Using U.S. Involvement in Iraq and Syria and its Proposed Military Intervention

Against ISIS as a Case Study for Analyzing the Strengths and Weaknesses of

Pluralism as a Theory of Decision-Making

By Jonathan Laetsch

Jacobs University Bremen

Spring 2015

This Paper was prepared for 970202: Public Management and Public Policy taught by

Prof. Dr. Steven Ney

Abraham Lincoln: The Founding Father of Democratic Pluralism

Abraham Lincoln famously stated in his Gettysburg Address of 1863, that a

“Government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the

earth” (Lillian Goldman Law Library, 2008). With these words he amplified the

importance of state unity in a nation torn apart by civil war and laid the first stone of a

pluralist democracy, a nation where power is distributed equally among a variety of

pressure groups and is not held by a single elite or group of elites (Encyclopedia

Britannica). This nation described by Lincoln would later be known as the United States

of America. This paper defines pluralism in its context of U.S. politics, compares and

discusses the transition of the United States from an once elitist government of the Cold

War to a pluralist democracy of the post Vietnam era and, furthermore, examines the

strengths and weaknesses of pluralism as a theory of decision-making in the United

States governmental structure by using the contemporary policy issue of U.S.

involvement in Iraq and Syria and military intervention against ISIS as a case study.

Pluralism: An Ideal

Pluralism defines the structure of U.S. politics, and sets the framework to the

nations internal and foreign affairs. In the United States government, power is dispersed

and authority decentralized, so that every political body has equal influence in the

decision-making process, resulting in the most acceptable outcome for all involved

bodies (Emerson, 2012 ). As a result, a structure is formed where “not one decision-

making body wins everything but every body wins something” (Emerson, 2012 ). This is

a structure that was deliberately preordained by the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who

set out to create a political system that could accommodate various groups and interests

while producing collective agreements that commanded loyalty (Norman). The founders

were extremely cautious of concentrating power in any single political institution,

reflecting the attitudes of the first settlers who opposed the centralized government of

King George III, which ruled their life abroad (Janda, 2008).

Cold War Elitism

From a historical perspective, the governmental structure of the United States,

though founded on pluralistic ideals, experienced an interesting shift towards an elitist

system during the Cold War. Leading up to the events of the Cold War, relevant interest

groups shifted their focus from concentrating on domestic policy issues to becoming

heavily involved in the foreign policy-making process while leaning their ideals towards

anticommunist sentiments influenced at the time by McCarthyism (Rosati & Scott, 2010,

pp. 388-461). This transition of in-group politics enabled a military-scientific

infrastructure and the rise of a foreign policy establishment during the Cold War. This

shift in group politics from domestic to foreign affairs reflects the shift of the United

States government from a pluralist society to an elitist system, in which a limited group

(is) in command of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society (Mills,

1956). In his work The Power Elite C. Wright Mills describes the power mechanisms of

the elite as overarching and widely dispersed all while they prosper in status and wealth.

“(The Elite) rule the big corporations. They run the machinery of the state and claim its

prerogatives. They direct the military establishment. They occupy the strategic command

posts of the social structure, in which are now centered the effective means of the power

and the wealth and the celebrity, which they enjoy” (Mills, 1956).

This unique behavior of an exclusive group was ubiquitous during the Cold War.

While the inner two circles of political power (President Eisenhower and the executive

branch) experienced a direct influence in policy making during the Cold War, the

outermost circle (congress and interest groups) were limited in decision making and

merely experienced indirect influence (Rosati & Scott, 2010). It was during the cold war

years in which the United States President experienced the most freedom and least

constraints in terms of policy making in the history of the nation due to the rise of foreign

policy establishment and specific networks that developed between the government and

society. During this time, Eisenhower removed the constitutional restraints a President

should have through anticommunist operations and successfully brought the CIA in the

fort light as the official defense body for tackling the Communist Problem (Encyclopedia

of the New American Nation). Under his order, the CIA toppled Mohammed Mossadegh,

Iran's nationalist prime minister, successfully assisted in overthrowing the legally elected

populist president of Guatemala, Jacobo Arbenz Guzmá and, fearful that the Soviet forces

would move in on the Middle East and spread their Communist ideals throughout the

land, Eisenhower asked Congress to employ armed forces in the region to defend the

“independence and integrity” of Middle Eastern Countries against “Communist armed

aggression” (Encyclopedia of the New American Nation). The Eisenhower Doctrine that

resulted from this would officially symbolize Eisenhower as the “anti-Marxist Policemen

of his time” (Encyclopedia of the New American Nation).

