, most notably armed with a vial of anthrax and a Powerpoint presentation, to address Iraq's noncompliance with UN actions. Sec. Powell described the clear and present danger of Iraq's chem/bio/nuke weapons programs. (AccessUN)
The American public was convinced by invoking the 9/11 horror and reminding us all that Iraq was a aider and abettor to those heinous acts. As time and war effort has unfolded, America's justification for invasion has changed. It is not about WMDs now; it is about regime change and human rights. Despite misgivings after the fact regarding that justification for war, most Americans feel that Iraq is better off without Saddam Hussein. (FOX News) However, that was not the initial justification for war.
So was the US acting rationally in invading Iraq? I think yes. Skewed, flawed intelligence it may have been, but the US was thinking critically and acting rationally.
Sources:
"3/16/06 FOX News Poll: Iraq and Iran." FOX News. Internet: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188116,00.html, accessed 23 April 2006.
AccessUN Readex, Norwich Embanet.
"Bush Sought 'Way' to Invade Iraq." CBS News, 9 January 2004. Internet: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml, accessed 22 April 2006.
Kaufman, et al. Understanding International Relations: The Value of Alternative Lenses. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004.
Lecture notes, week 6.