Advertisement

Examining leaders’ orientations to structural constraints: Turkey’s 1991 and 2003 Iraq war decisions

  • Esra Cuhadar
  • Juliet Kaarbo
  • Baris Kesgin
  • Binnur Ozkececi-Taner
Original Article

Abstract

Explanations of states’ security decisions prioritise structural — systemic, institutional and cultural — constraints that characterise foreign security decisions as a function of external/international, domestic/institutional, or normative/cultural factors. By examining Turkey’s 1990–1991 and 2003 Iraq war decisions systematically, we problematise this prioritisation of structure, and we investigate the dynamic relationship between structural constraints and leaders in their decision-making environments. In these cases, while the structural constraints remain constant or indeterminate, the decision outcomes and the decision-making process differ significantly. Our findings, based on structured-focused comparison, process tracing, and leadership trait analysis, suggest that the leaders’ personalities and how they react to constraints account for this difference and that dependence on only one set of factors leads to an incomplete understanding of security policies and international politics. We contribute to the broader understanding of leaders’ personalities by suggesting that self-confidence and cognitive complexity are the key traits distinguishing leaders’ orientations towards structural constraints.

Keywords

foreign policy Iraq wars leadership trait analysis political personality Turkey 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge that this research was supported by a TUBITAK Evrena grant (110K112). We would like to thank Margaret G. Hermann and Ryan Beasley for their helpful comments, Michael Young at Social Science Automation for making ProfilerPlus available to us, as well as Hanneke Derksen. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Studies Association Convention in 2010; we would like to thank our discussant Akan Malici for his helpful comments. Finally, we extend our thanks to three anonymous reviewers and the journal’s editorial team for their constructive feedback.

