Containment Policy : A Strategy For The Middle East

After years, the US must withdrawal troops from Iraq, but leaving behind is a shattered and exhausted country with no longer a war land but peace has not seen. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was not only destroyed the regime, but also destroyed the internal security and order. It has been promoted the rise of the forces of al-Qaeda terrorists and the sparking an outbreak of conflict ethnic conflicts, sectarian. The Bush Administration rested its public case for war against Iraq on two putative threats – Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda. In hindsight, the Bush Administration should have planned much better such as strategy of exiting, released convincing evidences about Iraq’s possession of WMDs, whether Iraq was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks or maybe, ultimately stayed out of the

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

In the World War II, two super power and allies, the United States and Soviet Union fought together with different reasons. The United States wanted stop Nazi-German, but the Soviet Union wanted absolute control of the Eastern Europe countries. These differences brought tension to the relationship between them, which Americans started to concern about Joseph Stalin, the Russian leader.

The war in Iraq lasted for eight years and resulted in many casualties; the cost of the war was tremendous. The reason for the war changed as time went by, starting with getting rid of weapons of mass destruction and then, when the weapons of mass destruction were not found, the name changed to Iraqi Freedom. A debate between two writers that emerged of the war in Iraq shows different perspectives. Writer John Mueller, who holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at Ohio State University, makes the case against war on Iraq. Also, writer Brink Lindsey, who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is in favor of this war. This paper will examine the perspectives as reported by both John Mueller and Brink Lindsey as they argue about the case of the United States invading Iraq. I will conclude from the evidence that the war on Iraq was unnecessary and counterproductive because it increased not decreased the terrorism, refugee crises, cost lives and money without achieving any of its objectives.

The US policy of containment and the idea of “us vs them” guided our decisions through the Cold War. The US wanted to stop the spread of communism throughout the world and would do anything to stop it. The tension between the US and the Soviet Union was growing because of the idea of “us vs them”. During the Cold War there was a sense that at any moment there could be nuclear war and there was a heightened fear of communism.

As of present, the state of Iraq is plagued with a myriad of problems, each of which must be taken into consideration when determining the best possible course of action for the United States. First, previous interventions, particularly those conducted by the United States, in Iraq must be considered in order to understand how a particular course of action in the current dilemma might play out. While the United States has played a role in Iraqi coups throughout the 20th century and assisting the Kurdish population in the north, the most decisive interventions began with the Persian Gulf War. The second is the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the third is the American-led intervention in Iraq against ISIS which is ongoing.

One of the largest decisions that the United States has faced under President Obama's reign has been what to do about the apparent and impending threat of the Islamic Nation. In fact many view many of the Islamic States actions as intentionally manipulated military strike aimed at provoking the United States into intervening Middle Eastern affairs. Their message is blatantly apparent through the strategic military strike upon the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, thus forcing the United States into defending their alliance with the Kurdistan nation. This strategic chess move has great advantages towards in a variety of circumstances for the Islamic Nation because any other decision other than military intervention would result in the advancement

It was in a speech made by the 33rd President of the United States of America, Harry Truman in which he announced a policy that would undoubtedly shape the way his nation would be looked at for much of the century (or at least the half of it that remained). It was in this speech that he announced his very own Doctrine, intended to "to support free people who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.”, to save the “free peoples” of Eastern Europe from the monster known as Communism, a political ideology born out of the Russian Revolution of 1917, that had spread somewhat like a plague, throughout the lands in the East, which Stalin and

1. As our brave men and women in uniform find themselves embroiled again in a conflict in the Middle East, debate surrounding the timeliness and necessity of this second Gulf conflict has ceased in most professional circles. However, before the current conflict began, controversy raged over when and how to best prosecute this situation. Many argued that the United States should have worked through the United Nations to pursue a resolution that had the consensus of the world behind it. That endeavor, however, was doomed to failure from the start. The United States sought to solve this dilemma using military force. France and Germany desired to diffuse it using anything but force. In order to

Many factors went into the decision of United States leaders to enter into war with Iraq in 2003. These reasons can be related to various classical and modern theories on the causes of war between states. Though there are several stances and viewpoints on the righteousness or legality of the war on Iraq, an objective eye will notice that the real factors for going to war are neither grounded in righteousness nor law. They involve the maintenance of peace and power for those in control, in this case, the United States.

Any discussion of U.S. Middle East policy is integral to the national political discourse. A presidential or congressional candidate has to prove her/his foreign policy knowledge on the campaign trail, but unfortunately the electorate is generally not informed enough to critically assess a candidate’s understanding, which risks giving our leaders virtually unchecked power to make policy in our name. An important part of educating young citizens in a democracy is to teach them the tools they will need to understand their nation’s foreign policy, past and present.

Complex and interrelated concerns led United States (US) decision-makers to undertake the 2003 invasion, and subsequent occupation, of Iraq by United States military forces. Preceding the invasion, justifications provided by the Bush administration centered around practical considerations for disrupting terrorist groups, eliminating any weapons of mass destruction threat posed by the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and the long-term prospect of establishing an example of democracy within the Middle East. However, during the early phases of the occupation, when it became clear that purported links between terrorist organizations and Iraq’s leader reflected questionable intelligence analysis, US leaders brought to the fore arguments regarding the spread of

American support for the Bush administration’s post-war strategy has also waned. Most Americans still argue that the United States should stay involved in Iraq. However, a growing number of Americans have demonstrated “increasing pessimism about the reconstruction effort,” while many more want the UN or another multilateral body to assume responsibility for post-war Iraq.(3) In many ways, Americans are coming to the realization that they will be financially responsible for Iraq’s reconstruction, security, and political transformation for several years. The U.S. Senate has held a number of hearings on post-war developments and senators from both political parties have strongly expressed doubts concerning the Bush administration’s efforts, describing

The Bush administration justified its military invasion of Iraq in 2003 with the practical considerations of eliminating weapons of mass destruction and their acquisition by terrorist groups, and the long-term prospects of Middle East peace resulting from the establishment of a functioning democracy within the region. US leaders began to emphasize arguments regarding the spread of democracy during the early phases of the occupation when purported links between terrorist organizations and Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program reflected questionable intelligence analysis. According to proponents who asserted a democratic domino theory, the example of Iraqi democracy would ultimately result in a peaceful and secure Middle East as other

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