Though it is generally ascribed to him, Niccolo Machiavelli never said, “The end justifies the means." This is an accurate expression summing up his political philosophy though. Machiavelli advised a head of state not to be merciful. He advised this because he believed it is an effective quality of a successful ruler, in spite of its apparent demeaning association. The purpose of being a successful ruler is not to enrich oneself or oppress ones citizens; that would make a tyrant, something he expresses disdain for in his Discourses. The purpose of a successful rule is so that the citizens of the state may live in an environment of security, not amidst anarchy. Using any means necessary to overcome anarchy is not only necessary, it is noble. In a state of anarchy, people are not free, but are slaves to fear. In the anarchic global political situation, all nations are in a state of fear. The enemies of democracy are authoritarian states, particularly those with expansionistic aims. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein was one of those states.
Saddam Hussein was a master Machiavellian. An example of this occurred shortly after he took power in Iraq when he assembled his parliament. The exits in the building were blocked and Hussein announced that there were traitors in their midst. He introduced an informant and asked the informant if an individual in the audience was a traitor. The informant said he was, and the accused was led out of the building, never to be seen again. Hussein asked the informant this question of each and every person assembled in the hall that day. The informant said the person was either a traitor or a loyalist to the Ba’ath Party. Those labeled traitors were all led out, on their way to certain execution. Those labeled loyalists were spared. No evidence was given to prove somebody’s guilt. Their survival was dependant on the informant saying that they were loyal to Saddam Hussein. Imagine how those men felt on that day, trapped in that chamber with no place to escape and waiting for their names to be read. The fear must have been horrifying. While Hussein sat in a chair, arrogantly smoking a cigar and reading from his list of names, his captured audience did all they could do at that point --they kowtowed. The shouts of “Hail Saddam” and “We love Saddam” were broken only by the desperate protests of the accused while they were led away. Nobody knows how many of the accused were actually guilty of conspiring against Hussein, nor does it matter. Hussein made it perfectly clear that any person even suspected of conspiring against him would be killed. His grip on power was now firmly established, and could only be broken by an outside force.
Saddam Hussein could have been advised by Machiavelli himself on how to obtain and maintain power. But Hussein was a tyrant and had ambitions of expansion. So how should those outside forces who would oppose his expansionist ambitions have proceeded against him? The answer lies within the irony, you fight fire with fire. This is where Realism comes into play. The opposing nations were correct to use their power to defeat him. The United States found it necessary to oppose him because if he were to expand his power in the Middle East, he would gain control of the oil market and threaten the power of the U.S., which is highly dependent on affordable oil importation. The U.S. used Machiavellian rationale when it chased his forces out of Kuwait in 1991, but it didn’t play out the Machiavellian game when it did not overthrow him. Machiavelli would not have advised one to leave his enemy alive, let alone in power. This was a strategic mistake, because Hussein would have attempted revenge as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The second Bush Administration realized this. Despite the reasoning they spoke of publicly, the second U.S.-Iraq War was a continuation of the first. They were finishing the job and protecting the United States’ position of power.
The opposition to Realism comes from the Idealists. The Idealists believe that states, like people, are basically good and want peace. This may be true if the state is controlled by the people through a liberal democracy, but not all states are democratic. Many are authoritarian like Iraq was under Saddam Hussein, and are not interested in cooperation, but in obtaining power at the expense of other states. Idealism depends on cooperation among all states. If all states would cooperate, an idealistic world could be realized. Until all states reach an advanced system of democracy though, the world will continue to be in a state of anarchy. Now, in order to make all states cooperate, some must be forced. A state, like a person cannot be forced to do something unless the enforcer has enough power to make it happen. Power is therefore essential in a pre-Idealistic world. Realism can be a means of achieving the Idealistic end.
By defeating the regime of Saddam Hussein, the United States accomplished three tasks. One, it eliminated an enemy. Two, it made an example of that enemy, which will discourage other enemies from challenging it. Three, it may put Iraq on the path to liberal democracy, which will allow it to cooperate in a peaceful world. The first two are practical results which have immediate benefits. The last is a long term goal which the Idealists would want, but would probably be unable to achieve. Idealists would support less violent measures such as economic sanctions. However, economic sanctions had been in effect for a decade and the results were not effective. Realism, through war, accomplished what the Idealists could not. The means of defeating Hussein may have been violent, and innocent people died, but in the long term, Iraq will be more prosperous, the world will be less anarchic, and much fewer Iraqi’s will die than if Hussein had stayed in power. We should remember that throughout history, violence has often been a driving force for change, and often it is for the better.