On September 11, 2001 an event occurred which no one could anticipate. United States, the world's only superpower was under an attack on its own territory for the first time since the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. The terrorist attack on September 11, 2001 was the start of a new kind of threat and everything which previously was known about global security was questioned. The terrorists in the form of Al Qaeda openly challenged the world's only superpower and its people. They were no longer protected from attacks from outside. This led to the beginning of the U.S. global war on terrorism.

This survey analyse how the United States in its official rhetoric argued to legitimize the invasion of Iraq in relation to IR theories perspectives, realism and liberalism. This survey will be performed as a qualitative text analysis. It is an analysis of the meaning content of a selected material using variables.

The conclusions are that from U.S. rhetoric it is possible to find arguments that can be attached to both realism and liberalism. The strongest argument, regarding government interest, security dilemma and survival did I connect to realism because realism best legitimize the invasion when it was made in preventive security purposes. U.S. had six goals according to the surveys variables as reasons to legitimize the war; Iraq was a threat to the United States. Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the country helped the terrorists. This posed a threat to U.S. and worldwide, and preventive self-defense was necessary. By removing Saddam Hussein, the U.S. would be able to strengthen its security. U.S. also used the argument with liberal character, focus on democracy and human rights, to make it legitimate according to international community remove Saddam Hussein from power because he violated human rights in relation to Iraq's own population and U.S. sought to make Iraq democratic.