小布希政府出兵伊拉克之決策研究：新古典現實主義的理論觀點

本文旨在探究小布希政府為何在2003年出兵伊拉克？美國是否企圖以「政權更迭」政策推翻海珊政權達成反恐戰爭的階段性目標及重整中東秩序的大戰略、或是小布希想利用美國在中東地區的軍事勝利推高他的政治聲望取得個人的政治利益？本文以新古典現實主義的觀點作為研究途徑，並以文獻分析法對本案進行研究。本文以國際體系、國家與決策者三個層面對出兵決策進行分析。本文從地緣戰略觀點看美國出兵伊拉克政策，回顧美國的伊拉克政策以及對伊拉克三種政策選項的利弊。小布希政府認為美國負擔得起這場戰爭、出兵伊拉克的風險不大、海珊又是殘民以逞的獨夫，企圖發展大規模殺傷性武器並可能與恐怖組織勾連，美國在九一一恐怖攻擊之後，為了維護美國人民的安全、型塑中東秩序，於是決定推翻海珊政權。本文其次從國內政治操作的角度探討小布希政府出兵前的作為。在威脅評估過程中，中情局誤判海珊政權的威脅，在國防部的主導下美國對伊拉克採取遏制政策，國務院也配合政府政策透過外交手段說服各國支持聯合國的武器檢查，企圖以此迫使海珊就範。當國內外輿論抗議美國計畫出兵伊拉克的情況下，美國白宮成立「伊拉克小組」主導輿論宣傳、建立共識。美國政府在國內利益團體的影響下，積極說服國會，美國國會授權行政部門對伊拉克採取必要措施，維護美國安全。在整個出兵決策過程中，副總統辦公室與國防部主導決策的發展。本文從決策者的層次探討出兵的原因，除探究小布希的個人特質與領導風格之外，也探究國安團隊對總統出兵政策的影響，以了解決策人士在決策過程中扮演的角色。在國安團隊中，副總統錢尼主導出兵政策讓軍事選項取得上風、國安顧問萊斯未平衡政府不同政策部門的發聲管道以致政策導向出兵的方向，而主張走聯合國外交路線的國務卿鮑爾則被邊緣化。學界認為新保守主義派人士對小布希總統的出兵影響最大，但是實際上小布希總統還是根據自己的判斷，在國內政治因素考量下決定出兵。本文歸納的結論是，美國出兵伊拉克的政策是一系列因素相互影響下的決定。導致出兵決策的主因是九一一恐攻事件、官僚強化小布希的政策偏好、國內政治環境允許小布希總統採取過度反應的行動。次要原因包括：情報失敗、新保守主義份子的推波助瀾。在單極體系缺乏國際制衡力量，小布希的主觀意見認定伊拉克是惡棍國家，推翻海珊政權對中東地緣戰略會有正向的骨牌效應。美國可藉由支持伊拉克新政府，戰略上可拔掉心頭之患並加強美國在中東的影響力。本文結論是小布希總統應對出兵負最大責任，因為國安策士只負建議之責，最終決定權還在小布希總統手中。

關鍵字

伊拉克戰爭；海珊政權；小布希總統

並列摘要

The dissertation is to answer a question whether President George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was to assert American’s hegemonic power and reshape the political order of the Middle East or to continue the momentum of War on Terror and to reap political gains for Bush’s 2004 presidential reelection. The dissertation is divided into three parts, namely reviewing the issues through perspectives of geo-strategy, bureaucratic politics, and Bush’s presidency to identify reasons behind the U.S. regime change policy. Special emphases are placed on factors triggering the change of Bush administration’s Iraq policy—whether it was because of the 9/11 terrorist attack, whether it was under the influence of Vice President Dick Cheney and the Neo-conservativism advocates, or whether toppling Saddam Hussain was an overdue policy waiting for a determined leader to finish the job? From a geo-strategic point of view, the Bush administration weighted in the pros and cons of its options to curb Saddam Hussain’s ambition and neutralize the potential threats posed by Iraqi WMD programs. The Bush administration believed it could afford the war, and the risk of the military action against Iraq was relatively low. Saddam Hussain’s atrocity records, his ambition on pursuing NBC programs, and Iraq’s alleged connection with the Al Qaeda became the pretexts for U.S. invasion. From a domestic politics perspective, the Bush administration exerted concerted efforts to build consensus among executive departments, societal elites, and the general publics on the regime change policy. By managing public opinions and garner support from the Congress, the Bush administration successfully persuade the Americans to believe war against Iraq a necessary mission. In addressing the domestic and international protests against the US-planned War in Iraq, the Bush administration built its case for regime change on the ground of national security and to protect Americans’ way of life. From decision-makers’ perspective, the dissertation reviewed the personal traits of George W. Bush, his leadership, and the influence of Bush’s national security team. The Neo-conservative politicians, who facilitated the decision-making process, played a supportive role on the decision, while President Bush was the actual decision-maker. Taking military action against Iraq served not only as a tool to reshape political order in the Middle East and dissolve a potential threat for the United States, it also served a domestic political purpose—to create momentum for President Bush’s reelection in 2004. The dissertation concludes that the decision to use forces against Iraq was derived from a series of interconnected factors, primarily the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President Bush’s preferred policy enhanced by senior bureaucrats, and a tolerant political environment that make the decision possible. In a Uni-polar international environment, there was little check on U.S. unilateral action, especially when the U.S. endeavor was in the name of promoting democracy and freedom. Although the Bush administration intended to be a benign hegemonic power, President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq jeopardized his good-will intension, leaving the Middle East an unsettled place for years to come.