Constructivism and US Action

For constructivists it is the identity of actors and their actions as a result of those identities that is key to interpreting events in IR. The constructivist analysis can be used to explain the actions and inactions of the United States today. The United States invaded Afghanistan because the ‘other,’ al-Qaeda attacked us and as a result our identity changed causing the US to perceive itself as the victim who must defend ‘freedom and democracy.’ This partially led to the invasion of Iraq as well because we perceived ourselves again as protectors and defenders of ‘freedom and democracy’ and Iraq was the new threat to those things. The other this time was a dictatorship that we thought wanted to attain WMD and use them against us or our interests. However things have changed in both Afghanistan and Iraq because events have once again changed our identities. In Afghanistan things were going well for a while after the invasion, then came time to make an important decision: Do we allow Afghanistan to continue to produce opium as a source of income? With upwards of 40% of the population of Afghanistan directly dependant on the trade of opium this was an important question. In the end we choose to stop Afghanistan from participating in the opium trade because of our identity as a state that considers drugs to be bad and has made them illegal. Well what happens when over a third of the population of a country losses its livelihood? That third gets angry and starts supporting forces in Afghanistan that are waging war with US forces to get them to leave so that they can have their source of income back. The US is also facing though times in Iraq because of a population back home that is in the majority against the war. I believe that this can also be attributed to our identity because Americans do not see war for the US as meaning long-term occupation. Americans think of war for the US as quick, decisive, and broadly supported. Iraq today does not fit the American conception of acceptable war and is therefore under sharp criticism from the majority of Americans. America’s identity may be changing once again as a result of Iraq and Afghanistan as evidenced by our stance towards Darfur. An intervention in Darfur would look something like this: the implementation of a no-fly zone and the insertion of ground forces to stop sectarian and ethnic violence. That is exactly what we are doing right now in Iraq. To help Darfur we would be leaving Iraq to do the same thing on a different continent. I think that because of our trouble with Iraq and Afghanistan the United States will not commit to ending violence in Darfur because that type of action has already proven to be unpopular with Americans. Our identity may be changing to that of a country that will not be likely to see itself as the leader in future actions to quell sectarian conflict in foreign countries and install stable governments there.