1. DO POLITICIANS SPARK WARS ABROAD TO KEEP POSITIONS AT
HOME? 1
Do Politicians Spark Wars Abroad to Keep Positions at Home?
Abbey Ellis
The University of Northern Iowa

2. DO POLITICIANS SPARK WARS ABROAD TO KEEP POSITIONS AT
HOME? 2
As citizens in countries such as The United States of America, we all have the
opportunity to vote on representatives. The purpose of electing these representatives is to have
someone to represent your voice, your thoughts, and your opinions when creating laws and
regulations within society. The job of these representatives is to become honest politicians and
make decisions on bills that best represent their district or country’s ideals. But what if these
politicians that citizens put so much trust into, used that trust against them? Some politicians are
willing to do anything and everything to keep the positions they have, even if that means
sparking wars abroad to keep their positions at home.
Politicians in today’s society are crossing an ethical boundary, and they are doing
anything in their power to convince their country to go to war in another country in order for
them to keep power at their home country. The first reason that a politician sparks a war is
because countries rarely change leadership in the time of war. This idea is adequately conveyed
in the Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, when they stated, “Put simply, violent
groups may teach that nonviolent tactics don’t work, and that violent tactics benefit the group”.
Because politicians want to stay in power, they convince their country of a threat that can only be
met by violence. They claim that this threat can only be handled by using elements of force and
there is no other way around it. This idea is something that spreads easily within a country or
group when circulated by a leader that the country believes to be trusting and honest. Politicians
use this ideal to push the country into going into war because the citizens believe that there is no
other beneficial option, that it is their only choice. A great example of a leader who uses this
concept is the Chinese political leader, Chairman Mao, when he stated, “Political power grows
out of the barrel of a gun” (Louis, 2014). There is also examples that lie closer home that come
into play. Even leaders in The United States have used this concept to keep power.

3. DO POLITICIANS SPARK WARS ABROAD TO KEEP POSITIONS AT
HOME? 3
At first people believe that it is not possible to see if a leader is using their country to stay
in power, but if you look closely at the decisions they have made with the information they had
and analysis the decision they made, it becomes clear if they started a war abroad to keep their
power at home. This example is in The United States, but the same general concepts would apply
within other countries and to other leaders.
On September 11, 2001 the United States was attacked by terrorists who hijacked several
commercial planes and crashed them into the two world trade centers in New York City and the
Pentagon. This attack killed around three thousand innocent civilians, but more importantly it
sparked fear within the country as a whole. This fear that was invoked within the country had
never been felt before. The United States had only been attacked once before and that was not in
the continental United States, it was in Hawaii. After this attack, it caused the country to greatly
fear terrorism and caused citizens to turn to their leaders in their respected states and President
Bush. Because so many people turned to the President and trust his decisions to lead the country,
this horrific event caused the presidential approval to skyrocket to levels never seen before. It
was as high as ninety percent approval rating which helped make the President and Congress one
of the most influential parings up to date. The reason Congress was so productive is because they
wanted to represent the citizens correctly, and with such a high presidential approval rating they
didn’t want to risk getting in the way of the President’s agenda and going against his plans for
the country. This concept is eloquently explained in 9/11 and Presidential Support in the 107th
Congress, when it states, “International crises create position-taking opportunities for members
of Congress. And positions taken during international crises can, in turn, create future credit-
claiming opportunities.”(Rocca, 2009) There were a lot of changes that needed to be made to the
country and the Bush Administration did so quickly. For example, they made stricter TSA

4. DO POLITICIANS SPARK WARS ABROAD TO KEEP POSITIONS AT
HOME? 4
requirements when flying and also created homeland security. Because of the power given to the
President by Congress, later in his term President Bush believed that Iraq had acquired weapons
of mass destruction. This was a particularly complicated issue. First of all, they did not have an
extensive amount of information, but the threat, if true could end world peace because of how
powerful nuclear missiles can be. Bush also had let time pass after he received this information
and he did not act on this information until his approval rating started to fall and was closer to
the levels of approval rating that most presidents have at that point in his presidency. He used his
authority as commander and chief to ask congress to take troops over to Iraq and “investigate” to
see if the intelligence they received was correct. The president did have the authority to make
this command on his own, but once again because it was election season, he decided to let
Congress help make this particular decision. Iraq had nothing to do with the attack that occurred
on September 11, but because Congress had signed a law giving the President the ability to send
troops anywhere for 30 days before asking congress for permission it had a direct correlation.
(Rocca, 2009)
The motivation and timing become questionable in regards to the President and Congress.
The President’s powers include, according to The Power to Threaten War, “beyond the
President’s wide latitude to use military force abroad, he can take threatening steps that could
provoke or prevent war and even alter unilaterally the national interests at stake in a crisis by
placing U.S.” (2014). These powers gave President Bush the power to send troops abroad but
asked for Congress’s approval because it was so close to election season. President Bush decided
to ask so late in his term if he could send troops over seas on such little information given to him,
makes his motives also questionable. Then, to give Congress this information and to ask for
congress’ permission right before his election and the many elections for congress members.

