The Bombing Of The Islamic Government Of Iran

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

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

With numerous opinions regarding whether the United States should continue airstrikes, re-send troops, or go another route, it is difficult to resolve the situation. Former Michigan representative Kerry Bentivolio’s thoughts that the removal of the United States’ troops from Iraq allowed the militant group easier access to overthrow the government is shared by many conservatives. Bentivolio (2009, para. 10) said in his address to congress

The start of the 2003 Iraq War has been debated by many historians. The arguments made by Krebs and Lobasz in their article “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11 - Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq” are very persuasive, as are the arguments made by David Lake in “What Caused the Iraq War?”. These arguments center around the mindset of the Bush Administration, which was fearful of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and eager to use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as rationale for war regardless of clear evidence. Other historians have presented considerable arguments as well, such as Debs and Monteiro, who argue that Iraq’s possibility of having nuclear weapons posed concern to the Bush administration. However, the best rationale for the start of the 2003 Iraq War combines the coercion model put forth by Krebs and Lobasz with the Lake assertion that the post-war rebuilding was not adequately considered. Krebs and Lobasz have the most salient arguments on manipulations of information, with insightful points regarding the motives of the Bush administration. Their points, however, aren’t complete as David Lake contains stronger information in certain parts of the debate. Lake adds important observations about Saddam’s inability to admit to not having nuclear weapons and the U.S.’s failure to estimate the costs of the post-war were key causes for the start of the war.

This quote by Pat Robertson works as a great illustration for how our nation reacted to the suicide attacks carried out by Al-Qaeda on United States soil. The initial reaction by political pundits and politicians alike was that the only cause of these attacks was due to a radical Islamic view on the world. However, in Robert A. Pape and James K. Feldman’s book Cutting the Fuse they try to analyze data on suicide bombing and try to determine what is the root cause of these violent acts. Their conclusions are the exact opposite of the rhetoric that was presented to the American public. Instead of blaming Islamic extremists, they instead come to the conclusion, “that military occupation is the main factor driving suicide terrorism” (Pape & Feldman 10). Furthermore, they also put forth the argument that our current military strategies involving military occupation are counter-productive because rather than deterring violence, it actually increases suicide-bombings committed against American forces. In this paper I will examine the conclusions Robert Pape and James Feldman have come to and will also analyze these conclusions in Cutting the Fuse with a belief that this text works to refute much of what the American public has been told.

What motivated the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 despite strong opposition from the international community? On one side, the administration maintains that the invasion was necessary to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In his memoir “Decision Points”, Bush argued that Saddam posed too much of a threat–he brutalized his own people, violated international demands, and sponsored terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. On the opposing side, critics of the war argue that the Bush administration used the 9/11 terrorist attack and the threat of WMDs to justify waging an illegal war against Iraq in order to extract Iraqi oil to fund the military-industrial complex, to secure Israel, and to “finish the job” of deposing Saddam. While these explanations for the invasion have some merit, they are problematic because they fail to capture the extent of the administration’s actual ambitions. An analysis of how individuals on Bush’s administration, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, viewed the world reveals that the invasion of Iraq was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of and necessity for preemptive action, overthrow Saddam, and transform the Middle East. However, what was perceived to be a quick and easy operation to stabilize the Middle East and secure America’s interest backfired and turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists.

September 11, 2001, started as a perfect day, but as the day went on, chaos and terror erupted in the streets of New York City. New York’s iconic World Trade Center fell victim to hijacked commercial airlines filled with innocent people. In 102 minutes, the world was forever changed by one of the worst attacks the United States has ever experienced. Many factors made the terrorist attacks of September 11th a day that is permanently etched into the hearts and minds of Americans.

"We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow", is a prominent quote from Henry John Temple, a British statesman who served twice as Prime Minister, well explains that the relationship between countries is bounded by interest. On the Middle East Issue, the United States shifted its position multiple times to guarantee its interests. US involvement in Iran-Iraq war is a typical example that demonstrates US ambitions of hegemony over control of the Mideast. Thus, Iran-Iraq War is not a war that indicates international harmony, but a contest of

The 2001 terrorist attack in the United States had negative social and economic effects in the country and generally stirred the peace of the citizens. Terrorism is a major threat to any sovereign country in the world including the United States where. There are other threats that influence the comfort and the interests of the residents of the United States in varying measures (Decker, 2001). The Department of Homeland Security is tasked with the protection of the people from any activity that influences their interests and prosperity in the country and elsewhere in the world. Since the 2001 attack that caused a major drawback in the political and social welfare of the people of America, measures have been taken to provide better

From the “shock and awe” invasion to the fall of the Hussein regime and the near half-million Iraqi civilian casualties, the Iraq war was one of the most complex and disastrous conflicts in modern US history. Though the Iraq war was made to appear as a defensive attack against terrorism and Saddam Hussein, and a plan to instill a much-desired democratic government, the underlying objectives and ulterior motives of the American government ultimately made the war in Iraq one of the most publicly opposed wars since Vietnam. The reasons American engaged in direct conflict with Iraq were largely unsupported and unverified, and many political statements had been massively inflated to justify the war and gain civilian support. Shortly after the invasion

To what extent was the United States attack on Afghanistan aimed directly at the Taliban?

The United States invasion of Iraq proved to be a catastrophic event. Aside from resulting in a high number of fatalities,the war also demolished stability in the Middle East. With that in mind, we can only wonder how the American people weren't able to foresee such events. The United Nations security Council foresaw some of the consequences. The question is why didn't America? The only difference between the United States and the rest of the first world at that time was the September 11th terrorist attacks on America just two years before the invasion of Iraq. The attack enable the spread of fear mongering throughout the country,strengthening the vulnerability of the American people. Succinctly, the decision to invade Iraq may have been affected by the September 11th attacks.

Iraq and its chemical attacks against the Kurds should have been a wake call for the United States and other western countries. Despite proof that Iraqi forces and leadership were not afraid of United Nations sanctions for using chemical weapons against civilians in a campaign of genocide, sales of dual-use equipment and supplies to Iraq continued. Even after the Halabja chemical attacks (1988) against the Kurds, No serious efforts were made by the United Nations nor numerous countries to curb the procurement of dual-use equipment by Iraq. From 1990 through 1996, UN member states were allowed a free hand in interpreting what goods they considered to be suitable for export to Iraq. (CIA 2007) Such a weak interpretation in inexcusable.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq has often been called a “liberal war”. Critics often refer to liberalism and the zone of peace as its main objective to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. However did the invasion of Iraq have other characteristics of liberalism? It can be deduce that the 2003 invasion of Iraq had distinctive characteristics of liberal internationalism. Therefore it is the purpose of this essay to define liberal internationalism and provide an analytical reasoning for why the invasion contended liberal internationalism principles.