Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Relations and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more on the importance of prime ministers and presidents in Turkish foreign policy, see Özcan (2008), Robins (2003b) and Hale (2002).

  2. SSA is headed by Michael R. Young; Margaret Hermann was a co-founder in 1997. In ProfilerPlus, SSA converted Hermann’s Leadership Traits Analysis and Steven Walker’s Operational Code Analysis hand-coding practices into automated coding (www.socialscience.net).

  3. See Hermann (2003) on how scores are calculated on each personality trait.

  4. Erdoğan’s word count is lower because he did not have an official role in decision-making processes. This limited his public, spontaneous statements on Iraq. However, by all accounts (including interviews of several high-level policymakers from this case), Erdoğan was actively involved in decision making, especially concerning the decisions that were very critical for the negotiations and the case.

  5. For discussions and examinations of these issues, see Dille and Young (2000), Marfleet (2000), Schafer (2000), Schafer and Crichlow (2000), Schafer and Walker (2006), Renshon (2008), Renshon (2009), and Schafer and Crichlow (2010).

  6. According to Mehmet Keçeciler, this decision had to be taken in any case because of the UN Resolution. Indeed, the next week the US secretary of state James Baker was visiting Turkey. The decision was announced right before Baker’s visit enhanced Turkey’s negotiating position vis-à-vis the United States as the latter saw this as an important gesture in their partnership (authors’ interview with minister Mehmet Keçeciler, July 2013).

  7. In 1998, after reciting a poem that allegedly incited religious hatred, Erdoğan was imprisoned and banned from running for political office.

  8. Authors’ interview with Yaşar Yakış, August 2013.

  9. The t-test score for conceptual complexity for Özal was t(71)=0.784 (not significant) and for self-confidence t(70)=0.377 (not significant). No other trait had a statistically significant difference across the time periods for Özal.

  10. The t-test score for conceptual complexity for Erdoğan was t(120)=0.508 (not significant) and for confidence it was t(114)=0.532 (not significant). The only trait that was statistically significantly different across time was task orientation, indicating that Erdoğan became less problem-focused during his second term with t(121)=−3.35 (p<0.005).

References

  • Balbay, Mustafa (2004) Irak Bataklığında Türk-Amerikan İlişkileri, İstanbul: Cumhuriyet Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Berger, Thomas U. (1998) Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bölükbaşı, Deniz (2008) 1 Mart Vakası: Tezkere Krizi ve Sonrası, İstanbul: Doğan Egmont Yayıncılık ve Yapımcılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • ‘Bush’tan Özal’a: Boru Hattını Kapatın’ (1990) Cumhuriyet (4 August).

  • Carlsnaes, Walter (1992) ‘The Agency-Structure Problem in Foreign Policy Analysis’, International Studies Quarterly 36(3): 245–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Chiozza, Giacomo and Hein E. Goemans (2011) Leaders and International Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Defence (1992) Final Report to the Congress: 22.

  • Department of Public Information of the United Nations (1990) UN Security Council Resolution No. 660: 167, http://www.un.org/en/hq/dpi/.

  • Dessler, David (1989) ‘What is at Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?’ International Organization 43(3): 441–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyson, Stephen B. (2006) ‘Personality and Foreign Policy: Tony Blair’s Iraq Decisions’, Foreign Policy Analysis 2(3): 289–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Efegil, Ertan (2002) Körfez Krizi ve Türk Dış Politikası Karar Verme Modeli, İstanbul: Gündoğan Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnemore, Martha and Kathryn Sikkink (1998) ‘International Norm Dynamics and Political Change’, International Organization 52(4): 887–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Gerring, John (2007) ‘Is There a (Viable) Crucial-Case Method’, Comparative Political Studies 40(3): 231–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilpin, Robert (1983) War and Change in World Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldgeier, James M. (1997) ‘Psychology and Security’, Security Studies 6(4): 137–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hale, William M. (2000) Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774–2000, Portland: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hermann, Margaret G. (1980) ‘Explaining Foreign Policy Behavior Using the Personal Characteristics of Political Leaders’, International Studies Quarterly 24(1): 7–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Hermann, Margaret G. (2001) ‘How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy: A Theoretical Framework’, International Studies Review 3(2): 47–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Journal of Proceedings of the Parliament (TBMM Tutanak Dergisi) (1990) Term 18, Vol. 47/1, Legislation Year: 4 (1 September).

  • Kaarbo, Juliet (2012) Coalition Politics and Cabinet Decision Making, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Keohane, Robert O. and Joseph Nye (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kılıç, Altemur (1990) ‘Editorial’, Tercüman (8 December): 1.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krasner, Stephen D., ed. (1983) International Regimes, Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeBlang, David and Steve Chan (2003) ‘Explaining Wars Fought by Established Democracies: Do Institutional Constraints Matter?’ Political Research Quarterly 56(4): 385–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobell, Steve E., Norrin M. Ripsman and Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, eds, (2009) Neoclassical Realism, The State, and Foreign Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Makovsky, Alan (1999) ‘The New Activism in Turkish Foreign Policy’, SAIS Review 19(1): 92–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintz, Alex and Karl DeRouen (2010) Understanding Foreign Policy Decision-Making, New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Oran, Baskın (2001) Türk Dış Politikası: Kurtuluş Savaşından Bugüne Olgular, Belgeler, Yorumlar, Istanbul: İletişim Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, John M. (1994) ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security 19(2): 87–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özcan, Mesut (2008) Harmonizing Foreign Policy: Turkey, The EU and The Middle East, Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pertman, Adam (1990) ‘Baker in Turkey to Seek Bases, Deliver Kuwait Offer’, The Boston Globe (9 August): 6.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renshon, Jonathan (2009) ‘When Public Statements Reveal Private Beliefs: Assessing Operational Codes at a Distance’, Political Psychology 30(4): 649–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, Philip (2003a) ‘Confusion at Home, Confusion Abroad: Turkey Between Copenhagen and Iraq’, International Affairs 79(3): 547–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins, Philip (2003b) Suits and Uniforms: Turkish Foreign Policy Since the Cold War, Seattle: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russett, Bruce M. (1993) Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, Mark (2000) ‘Issues in Assessing Psychological Characteristics At a Distance’, Political Psychology 21(3): 511–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, Mark and Scott Crichlow (2000) ‘Bill Clinton’s Operational Code: Assessing Source Material Bias’, Political Psychology 21(3): 559–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schafer, Mark and Scott Crichlow (2010) Groupthink vs. High-Quality Decision Making in International Relations, New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Wolfgang (2006) ‘The Democratic Control of Military Power Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy 13(2): 200–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltz, Kenneth (1979) Theory of International Politics, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendt, Alexander (1999) Social Theory of International Politics, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Yanatma, Servet (2008) ‘1 Mart’ın Üzerinden Beş Yıl Geçti; Ancak Muhasebesi Netleşmedi’, Zaman (1 March).

  • Yetkin, Murat (2003) ‘Hükümet Krizi’, Radikal (2 March).

  • Yetkin, Murat (2004) Tezkere: Irak Krizinin Gerçek Öyküsü, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, 06800, Turkey

    Esra Cuhadar

  2. Politics and International Relations, School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, 4.21 Chrystal Macmillan Building, 15a George Square, Edinburgh, EH8 9LD, UK

    Juliet Kaarbo

  3. Susquehanna University, 514 University Ave, Selinsgrove, PA, 17870, USA

    Baris Kesgin

  4. Department of Political Science, Hamline University, 1436 Hewitt Avenue, St. Paul, MN, 55104, USA

    Binnur Ozkececi-Taner

Authors
  1. Esra Cuhadar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliet Kaarbo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Baris Kesgin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Binnur Ozkececi-Taner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cuhadar, E., Kaarbo, J., Kesgin, B. et al. Examining leaders’ orientations to structural constraints: Turkey’s 1991 and 2003 Iraq war decisions. J Int Relat Dev 20, 29–54 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2014.31

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jird.2014.31

Keywords

Search

Navigation