Annotated Bibliography On The Iraq War

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

What triggered the Iraq War that we are currently still having? During this time in history we were still in the cold war as well Cold War (1945–1991), a lot of events has happened during this time period. I am going to start with the Iran-Iraq war which started in 1980 and ended in 1988. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. (Wikipedia, Iran–Iraq War, 2011). This war had at least a million and half casualties and it severely damaged both their economies, the Iran-Iraq war conflict is often

Bush, asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), multiple Iraqi human rights violations stemming from the WMDs, and the suspected Iraqi support for al-Qa’ida, who had been previously chased out of Afghanistan. After the initial invasion, however, U.S.-led Coalition Forces were unable to locate any significant evidence of WMDs. Back in the U.S., investigative committees subsequently concluded that Iraq possessed no WMDs and did not harbor any connections to terrorist organizations. Moreover, Hussein had been successful at evading capture despite an intensive manhunt, and U.S. forces seemingly were unable to play a domestic security role, further leading to the dissolution of Iraqi security services and ushering in widespread looting and disorder. This highlighted that the invasion of Iraq was not be an easy victory as originally surmised. Since that time, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion of Iraq to groupthink, a theory that has recently become a staple in understanding foreign policy disasters, there is little literature that has been applied to the rationality of the decision to invade and whether groupthink influenced the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper will seek to examine the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq and the clearly failed planning for the occupation of the

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

Zunes, Stephen. "A U.S. Invasion of Iraq Is Not Justified." The Nation 275 (30 Sept. 2002): 11. Rpt. in Is Military Action Justified Against Nations Thought to Support Terrorism? Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document

Censorship of war information in the United States between the mid twentieth and early twenty-first centuries has changed drastically. The role, methods and freedom of the media fundamentally changed between World War II and the first Iraq War in the early 2000’s. During World War II, citizens´ options for obtaining information, in general, and especially about the war, was extremely limited. All of these options were heavily controlled and censored accordingly at the Federal government’s discretion. In contrast to this, by the time of the first Iraq War, citizens had many more ways to get information and investigate the status of the war effort. The

Why did America invade Iraq in 2003 and how does it affect today's world? The Iraq war started with President George W. Bush on Thursday, March 20, 2003, and end with President Barack Obama on Sunday, December 18, 2011, when the last troops were ordered to pull out. Although the Iraq war officially ended in 2011, many long-lasting effects of the war have yet to be adequately addressed by the United States. The Iraq war was not only the catalyst for increased instability in the middle east but also created vast terrorist networks, which eventually became ISIS, as well as an enormous economic and societal cost due to the war. The damage caused by the Iraq war ranges from an increase in a common anti-American sentiment to corruption in the Iraqi

CERF, CHRISTOPHER AND SIFRY, MICAH L., THE IRAQ WAR READER: HISTORY, DOCUMENTS, OPINIONS, SIMON & SCHUSTER, NEW YORK, 2007.

The United States initiated Operation Iraqi Freedom on 20 March 2003, without NATO approval, beginning with targeted bombing of Iraq, and soon a full-scale invasion. This has proved to become an unpopular war, for some because of the motivations behind it or because of the perceived lack of progress in Iraq, attributed to “enemy body counts and casualty ratio data” which “is quantifiable and commonly viewed by the public as a reasonable indicator of success (or, more likely, failure)” (Boettcher and Cobb 2006: 833). It also damaged the United States’ international standing because the war in Afghanistan “was followed by the deeply controversial Iraqi war of 'shock and awe' which fractured the international legal order so carefully crafted in the crucible of Lake Success in 1945” (Steyn 2004: 7).

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.

Towards the beginning of Emma Sky’s memoirs of her time working as a representative and advisor to the United States government in Iraq, she writes of one day in 2003 when the people of the city of Kirkuk, where she was stationed, whispered frantic rumors of a Jihadi infiltration of the city. To allay those fears, Colonel William Mayville, Commander of the U.S. Army 's 173rd Airborne Brigade in Kirkuk, prepared a media statement for the city. The speech was entitled “to the People of Kirkuk Province.” What its generic name would not betray, Sky notes, is that the speech was a carbon copy of one given nearly one hundred years before, entitled “Proclamation of Baghdad,” issued to the inhabitants of Baghdad by Lieutenant General Stanley Maude after the British military occupation of the city. The Unraveling is rife with references to the history of 20th century military interventions like this one. The irony of such a feature of Sky’s book is that while she understands the Iraq War in its proper historical context – a military intervention preceded by tens just like it throughout the 20th century, with real lessons to be learned from them – the United States government, which organized the war effort, crucially did not.

On March 20, 2003, the combined military forces of the United States and Britain crossed the southern border of Iraq and Kuwait with the intent of capitulating the government of Saddam Hussein. Over the course of 21 days, the joint task force moved quickly and decisively to seize major objective cities along the road to Baghdad using aviation, armor, artillery, and infantry. Following the overwhelming success of the primary combat operations of the invasion, stability and support systems proved insufficient as sectarian violence and other criminal activity among the local population of Iraq increased.

After the gulf wars, a ceasefire was negotiated between the United Nations coalition and Iraq. During the ceasefire, the United Nations became aware that Iraq had started a biological warfare program in the 1980s, as well as a chemical warfare program. Upon further investigation, they found that these programs had not continued after the war. As a result, the United States main focus moving forward was the removal of the Saddam regime, their official foreign policy for years to come focused on this goal. With the suspicions that Saddam Hussein had the abilities to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration going as far as to claim he already had them, the United States and other countries began devising a plan of action. These countries strongly believed that Iraq was a treat to its neighbors and the rest of the world, and that the only solution was to invade Iraq. The United States invading Iraq in 2003 was a turning point in the reason why relationship between Iraq and the United States is the way it is today.

In order to fully interpret the nation of Iraq’s holistic condition during and after the Saddam Era, Social, Political, and Economic factors must be weighed accordingly and in contrast to each other. In order to do this, the span of years leading up to 1989, and