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.

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

The first step in establishing an Iraqi threat was to demonstrate that Iraq possessed WMD, meaning chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver these weapons. The possession of these weapons would be in direct violation of U.N. resolutions put into effect after the Gulf War and hopefully justify any use of force under international law. Time and time again the Bush administration put forth statements that, “Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving even closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” In February of 2003, one month before the U.S. waged war on Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell brought the administration’s case for war before the United Nations Security Council in an effort to garner U.N. support for an effort to disarm Iraq. By one count, “Powell made twenty-nine claims about Iraqi weapons, programs, behaviors,

“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

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?

The reasons given for the original invasion of Iraq (Bush, 2003) mainly surrounded that there was supposedly "irrefutable" evidence that Iraq had, and was prepared to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction. The

The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. It has battled confrontation 222 out of 239 years or, 93% of its existence. Notably, one of the most crucial wars is 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 has the questionable refinement of being the best known Middle Eastern ruler. He governed Iraq from 1979 until his capture in 2003. President Bush presumed he was harboring many chemical weapons such as synthetic warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. While politics justified this war the real war between Iraq and the U.S. began long before what recognized.

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

The war in Iraq lasted for eight years and resulted in many casualties; the cost of the war was tremendous. The reason for the war changed as time went by, starting with getting rid of weapons of mass destruction and then, when the weapons of mass destruction were not found, the name changed to Iraqi Freedom. A debate between two writers that emerged of the war in Iraq shows different perspectives. Writer John Mueller, who holds the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies at Ohio State University, makes the case against war on Iraq. Also, writer Brink Lindsey, who is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is in favor of this war. This paper will examine the perspectives as reported by both John Mueller and Brink Lindsey as they argue about the case of the United States invading Iraq. I will conclude from the evidence that the war on Iraq was unnecessary and counterproductive because it increased not decreased the terrorism, refugee crises, cost lives and money without achieving any of its objectives.

Before examining each argument, there must be an understanding on why the United States. The US invaded Iraq for several reasons, and one reason is that Saddam Hussein sponsored terrorism, even though that Hussein had “no direct connection to Osama bin Laden.” Another reason that the US decided to invade Iraq was the “swift victory…in Afghanistan”; since the US dealt with Afghanistan very easily, they assumed that a victory over Iraq would be just as swift. A third reason that the United States invaded Iraq was the support from the American people. Bipartisan support in Congress, the media, and the public allowed President George W. Bush to invade Iraq; while he did not receive support from the United Nations, the Iraq War had about seventy percent

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.