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

Abstract

Explanations of states' security decisions prioritise structuralsystemic, institutional and culturalconstraints 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.Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, upon assuming power as prime minister during the decisionmaking process, was faced with questions of whether or not Turkey would allow the stationing of the US troops on its soil and grant over-flight rights. Both leaders supported cooperation with the US requests, but faced significant domestic opposition. Özal dominated the decision making in the first Gulf War, even though he had no specific constitutional authority to do so, and he engineered Turkish cooperation with the US-led military offensive against Iraq. Erdoğan, on the other hand, delegated authority and bungled a parliamentary vote that resulted in the rejection to the stationing of the US troops and the preclusion of a Northern front in the invasion of Iraq. Both episodes were significant junctures in the Turkish-US relations.In this study, we argue that foreign policymaking involves a dynamic relationship between political leadership as agency and the international, institutional and cultural constraints as structure. Throughout, we use the term 'structure' as the context in which action takes place; it not only limits but also shapes and propels behaviour. By 'agency', we mean the role of humans in the decision-making process. We illustrate the dynamic structureagency interaction in the Turkish decision-making context analysing the 1991 and 2003 Iraq war decisions. These cases are especially suitable for the purpose of our argument because although structural constraints were similar or indeterminate between Turkey's Iraq war decisions, the processes and choices were very different. This, we conclude, is indicative of the dynamic relationship between agency and structure. Specifically, we see two leaders, Özal in the first Iraq war and Erdoğan in the second Iraq war, with very different orientations towards structural constraints. ...

Beliefs of political leaders: conditions for change in the Eurozone crisis

“…An uneven focus that favours one condition over others can lead to an incomplete understanding of the ways in which belief changes occur. It is more likely that a myriad conditions affect political leaders' belief changes (Cuhadar et al 2017). This paper argues that the four conditions it presents do not operate independently, and must instead be examined and understood in relation to each other.…”

Personality or Role? Comparisons of Turkish Leaders Across Different Institutional Positions

“… See Cuhadar, Kaarbo, Kesgin, and Ozkececi‐Taner () for process tracing of the effects of leadership traits on decision‐making processes in Turkish foreign policy.…”

When leadership traits meet historic success: Hassan Rouhani and the nuclear deal of 2015

“…(2017a, p. 39) find that “the leaders’ traits are fairly resistant to changes across roles and that task orientation is the most likely trait to change as leaders adapt to different role demands and expectations.” In another study, Cuhadar et al. (2017b) touch upon the effect of experience on leadership traits while examining leaders’ orientations to structural constraints but they find no significant correlation between change in traits and tenure in office. However, the LTA literature is relatively weak on examining the effect of experience in office or significant events on political leaders’ personalities.…”