The Justifications Of Justification For The Iraq War

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.

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

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

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.

Zunes, Stephen. "A U.S. Invasion of Iraq Is Not Justified." The Nation 275 (30 Sept. 2002): 11. Rpt. in Is Military Action Justified Against Nations Thought to Support Terrorism? Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document

The invasion of Iraq was held on March of 2003 and initiated the war of Iraq, the American occupation of Iraq has cost America thousands lives, thousand seriously wounded, and approximately $900 billion, and has negatively affected American interests throughout the world. The costs are not over. The 2003 Invasion of Iraq was promoted by America it was a polemical historical event in our society and around the world. Detractors against the war differed with the resolution of George W. Bush, President of the United States, to go to conflict with Iraq. While activists, pro-war supported his declaration for the invasion. Opponents of the invasion made claims that the war was a mistake “To invade Iraq without the U.N’s approval, because we think

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.

The Iraq War, also known as the Second Persian Gulf War or Gulf War 2, started in March 2003 with the combined invasion of Iraq by the United States and Great Britain. President George Bush urged the invasion of Iraq for two reasons. First, the vulnerability of the United States following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001. Secondly, the belief in Iraq producing weapons of mass destruction and their support for terrorist groups in the region. In the early stages of the invasion, Iraqi troops did not stand a chance against the invading countries. Iraqi military forces were forced to flee or surrender which allowed for a relatively easy takeover of the country. With his county being completely dominated by allied forces, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein went into hiding. He was later found in December 2003, and was turned over to country officials. After being convicted of crimes against humanity, he was executed in 2006. With over 39,000 soldiers remaining in Iraq by the start of Barack Obama’s presidency, the new commander of chief of the United States announced they would be leaving the country upon by the end of 2011 (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2015).

President George H. W. Bush approached Congress, asking for the authority to send United States troops to Iraq, to liberate the people of Kuwait from Iraqi control. The United States then launched an air war against Iraq in mid-January 1991. Despite the media telling American citizens that the United States took an involved role in the conflict in the Middle East to free Kuwait and end Saddam Hussein’s oppressive dictatorship, depicting him as another Hitler, this was false. President George H. W. Bush approached Congress for permission to send troops solely to make up for the United States defeat in the Vietnam War and prove that the United States was a world superpower. The United States’ actions consisted of primarily bombing Iraqi cities such as Baghdad. Many were killed during these raids, including children. Towards the end of the war, approximately six weeks after it began, the United States attacked Iraq using both a ground assault and air raids. As with the air raids, the ground troops encountered hardily any resistance. After the war, the United States left Saddam Hussein in power, which goes against what the media originally said the reason for United States military action was. President George H. W. Bush commented at the end of Operation Desert Storm that the United States victory in brought redemption to the United States after the defeat in

The start of the 2003 Iraq War has been debated by many historians. The arguments made by Krebs and Lobasz in their article “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11 - Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq” are very persuasive, as are the arguments made by David Lake in “What Caused the Iraq War?”. These arguments center around the mindset of the Bush Administration, which was fearful of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and eager to use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as rationale for war regardless of clear evidence. Other historians have presented considerable arguments as well, such as Debs and Monteiro, who argue that Iraq’s possibility of having nuclear weapons posed concern to the Bush administration. However, the best rationale for the start of the 2003 Iraq War combines the coercion model put forth by Krebs and Lobasz with the Lake assertion that the post-war rebuilding was not adequately considered. Krebs and Lobasz have the most salient arguments on manipulations of information, with insightful points regarding the motives of the Bush administration. Their points, however, aren’t complete as David Lake contains stronger information in certain parts of the debate. Lake adds important observations about Saddam’s inability to admit to not having nuclear weapons and the U.S.’s failure to estimate the costs of the post-war were key causes for the start of the war.

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.

The 2003 Iraq War lasted less than three weeks. It began in the early morning hours of March 20, when American missiles struck Baghdad. By April 9, U.S. forces had advanced into Baghdad. By April 15 Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had vanished, and U.S. and allied officials pronounced the end of major combat operations. Although the war itself was short, arguments over whether it was justified had been made for months and years prior to the attack, and still continue today. Going to war in Iraq was not justified on many levels.

On March 19, 2003, Bush ordered American and British troops to invaded Iraq (Schultz, 2003, p. 524). They continue marching on the capital of Baghdad. Therefore, U.S. forces rooted Hussein out of a dirt hole in December 2003, later he was hunged, by his Iraqi enemies. The American military tried for eight years to create a democracy in Iraq. After ten more years of violent attacks, President Bush declared victory in 2003. Nevertheless, the attacks had caused nearly ten times more Americans died in Iraq.

After the gulf wars, a ceasefire was negotiated between the United Nations coalition and Iraq. During the ceasefire, the United Nations became aware that Iraq had started a biological warfare program in the 1980s, as well as a chemical warfare program. Upon further investigation, they found that these programs had not continued after the war. As a result, the United States main focus moving forward was the removal of the Saddam regime, their official foreign policy for years to come focused on this goal. With the suspicions that Saddam Hussein had the abilities to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration going as far as to claim he already had them, the United States and other countries began devising a plan of action. These countries strongly believed that Iraq was a treat to its neighbors and the rest of the world, and that the only solution was to invade Iraq. The United States invading Iraq in 2003 was a turning point in the reason why relationship between Iraq and the United States is the way it is today.

In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.