The Decision To Go To War With Iraq

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.

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.

McNamara’s lesson seven belief and seeing are often wrong, that can be applied to the information of “Buying the War,” there was not enough evidence to demonstrate the culpability of Saddam Hussain in relation with the terrorist attacks of 9/11, or that in reality he had or was building weapons of mass destruction. According to Bush and his delegates, they had a source who confirmed that Saddam had in his power aluminum tubes, which were need it to build centrifuge needed to build nuclear weapons. They began to manipulate information through the newspapers and T.V. news to make everyone believed that it was a fact that Saddam was link to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that in fact he had weapons of mass destruction. Also The New York Times was the first newspaper informing to the public about this evidence and a day after Cheney used the same information to convince the people that in fact this fact and Saddam need to be stop. They went to war without following all the protocols of inspections in order to corroborate their speculations. We all believe it, until the damage was done.

Following defeat in 1991, where US Air Land Battle doctrine and “second offset” technological advantage were demonstrated effectively, Hamdani recommended transforming Iraqi land forces from “heavy mechanised” to “light infantry” with focus on “guerrilla war” to counter US air power dominance. However, Saddam was in denial viewing the “Mother of All Battles” a victory; this was logical to him – he remained in power when his enemy was no longer POTUS and he still had a military with the world’s largest Arab army. He regarded internal (coup, Shia) and regional (Iran, Israel) threats ahead of external (US) threats with “the possibility of … American invasion … nonsense.” Having successfully quelled in March 1991what he perceived as the greatest danger to his regime, an internal uprising, he intended to maintain the military capability proven to ensure “the internal security of the Ba’ath dictatorship” ; viewing change unnecessary. But he was wrong: the US threat was credible and his military was not fit to counter it. Nonetheless there was no transformation. The regime complied with his will, coerced by fear. Saddam’s draconian leadership created a culture of deceit. Most feared for their lives and ‘toed the Ba’ath Party line’ with lying becoming commonplace across government and the military. “The resulting personal and organizational paranoia profoundly affected how Iraq addressed its strategic and military problems.” This negatively affected Iraqi military readiness and planning. To the contrary, Hamdani, viewed as a competent officer with ‘top cover’ from

“So who thinks a preemptive strike is going to accomplish what we want?” That was the question possibly posed by President Bush to his trusted advisors as they gathered to discuss the possibilities of a Middle Eastern country obtaining WMD’s (Weapons of Mass Destruction). As difficult as it is to believe, this scenario may have set the stage for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the resultant turmoil and regional instability that still exists today. It is most conceivable that a unanimous decision to take invade Iraq was a result of groupthink. Groupthink “occurs when a highly cohesive group wants to maintain cohesiveness so much that it suppresses confrontation and disagreement, so that the group’s decisions are not carefully thought through.” (Galanes & Adams, 2013, p. 268).

President George W. bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq just months after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. There is evidence that shows Bush was after Saddam Hussain from day one of his presidency. Paul O’Neill claims that Bush started constructing arrangements for the invasion of Iraq within days of Bush’s inauguration. Bush denied these claims and discredited O’Neill by declaring he was a dissatisfied employee who was dismissed by the White House and that O’Neill had no reliable comprehension of U.S. foreign policy. The Iraqi National Congress argues that soon after Bush’s inauguration, Bush contacted them to discuss how to remove Hussein from power, which confirms O’Neill’s allegations

Following the attacks in America on September 11, 1999, there was a public outcry for justice throughout the country. Even with significant public support to wage war against Iraq, there was not enough reason to persuade congress. Over the course of two years, President George W. Bush proved that there was a purpose in the war, not only seek vengeance against terrorism; but, gift a people freedom from dictatorship. Yet, there were still downsides to war including inevitable loss of American life and damaged reputation for our country. For that reason, the United States of America should not have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 due to the extensive federal funding for undesirable warfare which took away from domestic prosperity, the preventable injury to veterans as well as violence against civilians, and the country’s damaged reputation achieved due to the illegitimacy of the war.

The United States and Iraq have been on edge with each other for many years. Under the power of Saddam Hussein, Iraq was considered one of the strongest countries. Saddam was one of the most gruesome, malicious, and aggressive leaders at the time. He would kill innocent people, invade other countries, and attempt to build nuclear weapons. Saddam was looked at as a serious threat to the United States, so actions had to be taken. On March 19, 2003, George Bush declares war on Iraq. The invasion of Iraq lasted from March 20 to May 1. Many people do not agree with what the United States chose to do. So the real question people ask, should the United States have gone to war in Iraq?

There is much controversy surrounding the war in Iraq, both in terms of its legality, its practicality and its current course. Within all of these elements there are arguments to be found that suggest that the troops currently in Iraq should indeed come home. The main argument for bringing home the troops is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place, as no weapons of mass destruction were found, and they are now doing virtually nothing to help the situation, and may indeed be worsening it.

withdrawal has made it obvious that the US praised the end of the Iraq War with no authenticity with regards to the effect the war and U.S. occupation had on Iraqi or American culture. Iraq is still a savage and unstable place while the U.S. stays separated over the issues of war and terrorism. Will an airplane have hijack today? Will a building have bombed? What country will the U.S. invade and attempt to democratize next? The contentions for the war in Iraq are just a pawn for political power and a nonchalance for humankind. When will, Americans end accepting destructive political mechanisms to earn votes? Allow this war to be a lesson. Attacking Iraq advanced the illicit practice of government power and democracy, empowered genocide and viciousness and hate among religions, and constrained Americans to acquire an everlasting

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.

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

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 I’ll admit was a very interesting book that looked at what could have really caused the Iraq war and whether we really had to go to war. The book talks about the flaws with the reasons that Bush proposed for going to war with Iraq and why we haven’t had a fuller victory yet. The book basically goes into details about the four observations that arise from examining certain aspects of the war and afterwards. In the next few pages I’ll be summarizing the book then stating my analysis and opinions about ideas presented in the book.