References

  1. Balbay, Mustafa (2004) Irak Bataklığında Türk-Amerikan İlişkileri, İstanbul: Cumhuriyet Yayınları.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, Andrew (2010) ‘Process Tracing and Causal Inference’, in Henry Brady and David Collier eds, Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards, 207–20, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, Thomas U. (1998) Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bölükbaşı, Deniz (2008) 1 Mart Vakası: Tezkere Krizi ve Sonrası, İstanbul: Doğan Egmont Yayıncılık ve Yapımcılık.Google Scholar
  5. Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson and James D. Morrow (2003) The Logic of Political Survival, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. ‘Bush’tan Özal’a: Boru Hattını Kapatın’ (1990) Cumhuriyet (4 August).Google Scholar
  7. Carlsnaes, Walter (1992) ‘The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis’, International Studies Quarterly 36(3): 245–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Checkel, Jeffrey T. (2008) ‘Process Tracing’, in Audie Klotz and Deepa Prakash eds, Qualitative Methods in International Relations: A Pluralist Guide, 114–28, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chiozza, Giacomo and Hein E. Goemans (2011) Leaders and International Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Department of Defence (1992) Final Report to the Congress: 22.Google Scholar
  11. Department of Public Information of the United Nations (1990) UN Security Council Resolution No. 660: 167, http://www.un.org/en/hq/dpi/.
  12. Dessler, David (1989) ‘What is at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?’ International Organization 43(3): 441–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dille, Brian and Michael D. Young (2000) ‘The Conceptual Complexity of Presidents Carter and Clinton: An Automated Content Analysis of Temporal Stability and Source Bias’, Political Psychology 21(3): 587–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dyson, Stephen B. (2006) ‘Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq Decisions’, Foreign Policy Analysis 2(3): 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dyson, Stephen B. and Thomas Preston (2006) ‘Individual Characteristics of Political Leaders and the Use of Analogy in Foreign Policy Decision Making’, Political Psychology 27(2): 265–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Efegil, Ertan (2002) Körfez Krizi ve Türk Dış Politikası Karar Verme Modeli, İstanbul: Gündoğan Yayınları.Google Scholar
  17. Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization 52(4): 887–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. George, Alexander L. and Timothy J. McKeown (1985) ‘Case Studies and Theories of Organizational Decision Making’, in Robert Coulam and Richard Smith eds, Advances in Information Processing in Organizations, 21–58, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gerring, John (2007) ‘Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method’, Comparative Political Studies 40(3): 231–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  21. Gilpin, Robert (1983) War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Goldgeier, James M. (1997) ‘Psychology and Security’, Security Studies 6(4): 137–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gözen, Ramazan (2005) ‘Causes and Consequences of Turkey’s Out-of-War Position in the Iraq War of 2003’, Turkish Yearbook of International Relations 36: 73–99.Google Scholar
  24. Hale, William M. (2000) Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774–2000, Portland: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  25. Hänggi, Heiner (2004) ‘The Use of Force Under International Auspices: Parliamentary Accountability and “Democratic Deficits”’, in Hans Born and Heiner Hänggi eds, The ‘Double Democratic Deficit’: Parliamentary Accountability and the Use of Force under International Auspices, 3–16, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  26. Hermann, Margaret G. (1980) ‘Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders’, International Studies Quarterly 24(1): 7–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hermann, Margaret G. (1984) ‘Personality and Foreign Policy Decision Making: A Study of 53 Heads of Government’, in Donald A. Sylvan and Steve Chan eds, Foreign Policy Decision-Making:Perceptions, Cognition, and Artificial Intelligence, New York: Ashgate, Praeger.Google Scholar
  28. Hermann, Margaret G. (1987) Handbook for Assessing Personal Characteristics and Foreign Policy Orientations of Political Leaders, Columbus, OH: Mershon Center, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  29. Hermann, Margaret G. (2001) ‘How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Framework’, International Studies Review 3(2): 47–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hermann, Margaret G. (2003) ‘Assessing Leadership Style: A Traits Analysis’, in Jerrold M. Post ed., The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders: With Profiles of Saddam Hussein and Bill Clinton, 178–215, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hermann, Margaret G. and Charles W. Kegley Jr (1995) ‘Rethinking Democracy and International Peace: Perspectives from Political Psychology’, International Studies Quarterly 39(4): 511–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hermann, Margaret G., Thomas Preston, Baghat Korany and Timothy M. Shaw (2001) ‘Who Leads Matters: The Effects of Powerful Individuals’, International Studies Review 3(2): 83–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Journal of Proceedings of the Parliament (TBMM Tutanak Dergisi) (1990) Term 18, Vol. 47/1, Legislation Year: 4 (1 September).Google Scholar
  34. Kaarbo, Juliet (2012) Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kapsis, James E. (2006) ‘The Failure of US-Turkish pre-Iraq War Negotiations: An Overconfident United States, Political Mismanagement, and Conflicted Military’, Middle East Review of International Affairs 10(3): 33–45.Google Scholar
  36. Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kesgin, Baris and Juliet Kaarbo (2010) ‘When and How Parliaments Influence Foreign Policy: The Case of Turkey’s Iraq Decision’, International Studies Perspectives 11(1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kılıç, Altemur (1990) ‘Editorial’, Tercüman (8 December): 1.Google Scholar
