The Iraq War Analysis

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

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.

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.

Bush, asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), multiple Iraqi human rights violations stemming from the WMDs, and the suspected Iraqi support for al-Qa’ida, who had been previously chased out of Afghanistan. After the initial invasion, however, U.S.-led Coalition Forces were unable to locate any significant evidence of WMDs. Back in the U.S., investigative committees subsequently concluded that Iraq possessed no WMDs and did not harbor any connections to terrorist organizations. Moreover, Hussein had been successful at evading capture despite an intensive manhunt, and U.S. forces seemingly were unable to play a domestic security role, further leading to the dissolution of Iraqi security services and ushering in widespread looting and disorder. This highlighted that the invasion of Iraq was not be an easy victory as originally surmised. Since that time, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion of Iraq to groupthink, a theory that has recently become a staple in understanding foreign policy disasters, there is little literature that has been applied to the rationality of the decision to invade and whether groupthink influenced the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper will seek to examine the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq and the clearly failed planning for the occupation of the

In 2001, many aspects of life in America changed forever with the terrorist attacks of September 11. Congress declared the War on Terror, and troops deployed to Afghanistan to eliminate terrorist bases there and attempt to capture Osama bin Laden who claimed responsibility for the attacks. In 2003, forces attacked Iraq to overthrow the regime of Saddam Hussein who was viewed as a major military threat and safeguard of terrorists. In stark contrast to the emotions exhibited during the conflict in Vietnam, Americans have shown widespread support of the military during the past thirteen years of military action. This support for American troops was widespread, even if people disagreed with the war for political or other reasons.

The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. Notably, one of the most crucial wars was 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 was best-known as a Middle Eastern ruler with a violent regime. He governed Iraq from 1979 until his capture in 2003when President Bush presumed he was harboring chemical weapons such as synthetic warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. While politics justified invading Iraq, the conflict between the U.S. and Iraq began long before the war. In the post-election leading up to the war, political officials such as George Bush attested repeatedly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a danger to the U.S. and other targets. Bush sold the war to Americans by attesting these cases of threat to Americans openly with supreme certainty. The United States of America should not have invaded Iraq as it allowed the establishment of government power and democracy without evidence under prior resolutions, increased violence, and forced American citizens to inquire significant debt including the injuries and hardships sustained by U.S. soldiers.

forces at a hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In June 2011, President Barack Obama announced the beginning of large-scale troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, with a final withdrawal of U.S. forces tentatively scheduled for 2014. Many people throughout the world (though not all) are in agreement that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. In losing Hussein, the Iraqis gained freedom of expression. Due to us fighting the war they are slowly turning into a democracy. Iraq could eventually serve as an example of democratic transition for other nations in the Middle East. However, it’s too soon to measure the benefits of the Iraq war. It remains to be seen how history will judge America’s involvement in Iraq. The war against Iraq was a war that needed to be fought. If we fought more ruthlessly it would of been over sooner. In October 2002, a National Intelligence Estimate stated that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction,” or WMD. On March 19, 2003, with the support of Congress and the majority of Americans, the U.S. military began bombing Baghdad in a campaign titled “Shock and Awe.” The result was 189,000: Direct war deaths, which doesn't include the hundreds of thousands more that died due to war-related hardships. 4,488: U.S. service personnel killed directly.32,223: Troops injured (not including

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.

Our world is a changing place; it's always developing new culture, looks, and history. As it changes, beliefs are lost and are not found again. Freedoms and rights are tested, and sometimes lost. The world is changing for the worse because hate and violence are on a social high as people are attacking each other powered by hate, discrimination and labeling are happening to people for what they are, not who they are.

When Americans speak about the Iraq war, they mention the number of soldiers, the number of casualties, and the enemy that we fought. People fail to recognize the importance of the “Angels of the battlefield”, the nurses. Nurses were a crucial piece of our military because they cared for our wounded soldiers. This, in turn, reduced the number of casualties as a cause of the war. For my research paper, I will find the effects of the Iraq war on Nurses. I will speak on the roles and experiences of nurses during and after the Iraq war during 2003 all the way to 2011. I will first speak on the different roles that nurses had. This will include the different levels of modern combat care, and statistics about the nurses. Next, I will examine the experiences that the nurses had

In 2003, George W. Bush invaded Iraq, believing that the country’s president Saddam Hussein was using weapons of mass destruction against the people of Iraq. This war started a larger war, named “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. The consequence of this inessential war were the lives of over 4000 Americans, over 1 trillion dollars in spending, and superfluous tension in the Middle East. Though there are many theories on why Bush invaded Iraq, the one that makes the most sense is overconfidence. Simply put, George W. Bush and his administration had faulty and ambiguous evidence, but their overconfidence and pride lead them to put the war into action anyway. This self-assuredness lead to the expiration of Bush’s tenure and the broken hearts of many

The United States aversion towards former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, began nearly thirty years ago after the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Post-invasion there was international animosity towards the Hussein regime, causing the U.S to step in and take action in an attempt to control and restructure the Iraq government. In 2000, when George W. Bush took office, U.S foreign policy adopted a more aggressive stance with the overall goal being the removal of Saddam Hussein from any governmental position. Bush actively started moving forward with this plan post 9/11 when allegations were made of possible relations between Hussein and Al-Qaeda leader, Osama Bin Laden as well as beliefs that Iraq was developing and planning to use weapons of mass destruction.

Changes have always been a manifestation inside the borders of Iraq. Many rulers as well as followers have come and gone, leaving eternal footprints on the land. The history of Iraq and its people dates back to before 3500 BC, the world's first civilization of people. Various battles were fought over this great and productive land, also called Mesopotamia. Wars and battles have continued on to present times. In 1936 Iraq became independent from Britain after the mandate in 1917. Several battles transpired with the Kurds during the 1960's and 1970's, as the Kurdish people wanted full sovereignty in Iraq. The Republic of Iraq declined their request and the conflicts began, until a cease-fire was acknowledged with the Kurds in 1964, and later in 1975.

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

Thus, in this context of a unipolar system dominated by U.S., it is highly unlikely that a great power like U.S., motivated by its relentless pursuit of power and security, would allow itself to be deterred by U.N. resolutions that do not comply with its own interests. This also reflects the realist interpretation of international system which is characterized by anarchy and therefore, it is not considered prudent for a State to entrust its safety and survival on another actor or international institutions such as United Nations.