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 introduction of 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 them with their decision. The article precisely points out the decision as “hardly neat or clear cut”(p.204). Pffner explains the roles off the stakeholders and their failure to identify the responsibilities and how they participated and implemented the decision to go to war. Many of them committed ethical violation and overstepped boundaries that caused a predicament to an ongoing public administration with serious consequences. This case may not present a solution to the current crisis in Iraq, but surely enough it will help learn To avoid future administrative disasters. …show more content…
It is substantial to understand that there was a significant difference of opinions among these diverse groups. Many of the presidents cabinet members where neoconservatives and eager to go to war, others openly advised the president against the decision. The author argues the decision was made to rectify the profound mistake that was made by the first Bush administration. The author points out democrats supported the resolution because of their fear that a negative vote could be used against them in the upcoming
Though many were opposed to military force, it was for many diferent reasons. Some thought that military force was not needed because the threats imposed by President Bush was in fact acknowledged by the Iraquian troops because they no longer were advancing in territory and no other territory was currently in danger of being invaded, and it would only be a matter of time before they withdrew thier troops. David Chandler in a letter to the la times wrote "The official reasons given by the bush adminastration for going to war in the Persian Gulf are not adequate to explain our agressive
During the past decade of military operations combating terrorism, members of the U.S. government have thoroughly debated the power of the President and the role of Congress during a time of war. A historical review of war powers in America demonstrates the unchecked power of the executive when it comes to military decision-making and the use of force. Throughout history the power of the President to initiate, conduct, and sustain military operations without oversight has greatly increased. Through a historical lens, this essay will
Even with the approval of congress towards the Tonkin Gulf incident showed a “misuse of power” (Rotter, 77). When Dante B. Fascell said “The president needed authority. Who cared about the facts of the so-called incident that would trigger this authority? So the resolution was just hammered right on through by everyone” (Young, 120); this recollection makes it appear as through the Tonkin Gulf incident decision was not well-informed. The resolution was the issue of Johnson’s authority and the potential that offensive measures in South Vietnam could lead to a third world war (Young, 121). Another example that Americanization was unwise and not well-informed was Johnson ignoring the George Ball about better solutions to help America leave the war. Once again it is the issue with Johnson’s authority, he constantly ignores other possibilities of leaving Vietnam. At the end the Johnson administration would choose three tactics: bombing the North, intensify the war in the South using U.S. troops, and concentration on pacification of the
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.
What triggered the Iraq War that we are currently still having? During this time in history we were still in the cold war as well Cold War (1945–1991), a lot of events has happened during this time period. I am going to start with the Iran-Iraq war which started in 1980 and ended in 1988. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. (Wikipedia, Iran–Iraq War, 2011). This war had at least a million and half casualties and it severely damaged both their economies, the Iran-Iraq war conflict is often
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.
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
This investigation analyzes what the war powers resolution was, and how it affected the American people. Also how the presidents since it was passed felt about it. To examine what drove Nixon to veto the legislation and what drove congress to override the veto. We will also find out what this had to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Yom Kippur war. Also, how the American people felt about the resolution and how it would affect America as a country. To investigate what this resolution did to the presidential powers a president has.
Congress’ approval of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was incorrect. The United States was going by constitutional obligation to meet Communist aggression against any of the parties within the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty. President Johnson, whom requested the resolution, felt that it was a demonstration of Americas’ unity. Also, when asked about what happened in the Tonkin Gulf, former Defense Secretary replied, “Absolutely nothing”. In the future Congress should look back on this and understand that approving something just for popular opinion is not the way to go about governing.
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.
In excess of 600 billion dollars has been spent on the war in Iraq since it began in 2003, plus over four thousand U.S. troops have died because of this war, and despite a struggling economy the US government is keeping our troops in Iraq with no end in sight. The war in Iraq is a current military operation that began, without a declaration of war, on March 20, 2003 and is still taking place today in 2009(Thompson). Americans have been shielded from this war and have forgotten why we went to war in the first place. Thus clarification is needed by the American public on why the invasion on Iraq was baseless, how the mismanagement is affecting our soldiers and what the overall end result could be.
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
Slide: After the Panic of 1873, JP Morgan became one of the most powerful men in the world.