  39. Kille, Kent J. and Roger M. Scully (2003) ‘Executive Heads and the Role of Intergovernmental Organizations: Expansionist Leadership in the United Nations and the European Union’, Political Psychology 24(1): 175–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krasner, Stephen D., ed. (1983) International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  41. LeBlang, David and Steve Chan (2003) ‘Explaining Wars Fought by Established Democracies: Do Institutional Constraints Matter?’ Political Research Quarterly 56(4): 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lobell, Steve E., Norrin M. Ripsman and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, eds, (2009) Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mahoney, James (2004) ‘Structured, Focused Comparison’, in Michael Lewis-Beck, Alan E. Bryman and Tim Futing Liao eds, Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, 1099–100, Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Makovsky, Alan (1999) ‘The New Activism in Turkish Foreign Policy’, SAIS Review 19(1): 92–113.Google Scholar
  45. Makovsky, Alan and Sabri Sayarı, eds, (2000) ‘Introduction’, in, Turkey’s New World: Changing Dynamics in Turkish Foreign Policy, 1–8, Washington DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy.Google Scholar
  46. Marfleet, B. Gregory (2000) ‘The Operational Code of John F. Kennedy During the Cuban Missile Crisis: A Comparison of Public and Private Rhetoric’, Political Psychology 21(3): 545–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mintz, Alex and Karl DeRouen (2010) Understanding Foreign Policy Decision-Making, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oğuz, Mustafa (2005) ‘Conflict within the Turkish Foreign Policy Decision-Making Mechanism: The Cases of the Gulf War and the USA Military Intervention in Iraq’, Unpublished MA thesis, Sabancı University: İstanbul.Google Scholar
  49. Oran, Baskın (2001) Türk Dış Politikası: Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.Google Scholar
  50. Owen, John M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security 19(2): 87–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Özcan, Mesut (2008) Harmonizing Foreign Policy: Turkey, The EU and The Middle East, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  52. Özdamar, Özgür and Zeynep Taydaş (2012) ‘Turkey’, in Richard Sobel, Peter Furia and Bethany Barratt eds, Public Opinion and International Intervention: Lessons from the Iraq War, 201–18, Dulles, VA: Potomac Books.Google Scholar
  53. Özkeçeci-Taner, Binnur (2005) ‘The Impact of Institutionalized Ideas in Coalition Government Foreign Policymaking: Turkey as an Example, 1991–2002’, Foreign Policy Analysis 1(3): 249–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Özkeçeci-Taner, Binnur (2009) The Role of Ideas in Coalition Government Foreign Policymaking: The Case of Turkey Between 1991 and 2002, Dordrecht: Republic of Letters Publishers.Google Scholar
  55. Palmer, Glenn, Tamar R. London and Patrick M. Regan (2004) ‘What’s Stopping You?: The Sources of Political Constraints on International Conflict Behavior in Parliamentary Democracies’, International Interactions 30(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pertman, Adam (1990) ‘Baker in Turkey to Seek Bases, Deliver Kuwait Offer’, The Boston Globe (9 August): 6.Google Scholar
  57. Renshon, Jonathan (2008) ‘Stability and Change in Belief Systems: The Operational Code of George W. Bush from Governor to Second-term President’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 52(6): 820–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Renshon, Jonathan (2009) ‘When Public Statements Reveal Private Beliefs: Assessing Operational Codes at a Distance’, Political Psychology 30(4): 649–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Robins, Philip (2003a) ‘Confusion at Home, Confusion Abroad: Turkey Between Copenhagen and Iraq’, International Affairs 79(3): 547–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Robins, Philip (2003b) Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy Since the Cold War, Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  61. Russett, Bruce M. (1993) Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Schafer, Mark (2000) ‘Issues in Assessing Psychological Characteristics At a Distance’, Political Psychology 21(3): 511–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schafer, Mark and Scott Crichlow (2000) ‘Bill Clinton’s Operational Code: Assessing Source Material Bias’, Political Psychology 21(3): 559–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schafer, Mark and Scott Crichlow (2010) Groupthink vs. High-Quality Decision Making in International Relations, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Schafer, Mark and Stephen G. Walker, eds, (2006) ‘Operational Code Analysis at a Distance: The Verbs in Context System of Content Analysis’, in, Beliefs and Leadership in World Politics: Methods and Applications of Operational Code Analysis, 25–51, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taydaş, Zeynep and Özgür Özdamar (2013) ‘A Divided Government, an Ideological Parliament, and an Insecure Leader: Turkey’s Indecision about Joining the Iraq War’, Social Science Quarterly 94(1): 217–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wagner, Wolfgang (2006) ‘The Democratic Control of Military Power Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy 13(2): 200–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  69. Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yanatma, Servet (2008) ‘1 Mart’ın Üzerinden Beş Yıl Geçti; Ancak Muhasebesi Netleşmedi’, Zaman (1 March).Google Scholar
  71. Yetkin, Murat (2003) ‘Hükümet Krizi’, Radikal (2 March).Google Scholar
  72. Yetkin, Murat (2004) Tezkere: Irak Krizinin Gerçek Öyküsü, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Esra Cuhadar
    • 1
  • Juliet Kaarbo
    • 2
  • Baris Kesgin
    • 3
  • Binnur Ozkececi-Taner
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceBilkent UniversityBilkentTurkey
  2. 2.Politics and International Relations, School of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  3. 3.Susquehanna UniversitySelinsgroveUSA
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceHamline UniversitySt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations