Polarizing Iraq Essay

The United States invasion and subsequent military occupation of Iraq in 2003 is one of the most debated and highly controversial war in U.S. history. The Bush Administration had made claims that the Iraqi Government was complying weapons of mass destruction which posed a consequential threat to the United States national security; the administration also argued that the Iraqi government was violating human rights of their citizen and launch a responsibility to protect against the president at the time; Saddam Hussein. This paper strives to understand the rationality behind the war from an analytical standpoint by using two theories of international relations: Realism and Liberalism. Both theoretical arguments aided in analyzing the reasoning

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

United States policy towards the Iran-Iraq war was interesting to say the least. While the United States claimed to be a neutral party, they supported Iraq for the majority of the war, supported Iran for a brief period, then went back to only supporting Iraq. Both sides committed numerous atrocities and war crimes, and for the most part received little to no American condemnation. Through this essay, I will explore the reasons for the US involvement, and their responses to a number of war crimes, particularly Iraq’s use of chemical weapons throughout the war.

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the

The Gulf War in 1990 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 both had a profound impact not just on the countries directly involved - primarily Iraq and the United States (US) - but also on the geo-politics of the world. Arguably, the War ended in a stalemate because the Iraqi regime that had started the War by invading Kuwait remained in power. Perhaps inevitably then, in March 2003 the US and its allies invaded Iraq with the stated aim of overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein and destroying that regime's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Some similarities between both Wars are immediately obvious: for example, the same country, the

The containment policy established by George Bush Sr. after the Gulf War is the most viable option for the United States when deciding how to stabilize the Middle East. A political strategy of containment strictly sustains the status quo, and is inexpensive in terms of blood, money, and political capital. Furthering the United States’ containment policy in the context of Iraq will halter the making of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, ensuring the free flow of oil from the Gulf, while preventing Iraq from threatening its neighbors. For this reason, a political strategy of containment is comparatively advantageous to the alternative. This essay will begin by examining the effect of no-fly zones on the Iraqi government, moving to discuss weapons inspections, discussing the strategic viability of sanctions and their effect on the Iraqi economy, finally explaining the advantages containment holds over intervention.

Carl Von Clausewitz was a Prussian Military Theorist in the early eighteen hundred`s who focused on the moral implications of war. He once said “War is the mere continuation of politics by other means”, a statement that has become all too relevant in the twenty-first century. This paper will serve to analyze why the US invaded Iraq in 2003, discussing the underlying agenda of the Bush administration at the time compared to what information was given to the public. First, evaluating how the Bush administration used propaganda to vilify the Iraqi regime as terrorists and convince the US public that invading Iraq was clearly for pre-emptive self-defense. This section shows how the US government at the time framed the Iraq war as

In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.

In March 2003, the predominantly American coalition forces invaded the sovereign state of Iraq. The reasons given for the invasion were to “Disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism and free the Iraqi people” . Six years on, Iraq is in a state of civil war, no weapons of mass destruction have been found and no credible link between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda exists. However, coalition forces have managed to murder an estimated 99,431 innocent civilians.

First of all , the first step is going to talk about why United States invades Iraq in 2003. for serveral reasons as illustrates: First of all, due to implementing the economic sanction, the United States invasion of Iraq was in 2003 and the United States also occupied the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. To be specific, according to research it is showing that referring to the Gulf War, the United Nations asked Iraq to abandon all chemical and biological weapons is worried that these weapons will bring negative influence to the society and world. As it is being showing by " The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) performed inspections in Iraq to make sure that the conditions of the peace agreement that followed the first Gulf War were carried out." (Jakobsen& NTNU n.d.).

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq began on 19 March and ended 1 May 2003 with coalition forces the United States and its allies (United Kingdom, Australia and Poland) invading Iraq, called Operation Iraqi Freedom. The United Kingdom Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair felt that the threat of terrorism from Iraq must be dealt with immediately, with his speech in Texas 2002 saying that the United Kingdom must be prepared to act where weapons of mass destruction and terrorism loom over them. 1 The war ended quickly which resulted in the collation forces defeating the Iraq army and the capture and execution of Saddam Hussein. Many questions then arise on the United Kingdom involvement in the war. This essay will examine why the United Kingdom participated and the consequence for both the United Kingdom and Iraq during the invasion, which links back to present day consequences to the UK.

On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"; sometimes called “the Bush Doctrine”, which is a justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. The United States wanted more control over the Middle East and the oil that could be obtained there; all they needed was an excuse to go to war and in turn be able to obtain resources. After 9/11 Bush had his excuse; Al Qaeda. Weaving a trail of propaganda and fear through the media with false information, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in pursuit of his form of hegemonic internationalism. The reasons broadcasted by the White House claimed that Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq in 2002) was building weapons of mass destruction and promoting/supporting terrorism which made him a grave threat to the western world. The real reason behind invading Iraq was to secure American access to vital resources, being oil. Iraq had been attacking Iran who was dangerously close to Saudi Arabia which is a huge supplier of oil to the United States. Once the United States had control of Iraq they installed a sympathetic “democratic” government which had eliminated the Iraqi threat to Saudi oil. Through the pursuit of hegemonic internationalism the United States had achieved one of its national interests, obtaining vital resources, but at a huge cost. Over 1 million

In August of 2002, the Bush administration’s position about Iraq had changed significantly. Prior to this point, the United States and other western countries had been arming Iraq with weapons of every type. The fact the United States and other countries had been arming Iraq with weapons, shows how little they considered Iraq to be a threat. This quickly changed. A debate on invading Iraq, held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, created