Vulnerability and nationalism: The support for the war against Iraq in five established states

Abstract: Popular Abstract in English This dissertation attempts to answer the question of why the 2003 armed conflict against Iraq received such varied support within the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, France and Spain. This is achieved by introducing a model in which the support for armed conflict is connected to elite persuasion operating in particular contexts. This model is tested in a comparative study, using international opinion polls, official policy statements, newspapers and information on past terrorist attacks. It would be reckless to claim to have a clear and simple answer to the research question after such a limited study, but the results do supply an interesting framework for further research. The main function of nationalism is shaping and maintaining national identity so as to promote popular loyalty to the state. In order to mobilise substantial support for the policies regarding an armed conflict the justifications for it must be endorsed in the national identity of that particular state. If not, either the justifications or national identity has to be modified. It is therefore not only the initial definition of the particular national identity that is important, but also how this could be amended. The dominant elite appears to be essential to this process, as does the public experience of vulnerability. A recent attack by international terrorism with severe consequences, which a large part of the targeted population can relate to, appears to supply an opportunity for moulding national identity at that time, as well as in the near future. It thus appears that the war against Iraq received such varied support within the five chosen states at least in part because the initial definitions of their national identities endorsed the justifications for the war to different degrees, the dominant elites promoted different opinions and the people experienced different degrees of vulnerability.