The Bush Administration's Contribution To The Iraq War

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.

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.

In 2003 America engaged in a war with Iraq because we suspected that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. The American Federal Government did not want there to be a chance that terrorist groups could gain access to these weapons and then use them against us or some other unprepared country so President George Bush waged a war against them which was very different from our stance in World War II. During that time, we tried almost everything we could to avoid joining in the war. But after we were violently attacked by Japan in Pearl Harbor, we figured there was no way to avoid going into war now. We had just cause and the necessary military forces to fight back, so we did. We joined the

The invasion of Iraq was held on March of 2003 and initiated the war of Iraq, the American occupation of Iraq has cost America thousands lives, thousand seriously wounded, and approximately $900 billion, and has negatively affected American interests throughout the world. The costs are not over. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq was promoted by America it was a polemical historical event in our society and around the world. Detractors against the war differed with the resolution of George W. Bush, President of the United States, to go to conflict with Iraq. While activists, pro-war supported his declaration for the invasion. Opponents of the invasion made claims that the war was a mistake “To invade Iraq without the U.N’s approval, because we think

Which decision making shortcuts or biases can you observe in this case? Explain your answer.

The George W. Bush administration was riddled with many tragic events, from natural disasters to terrorist attacks, and economic hardships that made lasting impressions of the American peoples’ perceptions of our government and the world outside of the United States’ boundaries. The six people who conducted this research, George Shambaugh, Richard Matthew, Roxane C. Silver, Bryan McDonald, Michael Poulin, and Scott Blum, set out to discover how the before mentioned events effected the group unit of analysis, “U.S. Public”, views towards our government, the media, terrorism, and their overall outlook on America’s future. It had appeared that they had the predetermined notion that because of terrorist attacks and natural disasters the U.S. public would be pessimistic and afraid foreign countries. Other suggested hypothesis were that peoples’ independent identities affect their perception of national and personal threat, outlook for the future, trust in the government, and approval of policies passed in our nation’s difficult times in a way that creates a noticeable divide at these identities. Although, neither of these hypothesis seem to be true.

Seamus Heaney’s adaptation of Sophocles Antigone takes inspiration from the foreign policies of George Bush’s administration, (McElroy. S, 2007 NYT). This is most notably seen through the character Creon and how he dictates to the people. Sophocles version of Antigone was written at a time shortly before Sophocles became one of ten generals that led a military expedition against Samos. I am going to be looking at the scene in which Creon and Haemon argue over Antigone and ultimately part on bad terms. I am choosing this scene because the themes of family loyalty, authority and war are easily defined here, alike at the time of writing the original script, the Theban society valued family and loyalty above all else, they were also often at war.

Pffiner concisely explains the decision to go to war with Iraq in his article “The decision to go war with Iraq,” and 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, the the informations that we have would-be inaccurate and incomplete.

The Iraq war cost twice as much as the war in Afghanistan, and more than 16 times as much as the Bush administration predicted. The Pentagon allotted 1.4 trillion dollars for the war . Past wars have been paid for by taxes and war bonds but current wars were paid for by borrowing. This borrowing dug a huge hole that we, as a country, cannot get out of. The costs of war don't end when the fighting stops. $160 billion has already been spent on medical care and disabilities for more than two million veterans of this war. With interest, over the next our decades could grow into $6 trillion dollars of debt. There was also an estimated $60 billion squandered on fraud and

American support for the Bush administration’s post-war strategy has also waned. Most Americans still argue that the United States should stay involved in Iraq. However, a growing number of Americans have demonstrated “increasing pessimism about the reconstruction effort,” while many more want the UN or another multilateral body to assume responsibility for post-war Iraq.(3) In many ways, Americans are coming to the realization that they will be financially responsible for Iraq’s reconstruction, security, and political transformation for several years. The U.S. Senate has held a number of hearings on post-war developments and senators from both political parties have strongly expressed doubts concerning the Bush administration’s efforts, describing

The essay will begin with the problem at the grounds of security, including direct security of the vicinity via the procedure to disarm Saddam Hussein’s regime of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, and the goal to sell balance within the region thru the religion in of democracy to engender the peace and the conditions for development and perception that democracy could spread across borders. The agency for the safety of american oil resources can be looked at. As every of those goals are discussed, i'm able to evaluate their successes and screw ups, on the way to then be summarised and put together so that it will decide in which methods the united states was rich in Iraq, and in what methods the us-led struggle didn't meet its goals

One reason the decision to invade Iraq was not economically responsible is that the invasion of Iraq caused the United States’ economy to fall apart faster. According to Diane Mermigas in her 2003 article in Television Week, “Recent weeks have seen significant declines in such critical economic indicators as consumer confidence, consumer spending, new home sales and capital spending” ([1]). This economic downturn can be linked to the war in Iraq in two ways. First, the war in Iraq has cost the United States’ economy trillions of dollars. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert says that “the war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more” ([1]). A fact of life that will never change is that wars cost money, and

Thank you for your comment! Now for the response… (My apologies for this will be extensive).

The basic levels of analysis start at the individual level. This is done by locating the sources of behaviors and outcomes of the characteristics and natural tendencies of people. Examples of the variables would be one’s perceptions, personality, and preferences. By using these variables, one can analyze the effects those individuals will have on the policies. In the war in Iraq, we can analyze the individual role George W. Bush had as the President of the United States. Because the President viewed Saddam Hussein as aggressive and dangerous, Bush chose to declare war against them in order to prevent further attacks. George W. Bush’s personality as a protector and a leader would cause him to feel the need to protect his country, and also the allies of the United States. He saw the signs of aggression as acts of hostility and proceeded to intervene on the Iraqi situation.

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.