The decision to go to War with Iraq In the article “ the decision to go to war with Iraq” Pfiffner explains how the United States of America made its decision against the regime of Saddam Hussein. With much media coverage focusing on the complexities and victims of the war, we may think that we have the specifics and details of this war; however, many of the details of this war were hidden and not shared with the public. Furthermore, disagreements in the international community and within the American public about the wisdom of war with Iraq were mirrored in divisions within the U.S. The article clarifies the roles of those who decided the course of action, their relationship with each other, and the political and historical issues influencing …show more content…
It is substantial to understand that there was a significant difference of opinions among these diverse groups. On the pro-war side were the neocons and the political leadership of the bush administration: VP Cheney, secretary of defense Rumsfeld and his deputy Wolfiwutz .the neocons were convinced that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to U.S and they were optimistic about the ability of the U.S military action to establish a democratic government in Iraq with beneficial consequences for the middle east.at first Bush was against the decision to go to war with Iraq, but after 9/11, bush adopted the neocons vision of how national security policy should deal with the threat. However, The author argues the decision was made to rectify the profound mistake that was made by the first Bush administration. On the other side were the skeptics about the likelihood that war to depose Saddam Hussein would lead to democracy for Iraq as well as those who were dubious about some of the claims the administration made about Saddams’s WMD. The skeptic included many democrats and member’s of George H.W.Bush’s administration and some military leaders in the professional officer corps. The author points out some democrats supported the resolution because of their fear that a negative vote could be used …show more content…
Even when evidence shows that the investigation teams discovered that Iraq was neither involved in the terrorist attacks of 9/11 nor it had weapons of mass distraction. Furthermore, when the CIA presented intelligence request that was made by the administration to evaluate the level of threat posed by Iraq, Dick Cheney and his advisers pressured analysts to change their data and conclusions to support the administration's decision. When analysts refused to change their presented data, Donald Rumsfeld circumvented the established institutions of intelligence by creating an office of special plans. While rushing to war the administration made serious mistakes, they failed to accurately evaluate how the invasion will affect the infrastructure and the psych the Iraqi people. Ancient treasures were stolen, Utilities and services were severely impacted in the final outcome of the war decision were :(1) resources that were supposed to fight against terrorist are now diverted to fight in Iraq;(2) many nations were alienated by a hostile foreign U.S policy and (3) the number of extremists increased in the middle east. Such outcomes could have been avoided if the United States administration pursued
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
In conclusion, President George Bush’s letter shows how united the world is against Iraq’s aggression. Twenty-eight countries would give military aid and one hundred governments would agree with the United States position. Iraq has no allies in their takeover of Kuwait. Bush’s threats of military action challenge Saddam Hussein’s arrogance and sense of infallibility. Warnings of the destruction of Iraq’s military and loss of life would be on the hands of Hussein himself. The United States would not be responsible for Iraq’s losses. Again, the primary audience for this letter is Hussein himself, because in a dictatorship such as Iraq, the people themselves are deprived of such information. Brute
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
United States policy towards the Iran-Iraq war was interesting to say the least. While the United States claimed to be a neutral party, they supported Iraq for the majority of the war, supported Iran for a brief period, then went back to only supporting Iraq. Both sides committed numerous atrocities and war crimes, and for the most part received little to no American condemnation. Through this essay, I will explore the reasons for the US involvement, and their responses to a number of war crimes, particularly Iraq’s use of chemical weapons throughout the war.
Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation.
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
Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died
With presidential insight overlooking Iraq’s government with a fine tooth comb, the Bush Administration decided to turn to public support as a means to increase the awareness in Iraq. This attention was based off the defiance amongst Iraq, and the United Nation (UN) ability to provide full access inside the country of Iraq. As public concern grew on the topic of Iraq, so did the presidential tone and manner when comparing Iraq to “the central front in the War on Terror.” This began a political push from leaders in and outside the U.S. to implement harsher penalties on Iraq or any country that didn’t obey UN weapons inspections (resolution 1441). The resolution 1441 stated that if UN inspection was ever detoured from leaders in the country would be subjected to war. Another country siding with the Bush administration to dissimulate and destroy the Baathist regime in Iraq was Britain and its Prime Minister Tony Blair.
This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.
The leading question on our mind is “Should the United States have gone to war with Iraq”? A majority of individuals believe that President George W. Bush was not being the person everyone was reliant on in 2001 when he confirmed war on Iraq. After war was declared, the world transformed immensely, even more than what people thought it would. It is clear that going to war with Iraq was a bad choice and only made the situation worse.
Over the years it has been an often heated and debated issue on whether the United States could have entered the war sooner and therefore have saved many lives. To try to understand this we must look both at the people’s and the government’s point of view.
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.
More so than an anti-American feeling, Sachs illuminated the very real dangers that the war may have brought about. If one boils down Bush’s motives to the crux, his decision to go to war was, in essence, a rash one, fuelled by a blow to his patriotic pride. As Sachs points out, he did not consider the very real potentiality that troops would have uncovered nukes—weapons which if launched could be hazardous to not only American troops but to anyone in range (Sachs 2003). Furthermore, the war created enemies for the United States across the
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