Problems Facing Iraq At The Time

The lack of clear and well thought strategy in addition to the lack of knowledge and understanding of the Iraqi people lead to the failure in Iraq, which materialized in the form of ISIS.

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.

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

Saddam Hussein's Baathist Party military was dismantled and left many soldiers homeless and anger, leading them to join jihadist groups. “Iraq is not a

…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

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

In 1996, the United States was struggling with the Iraq Disarmament Crisis, as Iraq continued to deny inspectors access to a multiple of sites. The U.S. fails in its attempt to build military support to investigate Iraq and aid the United Nations Council. From this event many people seen flaws in the department of defense and decided they wanted a reform in the chain of command. Many believed that the department of defense needed a lot of changes since it was created in 1947. William Cohen decided to write a new policy for the department of defense to reform and restore the department of defense. He felt that by passing this Act that it could help better protect his Americans that he represents.

     Another effect of the Iraqi war is crime. Ever since the war ended, there seems more crime in the streets of Baghdad. The city seems worst now than before the war and even during the war. A doctor stated in Hasslberg, “This is a city where 1200 criminals are on the loose.” (4). There are still battles everywhere between Iraqis, American, and British. We

When Americans speak about the Iraq war, they mention the number of soldiers, the number of casualties, and the enemy that we fought. People fail to recognize the importance of the “Angels of the battlefield”, the nurses. Nurses were a crucial piece of our military because they cared for our wounded soldiers. This, in turn, reduced the number of casualties as a cause of the war. For my research paper, I will find the effects of the Iraq war on Nurses. I will speak on the roles and experiences of nurses during and after the Iraq war during 2003 all the way to 2011. I will first speak on the different roles that nurses had. This will include the different levels of modern combat care, and statistics about the nurses. Next, I will examine the experiences that the nurses had

Following defeat in 1991, where US Air Land Battle doctrine and “second offset” technological advantage were demonstrated effectively, Hamdani recommended transforming Iraqi land forces from “heavy mechanised” to “light infantry” with focus on “guerrilla war” to counter US air power dominance. However, Saddam was in denial viewing the “Mother of All Battles” a victory; this was logical to him – he remained in power when his enemy was no longer POTUS and he still had a military with the world’s largest Arab army. He regarded internal (coup, Shia) and regional (Iran, Israel) threats ahead of external (US) threats with “the possibility of … American invasion … nonsense.” Having successfully quelled in March 1991what he perceived as the greatest danger to his regime, an internal uprising, he intended to maintain the military capability proven to ensure “the internal security of the Ba’ath dictatorship” ; viewing change unnecessary. But he was wrong: the US threat was credible and his military was not fit to counter it. Nonetheless there was no transformation. The regime complied with his will, coerced by fear. Saddam’s draconian leadership created a culture of deceit. Most feared for their lives and ‘toed the Ba’ath Party line’ with lying becoming commonplace across government and the military. “The resulting personal and organizational paranoia profoundly affected how Iraq addressed its strategic and military problems.” This negatively affected Iraqi military readiness and planning. To the contrary, Hamdani, viewed as a competent officer with ‘top cover’ from

Iraq has been involved with civil unrest and war for decades. I believe that the physical, economical, political, social and psychological effects of this ongoing conflict have perpetuated a cycle of conflict through insurgency groups such as ISIS. The citizens of Iraq grew up in an era of conflict, I believe that as a result of this, they have been desensitized to war and conflict, and instead of a rare occurrence, they view it as a necessary means for survival, a way of life.

SOCIALLY, following the war with Iran in 1988, Iraq was ranked 50 in the 1990 UNDP Human Development Index, which measures national success in education, GDP, and health. Iraq was nearing the top of the middle range of countries in regard to the implementation of basic social services and infrastructure. However, under Saddam’s rule, the prosecution of Shiites and Kuwaitis was a normal occurrence. Called by some a genocide, the period of murder, terror, and persecution faced by these groups was the foundation for a long-lasting unrest within the hearts and minds of Iraqi citizens. The rest of the Iraqi citizens, however, lived normal, comfortable lives. In the late 20th century, many traveled from afar to utilize and learn from Iraq’s intricate network of hospitals and social centers regarded as the best in the region. (CIA 2) However, constant war drained Iraq’s wealth and decimated its people. In the Iraq-Iran War, Saddam Hussein unwillingly forced Iraq into a disastrous attempt to overthrow the Islamist government in Iran. When the dust settled, over 200,000 Iraqis were dead, and more than twice this number were wounded. Iraq’s increasing debt, nearing about 75 Billion, soon had the Arab

While the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980's may have permanently altered the course of progress in Iran and Iraq, the war also altered the resulting permanent involvement of the rest of the world in the middle-east. The rich and complicated history in Iraq has established numerous cultural and ethnic traditions that all play a part in where the country is today. The Iran-Iraq War brought into focus some of those traditions and how they conflicted, while also bringing Iraq and its economic situation into the spotlight. Being on top of some of the most mineral rich soil in the world makes Iraq a major contributor to the world's economy through petroleum and crude oil exports. This, among other reasons, ties nations

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.