Explain the Causes and Consequences of the Iraq War

The Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, took place in 2003 and dragged on for almost nine years, until the withdrawal of US troops in December 2011. The invasion was justified by the US using the new National Security Strategy that was proposed by the Bush administration. One of the key features of the National Security strategy was the justification that the US could preemptively strike targets nations that it deemed a threat to the security of the US. In order to justify the invasion of Iraq, the governmental leaders in the US claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaeda and other terror groups, as well as using Saddam’s use of chemical weapons as legitimization for the war. Once the war began on March 20, 2003, the original

Invading Iraq was—and remains—a highly debated and controversial decision within both world politics and the academic disciplines of politics and international relations. With a growing number of deaths, rising tensions in the Middle East, and a failure to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the voices condemning the Bush administration have been increasing ever since the decision to go to war was announced. While many scholars have traditionally argued against the war, this paper will argue that the Iraq War can be justified.

The Iran-Iraq War, taking place from 1980-1988, started when Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein, tried to invade Iran, sparking an armed war between the two countries. This war had many effects on the oil industry, led to many weapon innovations in Iraq, showed the world who Saddam Hussein was, and how the treaty with the United Nations affected the world.

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

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

The first step in establishing an Iraqi threat was to demonstrate that Iraq possessed WMD, meaning chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver these weapons. The possession of these weapons would be in direct violation of U.N. resolutions put into effect after the Gulf War and hopefully justify any use of force under international law. Time and time again the Bush administration put forth statements that, “Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving even closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” In February of 2003, one month before the U.S. waged war on Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell brought the administration’s case for war before the United Nations Security Council in an effort to garner U.N. support for an effort to disarm Iraq. By one count, “Powell made twenty-nine claims about Iraqi weapons, programs, behaviors,

…The U.S. began the Iraq war with the goal of ridding the region of a tyrannical government that didn’t protect its people. However, a decade later, at the conclusion of the U.S. military mission in Iraq, the people are perhaps worse off than they were before 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

What motivated the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 despite strong opposition from the international community? On one side, the administration maintains that the invasion was necessary to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In his memoir “Decision Points”, Bush argued that Saddam posed too much of a threat–he brutalized his own people, violated international demands, and sponsored terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. On the opposing side, critics of the war argue that the Bush administration used the 9/11 terrorist attack and the threat of WMDs to justify waging an illegal war against Iraq in order to extract Iraqi oil to fund the military-industrial complex, to secure Israel, and to “finish the job” of deposing Saddam. While these explanations for the invasion have some merit, they are problematic because they fail to capture the extent of the administration’s actual ambitions. An analysis of how individuals on Bush’s administration, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, viewed the world reveals that the invasion of Iraq was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of and necessity for preemptive action, overthrow Saddam, and transform the Middle East. However, what was perceived to be a quick and easy operation to stabilize the Middle East and secure America’s interest backfired and turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists.

On September 11, 2001, America was changed forever. The Islamist group al-Qaeda hijacked four planes and attacked both towers of the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon, as well as an attack on the White House which ended with the plane crashing into a field in Pennsylvania. Approximately a month after the attack, President Bush declared the War on Terror. This led to the Afghanistan War and the Iraq War. The citizens of the United States had many mixed feelings about whether or not we should even go to war with Iraq; some were hesitant while others agreed with President Bush. In this essay, I will be explaining the arguments for and against the war and then state my own opinion on whether we should have or shouldn’t have gone to war.

Administration officials gave a lot of speeches and interviews trying to persuade Americans that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction scope make an unacceptable threat. In October 2002, the US Congress submitted war against Iraq. Bush expected a similar vote from the UN Security Council. President did so for instrumental reasons—a UN permission would maintain domestic political support and put more tension on Baghdad. However, Bush did not believe, that he really needed the UN’s blessing to go to war. When that blessing didn’t appeared, the United States, with the support of a ‘coalition of the willing’ that was consisted primarily of Britain’s and to a lesser extent Australia’s and Poland’s troops, invaded Iraq in March

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.

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 this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.