While the elitist system worked quickly, freely and efficiently in creating and

passing policies, its disadvantages constituted a shift away from democratic means, an

unbalanced diffusion of power and a prevalent lack of governmental transparency (Rosati

& Scott, 2010). During this time the fear of communism, sparked by McArthur, meant

that foreign security was prioritized and democratic values gradually neglected.

Information about ongoing policy issues was disclosed to the public and were limited in

fear of Soviet obtainment, voters were given little choice between either the Republican

or the Democratic Party because both followed similar anti-Society agendas and the

political accountability as well as the political participation declined with the rise of

bureaucracy.

Post-Vietnam: An Issue of Pluralism

As quickly as the elitist system emerged in U.S. politics in the awakening of the

Cold War, it slowly released its grip on power after the Vietnam War and began to

transition into a pluralist society. This was a result of the foreign policy failure that the

Vietnam War portrayed to the U.S. government and the public mind. What began as a

simple defense mission that Lyndon B. Johnson described as “ preventing the forceful

conquest of South Vietnam by North Vietnam” endured for twenty years (1955-1975)

cost the United States over half a million lives and almost thirty billion dollars a year

(Rosati & Scott, 2010).

The way Johnson handled the war was viewed with growing skepticism in Britain

and France while nourishing public sentiments against Johnson’s policymaking back

home. As a result of this external pressure, Johnson loosened his grip on policy making,

decreasing the executive branch and his own realm of influence while allowing congress

to reassert its constitutional authority in foreign policy making. With an increased realm

of authority, Congress ensued in making direct requests, demanding that the executive

branch and the President provide them with more information, consultation and

participation in policymaking. When the President and the executive branch complied

with these requests, the rise in the power of Congress resulted in an immediate standstill

of all funding towards U.S. military involvement in Vietnam in 1973. Furthermore, this

increase in prompt jurisdiction enabled Congress to widen its influence by passing the

War Powers Act of 1973, requiring the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of

sending armed forces to military action, and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,

which modified Congress role in the federal budgetary process and established the

Congressional Budgetary Office, both over the veto of President. This rise in

Congressional influence, decrease in Presidential authority and balanced dispersion of

power in United States Politics at the dawn of the Vietnam War would mold the

framework of the United States governmental Structure into the Pluralist Democracy that

it is today.

The Inner, Middle and Outer Circle of U.S. Politics: Defining a Restricted Pluralist

Democracy

In their work, The Politics of United States- Foreign Policy, Jerel Rosati and

James Scott quote former American political scientist and presidential advisor Roger

Hilsman that one can break down the contemporary pluralist structure of U.S. Politics in

policy making into three circles (Rosati & Scott, 2010). The innermost circle of policy

making consisted of the President, his chief advisors and the leaders of the executive

branch, the middle circle consisted of various agencies, and layers of personnel within the

executive branch and in the outer circle reside Congress, the press and numerous interest

groups. According to Hilsman, when a foreign policy is discussed or decided upon it

never leaves the first two (inner and middle) circles and mostly involves the executive

branch. While the president has the ability to hinder the policy from becoming active by

applying his veto power, the executive branch sets the framework in which foreign

politics are discussed, defines the problem and seeks alternative solutions. The outer

circle consisting of Congress, the press and numerous interest groups seldom have the

ability to influence and take part in foreign policy decisions and only become involved

when issues become politicized beyond the executive branch- even when this does occur

the influence of congress tends to be indirect or limit setting rather than direct or

initiative taking. This unequal power distribution between the executive branch that

controls foreign policy making and Congress which has a restricted access of influence

contrasts the ideal pluralistic structure and results in policies often emerging that are

biased to the decisions of the executive branch. This limited governmental structure of

power has earned the United States, among some scholars, the label of a restricted

pluralist democracy. The limitations that restrict pluralism from blossoming in the U.S.

government are, as mentioned above, that the executive branch has a disproportionate

amount of influence in policy making whereas Congress has little to no effect.

