Saddam Hussein Ideology

By definition, Islam is a religion of those who obey the doctrines of the Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad, who in the 7th century lived in Arabia, initiated a religious movement that throughout the Middle East was supported by the Arabs. Today, not only in Middle East origins, Islam has adherents, where it is the dominant religion in all countries (Non-Arab, and Arab), but also in other parts of Africa, Asia and, of course, as well as in the United States. Those who are loyal to Islam are called Muslims. The Sunni, Shiite conflict in Iraq started long before the ruling of Saddam Hussein, but when Hussein became Prime Minister of the country the conflict between the two religious sects was taken to a new level. Right when Hussein gained full power, under his control, began years of persecution of the Shiite Muslims in the country. But, before this happened, the conflict was based upon Muhammad and who was to rule after he had died. When Muhammad had died there were many disputes on who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad after his death in 632. Shiites believed that the prophet’s son-in-law, Ali, was to be the successor. Both consider the Koran the word of God. But, devoutness and religious practice distinguish between the two sects. However, Islam teaches that all Islam is equal so Sunni and Shiite sects fight with each other not only because of “hatred” but, also because of religious

The Bush administration's National Security Strategy was a product of America’s belief in American interventionism and exceptionalism, and marked a dramatic shift in the United State's foreign policy. In addition, it showcased the Bush administration’s push to find answers to 9/11. In the few years after the tragedy, the US would seek to strike a blow in the war on terror in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist regime had supposed ties to terror groups such as Al-Qaeda. The nation quickly moved to war, and invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003. However, even though the war was quickly declared over, the continued deaths of American troops in Iraq gave rise to powerful protests. Artist Joe Wezoreck’s collage War President, critiques the continued stay of American troops in Iraq. Once Iraqi accounts of the war, such as Wendell Steveanson’s collection of stories “Dispatches from Iraq” surfaced, the American public truly began to question the real purpose behind the Iraq war. These sources initiated the changing perception of the American identity as a bastion of freedom and democracy as a result of the Iraq war. In the end, the Iraq war ultimately failed to provide answers to a post 9/11 nation, and instead revealed the flaws of interventionism and muddled American foreign policy to the disillusioned American

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.

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.

When one thinks of Iraq war, the two key players are perceived to be George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. As leaders of the opposing sides, they are also perceived as the decision makers. In the individual and sub group levels of analysis, toppling of the Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a success. This success

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

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 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

Following the events of September 11th, President Bush was looked to as a leader to lead the country out of chaos. “In the weeks after the attack, Bush’s approval rating rose to 90 percent—the highest recorded job-approval rating in U.S. presidential history” ( millercenter). Nowadays however, Bush is often criticized for the actions he took during the invasions. “The Bush administration’s strategy had been to reduce the U.S. military presence as Iraq’s stability improved. Yet the goal proved unattainable, owing in part to the power vacuum left by the dismantling of the Iraqi army and the rise of sectarian violence within the two dominant strains of Islam in Iraq” (millercenter). Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but many blame the Bush Administration for the power vacuum created in the Middle East. Bush’s foreign policy typically surrounded a strong use of force and led to increase in terrorism surveillance creating a discussion that is hotly debated today Following the end of Bush’s second term, Barack Obama had won the presidency and the work in the Middle East was far from over. Obama proved to have a different ideology from Bush, wanting to remove troops from the Middle East, something he

Before the American intervention, Iraq was safer and wealthier. It was a relatively wealthy nation in the 70’s to the 80’s, until Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran. After the war, Iraq needed a lot of money to help fix it’s main infrastructure. He was accused by locals of not spending to fix the infrastructure, instead spending money on a lavish lifestyle, including construction of palaces for himself. Saddam Hussein's autocracy gave base camps, working bases, and other backing to terrorists battling the administrations of neighboring Turkey and Iran, and in addition to hard-line Palestinian organizations. Amid the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam charged a few fizzled terrorist assaults on U.S. offices. Preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department recorded Iraq as a

The Iraq War was a conflict that lasted from 2003-2011, and many gave their lives to see this conflict end. While many supported the war at the beginning, opinions of the war quickly began to change as to whether the war was justifiable. Many who supported the war justified it saying the war routed out terrorist and brought stability to the region, but opponents argued that the war generated more violence and destabilized the area. There are several points for each reason, and both opinions are valid. However, the majority of opinions at the beginning say that going into the Iraq War made no mistakes, but five years later, the public opinion said that going into Iraq was a mistake (Evans, 2009). Then a few more years

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