The Iraq War

After years, the US must withdrawal troops from Iraq, but leaving behind is a shattered and exhausted country with no longer a war land but peace has not seen. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was not only destroyed the regime, but also destroyed the internal security and order. It has been promoted the rise of the forces of al-Qaeda terrorists and the sparking an outbreak of conflict ethnic conflicts, sectarian. The Bush Administration rested its public case for war against Iraq on two putative threats – Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda. In hindsight, the Bush Administration should have planned much better such as strategy of exiting, released convincing evidences about Iraq’s possession of WMDs, whether Iraq was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks or maybe, ultimately stayed out of the

Invading Iraq was—and remains—a highly debated and controversial decision within both world politics and the academic disciplines of politics and international relations. With a growing number of deaths, rising tensions in the Middle East, and a failure to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the voices condemning the Bush administration have been increasing ever since the decision to go to war was announced. While many scholars have traditionally argued against the war, this paper will argue that the Iraq War can be justified.

The war on Afghanistan and Iraq was a learning experience for the United States foreign policy. On September 11th, 2001 nineteen Al Qaeda members hijacked four planes, two of which crashed into the world trade center, another into the pentagon and the last into Shanksville, Pennsylvania (Scholastic). The man who was behind this attack was Osama bin Laden and with refusal to hand him over, the United States quickly prompted an attack on Afghanistan. The second war which began in 2003 was due to the belief that Saddam Hussein had acquired weapons of mass destruction which was a direct threat to the safety of the United States, in addition there were also claims that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda and was being supported by Osama

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.

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.

A tendency to be more concerned with the interests of a particular group than with the problems of the whole is the definition of sectionalism. Since the United States gained it 's independence from Britain, sectionalism grew alongside the country. Differences in lifestyles and opinions drove a wedge between groups of people. What started off as two political parties butting heads gradually escalated to two parts of the country, the North and South, dueling against one another. These different viewpoints would then lead to the last war on American soil. Because of the opposing viewpoints and contrasting lifestyles between the North and South, tensions grew until their eventual falling apart.

“Previously the United States has always been sociable with brutal dictators such as Saddam Hussein, as long as it was a financial advantage to America” (Zinn). Now that Saddam seems to be the only dictator afoot, the United States ironically takes action (Zinn). However Saddam was blamed for Sept. 11th, despite of all the evidence that clearly revealed that Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorists attack of that day. Nevertheless, if Saddam would have been connected to the assault of 9/11, still yet, the United States has no justification for war with Iraq, for the fault of one dictator. Hopefully the Bush Administration would not consider using the fear of the remembered day of 2001 to gain the necessary support of war (Walton).

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

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,

The Gulf War is often remembered as an easy victory by most Americans. Perceived as an intense military campaign intended to bring about a swift victory, and often referred to as a battle between good and evil. In reality, the U.S. military had a host of troubles in the conflicts of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Sheild which became known as the Gulf War of 1990-91, many of troubles were caused by the unnecessary deaths of allied troops, and the Iraqi civilians alike. Other catastrophes were avoided purely by luck or incompetence of the Iraqi Military. What new military strategies, procedures and technologies are now in place as a result of lessons learned. Hopefully to ensure that some of the worst mistakes that were made evident by the Gulf War will not be repeated in a subsequent war in Iraq or elsewhere. The intense reality of the actual battle fought by the United States and its allies against Iraq, left many a U.S. military spokesmen were scoffing at the Iraqi forces as “the fourth-largest army in the world.” And “the second-largest army in Iraq” by the world at the end of the Gulf War,

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.

On September 11, 2001, two planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, New York. This was the very first contact that the United States of America had with the terrorism that went on in Iraq. March 20, 2003 marked the day that President George W. Bush announced the start of the war against Iraq (1). This was the beginning of a very costly war on both America and Iraq. The cost of the Iraq War was not just the amount of money spent, but the impact of war on the soldiers and the toll that it took on the families of those who were involved, as well as the amount of time and dedication of resources put into the war by the Government.

After Clinton left office, a republican from the state of Texas takes the presidency. George W. Bush wins the election of 2000 against Democrat Al Gore. Even though the Al Gore won the popular vote for the presidency, Bush won the vote from the Electoral College vote, causing him to win the running. Gore didn’t believe Bush won the votes, demanding a recount of the votes to ensure that he one but was later stopped by the Supreme Court. As president, bush supported many things, including the stem cell research, education reform, and the major tax cut for the people. Foreign policy became a great issue after the attacks on September 11, 2001 hit in the world trade center. 2 planes hit the towers each which caused them to collapse, 1 plane hit the pentagon and 1 plane attempted to hit the white house.

What motivated the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 despite strong opposition from the international community? On one side, the administration maintains that the invasion was necessary to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In his memoir “Decision Points”, Bush argued that Saddam posed too much of a threat–he brutalized his own people, violated international demands, and sponsored terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. On the opposing side, critics of the war argue that the Bush administration used the 9/11 terrorist attack and the threat of WMDs to justify waging an illegal war against Iraq in order to extract Iraqi oil to fund the military-industrial complex, to secure Israel, and to “finish the job” of deposing Saddam. While these explanations for the invasion have some merit, they are problematic because they fail to capture the extent of the administration’s actual ambitions. An analysis of how individuals on Bush’s administration, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, viewed the world reveals that the invasion of Iraq was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of and necessity for preemptive action, overthrow Saddam, and transform the Middle East. However, what was perceived to be a quick and easy operation to stabilize the Middle East and secure America’s interest backfired and turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists.

Mainstream media has extensively covered the war called Operation Iraq Freedom where thousands of our armed forces were killed leaving millions without their mother and father. It has been said that this was a senseless way that should have never begun; in the same manner, it is a war that many feel was needed and very necessary. The purpose of my extended is to uncover the facts of this topic that has been considered off limits and inappropriate especially in the mainstream media. In efforts to uncover the facts, there are many questions that must be answered; however, in making the attempt to answer any question, the questions leads into millions of other unanswered questions. For instance, is this war between Afghanistan and the United