Furthermore, competing groups are not found throughout society, as is the case in a

pluralistic democracy, but rather predominantly within the government. The mass public

plays little to no role in the policymaking process, even though, in a pluralist system

“their most important problems (should) be channeled to governmental areas for debate

and resolution” (Conolly E., 1969). This underlies the point of Robert Dahl’s Arena

Theory which entails that “it is reasonable to assume that in a wide variety of situations

whoever controls government decision will have significantly greater control over policy

than individuals who do not control government decisions (Conolly E., 1969). The

reason why “some participants get to make decisions more often and make the more

important decisions” is because the body that has more power in the decision making

process, has the ability to concentrate this attained power on passing its own policies

(Klein M., 1991).

Other scholars argue that the constructive aspects of pluralism predominantly

shape the United States government. Firstly, although the President occupies the highest

position in the governmental hierarchy, acts as the commander in Chief, and concludes

the policy making process by making use of his veto power, the influence on decision

making is dispersed between numerous governmental sectors and lies not solely in the

divine hands of one individual. This strongly contrasts an authoritarian system as

witnessed during the reign of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela from 1999-2013 in which

Chavez controlled numerous state sectors and as a result single-handedly passed policies

without the criticism or opposition of other state bodies (Human Rights Watch, 2013). A

prime example of his authoritarian rule occurred in 2004, when Chavez filled 12 seats of

the Supreme Court with government supporters resulting in the destabilization of the

Court’s role to act as a check on presidential power, enabling the government to freely

subject its people to human rights violations without legal consequences and further

fostering his own political Agenda. Chavez’ rule ultimately resulted in the nation’s

economic downfall, social instability and the rise of Venezuela as a military state.

Secondly, the governmental structure of the United States portrays a diverse variety of

bodies that successfully communicate. Though, as noted above, the realm of influence on

the decision making process varies between political bodies, there subsists an

interdependent communication between the interest groups, Congress, the various

branches (legislative, judiciary, executive) and the public. This is significant because

attaining a diverse group of bodies alone is not sufficient in fostering successful policy-

making. To be effective, the bodies must communicate with one another, encouraging a

high level of engagement and interaction, and allowing a constant stream of ideas and a

multiple opinions.

US Foreign Policy and ISIS: Achieving the Split Between National Security and National

Interests

These strengths and weaknesses of a pluralist democracy often come into play

when debating issues of U.S. foreign policy. Acting as sub government of the U.S.

governmental structure, foreign policy demonstrates a closed policy system of alliances

in which actors with reinforcing objectives create policies through bargaining (Scott M.,

1998). A Foreign Policy Issue in which the strengths and weaknesses of the United States

as a Pluralist System are clarified is the United States involvement in Iraq and Syria and

military intervention against ISIS. ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and ash-Sham founded

in 2014, is a militant group active in Syria and Northern Iraq that is seeking to create an

Islamic Caliphate in the region (Wood, 2015). The terrorist groups’ rapid and gruesome

expansion of territory has weakened the Iraqi military and led the government to plea for

international military aid and intervention, especially from the military dominion of the

United States. This request confronts the U.S. government and more specifically

President Obama with a dilemma. While ISIS is expanding through means of genocide

abroad, President Obama was quoted in front of Congress saying that this not only “poses

a threat to the stability of Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East but also to American

personnel and U.S. national security” (Woodrow Wilson International Center for

Scholars, 2015, pp. 3-4). Though this view is shared by many, in particular after the

beheading of numerous U.S. citizens in the region, the Presidents options are limited to

drone strikes and non-operational troops in terms of military intervention after his public

promise in 2014 to send no further ground troops into Iraq on Combat Missions. “ The

American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat

mission. They will (solely) support Iraqi forces on the ground as they fight for their own

country against these terrorists. I will not commit our armed forces to fighting another

ground war in Iraq” Obama stated publicly at the MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa,

Florida (The Office of Press Secretary, 2014). In response to these political limitations

concerning military intervention against ISIS, Obama, in February, submitted a draft of

the Authorization of Use for Military Force (AUMF) to Congress. This document acts as

an Amendment to the original AUMF proposed by George W. Bush in the Aftermath of

the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. George Bush’s AUMF authorized the “ use of necessary and

appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons that planned,

authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001,

terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” such as Al

Qaeda (Daskal & Stephen, 2014). Obama’s newly submitted AUMF in cooperates the

“Use of necessary and appropriate force” highlighted above, all while expanding the

force to a wider range of terrorist groupings including ISIS, as recently leaders of ISIS

have repeatedly stated that their group is not affiliated and never has been an offshoot of

Al Qaeda. The new draft of the AUMF will allow United States Rescue operations

involving U.S. or coalition personnel, special operations missions against ISIS leadership,

Intelligence collection and assistance to partner forces as well as continued airstrikes

(Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2015).

