The Argument About The War On Iraq

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 invasion and the war in Iraq remains a continuous topic of divisiveness and sensitivity in today’s America. One of the negative evaluation of the war is attributed to the false impression of the length of the war which lasted seven years, not six months as presumed in 2003. As the invasion initiated, the ideologies of American government then failed to perceive the large number of troops required, casualties and the financial toll in the interest of the preventive war doctrine. However, when weighing the failures of this war, there are successes brought home that relate mostly to the lessons the American military and the government learned with the use of counterinsurgency tactics after “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis (Young). Nevertheless, with evaluation through levels of analysis, the accomplished agenda of ending Saddam Hussein’s regime justifies success and failure, mutually.

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.

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

Zunes, Stephen. "A U.S. Invasion of Iraq Is Not Justified." The Nation 275 (30 Sept. 2002): 11. Rpt. in Is Military Action Justified Against Nations Thought to Support Terrorism? Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document

resident Bush announced in 2003 the intentions to invade Iraq, and dismantle Saddam Hussein’s regime "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." and from a state department's reason to go to war against Iraq “Defeated a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world.” These reasons led to thousands of dead on both sides, 612 Billion dollars, and another terror organization taken root. Originally in the 1980s, the U.S supported Saddam Hussein’s war against Iran and aided them with weapons, and money. During this period was when Saddam’s major human

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.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there has been a lot of controversy about the legality of the United Sates invasion. Many war critics claim that it was illegal and ones who caused or contributed to the war should be punished. There has also been many stories of war crimes committed in Iraq. Many soldiers have come back from war apologizing for what they have done.

There are definitely more credible sources that are against the Iraq War, but I am going to dive into the sources that are for the Iraq war first. One article that I found is titled “Justifications for the War” and the author is anonymous. The author first talks about the truce with Saddam Hussein that was sealed by the UN Resolutions 687 and how Hussein did not hold up some of these resolutions. One sentence that caught my attention written by the author is “Ultimately, the chief reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq was not, as critics later claimed, to find and dismantle

The Iraq war was a protracted armed conflict that began with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, by a united states-led coalition, which toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. The conflict continued for much of the next decade as an insurgency emerged to oppose the occupying forces and the post-invasion Iraqi government. An estimated 151,000 to 600,000 or more Iraqis were killed in the first 3-4 years of conflict. The United states based its rationale for war principally on the assertion that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraqi government posed and immediate threat to the United States and its coalition allies. Iraq war is a depiction that war creates havoc and destroy human life and should be avoided as they bring sadness and melancholy through an oral history “the 2000 Dead aren’t the Only Victims”, a newspaper article “2000 Dead: as Iraq Tours Stretch on, a Grim Mark”, a movie “American Sniper” and an image taken

The post 9/11 conflict in Iraq and the undeclared war in Vietnam both had a profound impact on the United States. These two military conflicts have been a source of contention among the American public for decades. These wars became tedious as a result of their longevity, both the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq lasted for almost a decade, and according to the US Department of Defense and Time magazine, those wars cost upwards of 100 billion dollars each. Another similarity between the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq is the high number of causalities. The Vietnam War has an estimated 1,353,000 casualty count that includes allied military deaths, NVA/VC military deaths, and civilians that died from both North and South Vietnam, from years 1965

The war against Iraq began on March 20, 2002, when the U.S lunched “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. This was after President Bush called Iraq part of an “axis of evil”, also calling the country dangerous which is threatening U.S with the world’s most destructive weapons. The major phase of the war began when U.S troops marched within 50 miles of Baghdad with heavy aerial attacks on Baghdad and other cities. After the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon which was believed to be the work of Al Qaeda, U.S was concerned about the security of the Untied States which lead to the war in Iraq. Even though U.S officials felt the war in Iraq is the main priority, but many people in U.S opposes the war which brings up a lot of controversial issues.

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 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.