5. DO POLITICIANS SPARK WARS ABROAD TO KEEP POSITIONS AT
HOME? 5
Because they sent the troops right before the election it could easily be debated that they did this
action to help secure their next term. Not only did the country rally around him after 9/11, they
would do the same thing after sending the troops over seas which ensured his second term as
President of the United States.
There are a few arguments against this idea. First of all, if it was true that they had
weapons of mass distractions they could seriously harm the world by thinking irrationally and
using these weapons. This thought alone is why the Bush Administration asked to send troops
over and why Congress agreed that something needed to be done and sent the troops. They did
not want to take that particular risk and if they could stop it, they wanted to do everything within
their power to do so. The problem with this argument is that there was not an abundance of
information that Iraq had proving they had weapons of mass destruction. Also, Iraq had stated
several times that they did not or were not trying to create any weapons of mass destruction.
They were using extremely limited information when they made this decision. Also, Congress
and the Bush Administration knew that when they invaded Iraq, the government system had a
definite possibility of collapsing. If this happened while the United States troops were on the
ground then the United States would have a “pottery barn” effect on our hand, which means that
if you break something, as in the Iraq government, you buy it, as in you have to fix the country’s
government system. So the United States had to essentially reestablish their government system.
What made all of this worse is that the thousands of soldiers that they sent over seas never found
any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was telling the truth the entire time , which meant that we
spent millions of dollars invading a country to find out that they were telling the truth the entire
time, destroyed their government system, and wasted valuable resources, money, soldiers and
time.(Bush, 2014)

6. DO POLITICIANS SPARK WARS ABROAD TO KEEP POSITIONS AT
HOME? 6
Another issue is that as the United States turns to post-modernism, they focus on,
“changing the ruling of orthodoxies and influenced each academic field by approving the new
post-modern perspectives and attitudes” (Mikail, 2012). The United States believed that as
technology improves so does society, but when you compare that thought process to areas such
as Iraq, they do not believe in post modernism. They prefer to live how they believe things
should be, without any change. Neither answer is wrong or right. But where a country chooses to
lead itself should not be the only reason one chooses to go to war. The United States started a
war with someone partial because they did not agree with a non-western culture, and an honest
democracy system. Non of these reasons are adequate to start a war within another country to
keep your current position.
There is a simple solution to the problem the world faces with politicians starting wars
abroad to keep their positions at home. We can prevent this concept from occurring in the future
by standing up to these particular politicians and calling them out for what they are doing.
Citizens can do this in countries like the United States by using their freedom of speech by
protesting. This would not only let the politicians know that the citizens know what they are
doing but also make others aware of this issue. By making more citizens aware that this does
occur within their own society, a country has the ability to confront the problem head on. If
nobody stands up for this issue, politicians will continually get away with this concept. Also, if
honest governments find out that corrupt politicians are using this concept within a country, they
could try to step in and let the citizens of the country know by telling a media center such as a
newspaper or television station. There is many ways that citizens and countries can stand up to
these corrupt politicians.

7. DO POLITICIANS SPARK WARS ABROAD TO KEEP POSITIONS AT
HOME? 7
In many countries, like The United States of America, citizens have the opportunity to
vote for the representatives of their districts and for the country. People put all of their trust into
the government and, in turn, that gives them the right to vote for true and fair representatives.
Sometimes the representatives decide to go against ethics and what’s right. In this case, citizens
need to stand up for themselves as individuals and as a country and demand that the politicians
adequately represent the public’s thoughts and opinions, even if that means that they are no
longer representing the country. If representatives go as far as starting wars abroad in order to
ensure their positions at home we need to let them know that we as a country will not stand for it.
For these representatives citizens need to put an end to their horrible desperation to stay within
office. People need to stand up for what is right for them as citizens and what is right for the
country. Even though some politicians are will to do anything and everything to stay within
power, there are some that are there to be honest and to represent the country by what is best for
society. The job as citizens is to find these people in their own respected countries and have
honest representatives and politicians and support them, and try and make the most successful
and honest countries possible.
Bibliography
Louis, W. R. (2014). Peace and conflict as group norms. Peace And Conflict: Journal Of
Peace Psychology, 20(2), 180-186. doi:10.1037/pac0000018

8. DO POLITICIANS SPARK WARS ABROAD TO KEEP POSITIONS AT
HOME? 8
Mikail, E. H. (2012). THE THEORY OF POSTMODERNISM AS A CONTEMPORARY
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY. International Journal Of Academic
Research, 4(6), 79-82. doi:10.7813/2075-4124.2012/4-6/B.13
Rocca, M. S. (2009). 9/11 and Presidential Support in the 107th Congress. Congress &
The Presidency, 36(3), 272. doi:10.1080/07343460903206305WAXMAN, M. C.
Bush, George W(alker). (2014). Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia, 1p. 1
(2014). The Power to Threaten War. The Yale Law Journal, 1231626.