Democrats & Republicans vs. President Obama: The AUMF Dilemma

Asking Congress for a bipartisan authorization for the use of Armed forces

against ISIS places Obama in a difficult position between two fronts, Democrats and

Republicans, and exposes the difficulties and advantages of the U.S. pluralist system in

the process. The point sparking argumentation between Democrats and Republicans

concerns the documents language dictating U.S. ground troops will not be used for

“enduring offensive ground operations” (Woodrow Wilson International Center for

Scholars, 2015). The democrats feel that this “ fuzzy language”, as coined by Democratic

Senator of Connecticut Chris Murphy, could result in another long-term war, which

would rebuke Obama’s promise of not sending any more ground-operating troops into

conflict areas (Golan-Vilella, 2011). Republicans, on the other hand, fear that President

Obama is limiting himself when it comes to decision-making. “I think the executive

branch ought to be telling us they want flexibility," Republican Senator Rob Portman was

quoted saying, I think it's wrong for the commander in chief to tie his own hands” (Jones,

2015). At the core of this debate lie the various facets of the U.S. government as a

structuralist organ. With the passing of this draft proposal Obama would give himself and

the executive branch the power of deciding on the authorization of military force against

ISIS, a task originally appointed to Congress by the U.S. Constitution. Bypassing

Congress in order to allow the President the power to declare war is not historically

significant to U.S. Politics. Prior to President Obama, Harry S. Truman sent troops into

War with Korea without asking Congress to declare war while Bill Clinton waged the

Kosovo war without congressional authorization (Baker, 2015). This action portrays the

mentioned unequal diffusion of power in the U.S. government and highlights the point of

the United States as a restricted pluralist democracy.

Public Opinion Matters

A strength that emerges from the U.S. acting as a structuralist political system on

the matter of military intervention against ISIS is that U.S. public opinion enjoys a large

realm of influence and is strongly taken into consideration in the decision making

process. According to a national Survey conducted by Brookings Institution, a think tank

based in Washington D.C., over 70 percent of Americans view ISIS as the biggest threat

to American interests, while 57 percent believe that the United States must do whatever it

takes to defeat ISIS (Telhami, 2015). These high percentages are fueled by the public fear

that American members of ISIS will return home and engage in acts of domestic terror.

According to secret intelligence agencies, over 180 individuals have successfully or

attempted to fly to Syria to join the Jihadist group with numbers rising (Hong, 2015).

President Obama’s reaction to the increased public fear of ISIS and requests by numerous

interest groups such as national interest, who warned Obama of the localized and global

ambitions of a terrorist group such as ISIS, demonstrates an ever more balanced realm of

influence in policy making and thus challenges Roger Hillman’s proposal that opinions

and requests of members of the outer circle of the governmental structure in a pluralist

nation is limited (Gottlieb, 2014).

U.S. Pluralism: The Current Situation

Traditionally, the U.S. governmental structure rests on the ideals of pluralism

concerning foreign policy issues and decision-making. Lamentably, under its

contemporary structure, the United States acts as a restricted structuralist democracy due

to the unequal dispersion of governmental power between the two bodies- the executive

branch and Congress. As a result of this, an executive branch emerges that repeatedly

misuses its power while the authority of Congress shrinks and its input is rejected.

Though, the emerging information about the general structure of the U.S governmental

systems shines a negative light on pluralism as a tool and theory of decision-making

while highlighting its restrictions, both the disadvantages and advantages of pluralist

governments surface when analyzing the contemporary policy issue of U.S. involvement

in Iraq and Syria and military intervention against ISIS as a case study. This current

governmental structure exposes the weaknesses, in which the executive branch abuses

their power under President Obama’s newly drafted AUMF and the strengths, a rise in

public influence of a pluralist government’s political decision-making process.

U.S. Pluralism: An Outlook into the Future

The future of U.S. foreign policy will continue to be shaped by decisions

arising out of the executive branch and from the President, though a gradual shift of

authority towards the dominant (Republican) Congress will soon become apparent. Given

that the future President also derives from the Democratic House, the Republican

Congress will further abuse its newfound power to prevent the President from pushing for

legislations by not ratifying them, such as seen with the a Gun Control Law after the

Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting. Furthermore, Congress will continue to challenge

President Obama’s foreign policy efforts as witnessed when Republican John Boehner

recently invited the Prime Minister of Israel Netanyahu to speak before Congress,

without informing the President beforehand (Fischer, 2015). Furthermore, as seen

recently, actions by the Republican opposition have increased in boldness and backing.

