Iraq Military Intelligence Analysis

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

Tribal sovereignty is a highly debated concept and an important aspect of Native American society. It refers to a tribe’s power to govern itself, manage its membership, and regulate tribal relations. As Joanna Barker stated, “Sovereignty carries the awful stench of colonization.” Tribal sovereignty must be traced to the beginning of colonization in North America. Colonizing nations asserted sovereignty over indigenous people and took away their independent status. The term “tribal sovereignty” carries with it multiples meanings and implications for tribal nations (Cobb, 2005).

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

Following the attacks in America on September 11, 1999, there was a public outcry for justice throughout the country. Even with significant public support to wage war against Iraq, there was not enough reason to persuade congress. Over the course of two years, President George W. Bush proved that there was a purpose in the war, not only seek vengeance against terrorism; but, gift a people freedom from dictatorship. Yet, there were still downsides to war including inevitable loss of American life and damaged reputation for our country. For that reason, the United States of America should not have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 due to the extensive federal funding for undesirable warfare which took away from domestic prosperity, the preventable injury to veterans as well as violence against civilians, and the country’s damaged reputation achieved due to the illegitimacy of the war.

The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. Notably, one of the most crucial wars was the War on Terror. Beginning in March of 2003, this war initially served the purpose of getting rid of the country 's leader Saddam Hussein to prevent his use of suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was best-known as a Middle Eastern ruler with a violent regime. He governed Iraq from 1979 until his capture in 2003when President Bush presumed he was harboring chemical weapons such as synthetic warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. While politics justified invading Iraq, the conflict between the U.S. and Iraq began long before the war. In the post-election leading up to the war, political officials such as George Bush attested repeatedly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a danger to the U.S. and other targets. Bush sold the war to Americans by attesting these cases of threat to Americans openly with supreme certainty. The United States of America should not have invaded Iraq as it allowed the establishment of government power and democracy without evidence under prior resolutions, increased violence, and forced American citizens to inquire significant debt including the injuries and hardships sustained by U.S. soldiers.

Cheryn Shin A4 February 9, 2015 US Literature Second Research Paper Final The Similarities between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War A haunting set of similarities exist between the Vietnam War and the Iraq War. Both wars killed many American soldiers, and both were increasingly disapproved by the rest of the world as the wars continued. Both had large, economically driven motives: In Iraq, some Americans had their eyes on oil while in Vietnam, industrialists wanted access to markets and the opportunity of nation building.

Tribe, described by the dictionary as, “Any aggregate of people united by ties of descent from a common ancestor, community of customs and traditions”, can cause many people to often tumble into disagreement with one another over the meaning of this word. Arguments have lead people to believe that the word tribe refers to a group of people that are primitive and savage, but Archeologists have cleaned up the meaning. Archaeologists define the word tribe as, “A political group that comprises several bands or lineage groups, each with similar language and lifestyle and each occupying a distinct territory” (Keim, pg. 114). The word “tribe” not only applies to the Native Americans as one would think. Tribe can be a label applied to any specific

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.

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

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

In recent years, the Iraqi nation has endured a crisis that will forever remain in the hearts and minds of the Middle Eastern culture. However, the outcomes of the War on Iraq will not change the long-lasting and passionate traditions and memories that have been held in the country for decades. One major event that happened in Iraq’s history is that on October 3, 1932 Iraq was established as an independent nation. Iraq has always been a country in which respect and generosity have been highly valued and play an important cultural role in everyday life. Additionally, approximately ninety-five percent of Iraqis are Muslim, and therefore Islam is the official religion of this nation (Gutierrez 1). Furthermore, Iraq is a

Death, decay, crime, war, and other horrors are at the center of Hayder Al-Mohammad’s “You Have Car Insurance, we have Tribes.” The author’s intended subject, tribes, and more specifically how they are as the author says, waxing in Iraq, however, is only briefly discussed in the article, which focuses more on the city of Basra Iraq. While the Al-Mohammad does look at historical aspects of the city of Basra through the lens of tribalism, he fails to construct a reasonable argument for why tribes are needed in modern Iraq, or for that matter, in general. This is because he commits several sins in authorship, including mixing personal experience with historical fact, self-contradiction, and switching between third and first-person writing.