On March 9, forty-seven out of fifty-four Republican Senators sent an open letter to the

supreme leader of Iran, in which they clarified the constitutional system of the United

States, the restricted realm of Presidential influence due to a Republican dominated

Congress and that only Congress has the ability to annul U.S. Sanctions, not the

President. Through this, Congress purposefully perpetrated the legitimacy of President

Obama on an International Scale, in the hope of halting his efforts to achieve a historic

deal with Iran on their Nuclear Program by “allow(ing) uranium enrichment, severely

restricted and under international supervision (Fischer, 2015).

In the future, Congress will continue to limit the Presidents authority on policy-

making, devalue his international standing and challenge his foreign policy efforts until

either democrats win the majority of Congress or a Republican President is elected. These

prevalent shifts towards a more elitist system lead by Congress and its enforced

restrictions on the President’s policy-making efforts hint at the possible revival of an

elitist system while highlighting the importance of a truly pluralist system.

“ Pluralism is no longer simply an asset or a prerequisite for progress and development, it is vital to our existence.”

~ Aga Khan IV (Khan)

Bibliography

Baker, P. (2015, February 11). Obama’s Dual View of War Power Seeks Limits and Leeway. The New York Times .

Conolly E., W. (1969). Pluralism in Political Analysis. New Brunswick, New Jersey, U.S.A: Transaction Publishers.

Daskal, J., & Stephen, V. I. (2014). After the AUMF. Cambridge: Harvard National Security Journal .

Emerson, P. ( 2012 ). Defining Democracy: Voting Procedures in Decision-Making, Elections and Governance (Vol. 2). Berlin: Springer.

Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). Pluralism. Retrieved March 3, 2015 , from Encyclopedia Britannica:http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/465174/pluralism

Encyclopedia of the New American Nation. (n.d.). Presidential Power - Cold war interventionism. Retrieved March 1, 2015, from Encyclopedia of the New American Nation: http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Presidential-Power-Cold-war-interventionism.html

Fischer, S. (2015, March 10). Republikaner-Brief an Iran: Die Saboteure. Spiegel .Golan-Vilella, R. (2011). Do the New AUMF's Limits Matter? The National Interest. The

National Interest.Gottlieb, S. (2014). Four Reasons ISIS Is a Threat to the American Homeland. The

National Interest. The National Interest.Hong, N. (2015, March 5). U.S. Authorities Struggle to Find a Pattern Among Aspiring

Islamic State Members. The Wall Street Journal .Human Rights Watch. (2013, March 5). Venezuela: Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy.

Retrieved March 12, 2015, from Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/03/05/venezuela-chavez-s-authoritarian-legacy

Janda, K. (2008, March 2). Pluralism & Democracy- Leading Scholar explains how Pluralism is one key to American Democracy. Retrieved March 5, 2015, from IIP Digital (U.S. State Department): http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2008/05/20080528174025xjsnommis0.9732477.html#axzz3TSQNkhRi

Jones, A. (2015, February 11). Here's where GOP wants to hand Obama more power. CNN .

Khan, A. Aga Khan Development Network. Aga Khan Development Network.Klein M., F. (1991). The Politics of Curriculum Decision-Making: Issues in Centralizing

the Curriculum. Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.: Book News.Lillian Goldman Law Library. (2008). The Gettysburg Adress. Retrieved March 10, 2015,

from The Avalon Project (Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy): http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/gettyb.asp

Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. New York, New York, U.S.A: Oxford University Press.

Norman, R. The Idea of Pluralism in the United States.

Rosati, J., & Scott, J. (2010). The Politics of United States Foreign Policy. Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A: Cengage Learning.

Scott M., J. (1998). After the End: Making U.S. Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War World. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press.

Telhami, S. (2015). American Public Attitudes Toward ISIS and Syria. Brookings Institution. Brookings Institution.

The Office of Press Secretary. (2014). The White House. Washington D.C.: The White House.

Wood, G. (2015, March). What ISIS Really Wants. The Atlantic .Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. (2015). Authorizing Military Action

Against ISIL: Geography, Strategy, and Unanswered Questions. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Washington D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.