The Moral Implications Of The Us Invaded Iraq

The Bush administration obtained a substantial amount of advantages solely from calling the 911 attacks a “war”. American citizens believed that they were obligated to trust every decision the government made. Primarily because American citizens believed that it was unpatriotic to disagree with government actions concerning the “war” against a perpetrating country.(Denton 2) Bush and his administration created a larger margin of error for themselves considering the American citizens most likely would not question any government decisions pertaining to the “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.

In the 1940’s a series of propaganda films titled Why We Fight were produced for the purpose of defining the enemies of World War 2 to justify the necessity of America’s involvement in war. Hitler needed to be defeated, Nazism had to be destroyed, and tyranny had to be stopped for the sake of the American way of life by any means necessary. How could society argue against America’s role in the world war when freedom was being threatened? As Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to everywhere.” No questions asked, Americans mobilized in the name of liberty and freedom. However the 2005 documentary film Why We Fight directed by Eugene Jarecki is not a sequel or war propaganda. The film informs the audience and questions America 's military industrial complex that has since dictated policy since the victory of World War 2. With the help of narration, soundbites, and credible speakers Jarecki shines light on the pernicious impact of the armed industry on our government, army, and citizens.

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.

One of Clausewitz’s many famous theories is that ‘war is merely a continuation of policy by other means.’ This theory is proven correct once again

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

War is a human endeavor. Humanity continually pursues solutions to counter evolving threats with the end of preserving power while also enabling peace. Civilizations resort to war to maintain their perception of this equilibrium. Defined threats and adversaries have changed throughout history, however, the essence of human nature and the base concept of conflict itself have not. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories on warfare capture the relationship between humanity and its application of war, remaining relevant in today’s era through their pensive explanations of timeless philosophical principles regarding the concept of war. These theories regarding war in politics, the key factors affecting war, and the extent that war is applied are inherently interconnected, providing insight on the relationships between humanity and its application of war.

Yet another instance whereby the government’s hypocrisy has been displayed is when the Bush Administration declared war on Iraq, about five years ago. Matt Matusek, in an article entitled Purpose of Iraq war murky to Americans, wrote: “The plan was to invade Iraq and capture Saddam Hussein so he couldn't use his weapons of mass destruction on any other nation. The United States also wanted to sever Hussein's ties to Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Then, we were to get our troops back home as soon as possible.” However, five years into the war, it can clearly be seen that the government’s initial goal was to get oil from Iraq, but used Saddam as an excuse to engage in war (Matusek). Today, more and more people, just like Montag, are starting to analyze the government’s actions and take a strong stand against them.

The United States initiated Operation Iraqi Freedom on 20 March 2003, without NATO approval, beginning with targeted bombing of Iraq, and soon a full-scale invasion. This has proved to become an unpopular war, for some because of the motivations behind it or because of the perceived lack of progress in Iraq, attributed to “enemy body counts and casualty ratio data” which “is quantifiable and commonly viewed by the public as a reasonable indicator of success (or, more likely, failure)” (Boettcher and Cobb 2006: 833). It also damaged the United States’ international standing because the war in Afghanistan “was followed by the deeply controversial Iraqi war of 'shock and awe' which fractured the international legal order so carefully crafted in the crucible of Lake Success in 1945” (Steyn 2004: 7).

In August of 1990, Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ordered the invasion and occupation of Kuwait. Within less than a year, the United States and thirty-three other nations decided to respond with war. A series of individuals and organizations across the globe suggested that the United States and other nations had ulterior motives that prompted the intervention. However, these reasons failed to surface in the media’s debates. The United States media used censorship and deceit to steer the public’s opinion in favor of the Gulf War as a means of serving the interests of their corporate donors and owners.

On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"; sometimes called “the Bush Doctrine”, which is a justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. The United States wanted more control over the Middle East and the oil that could be obtained there; all they needed was an excuse to go to war and in turn be able to obtain resources. After 9/11 Bush had his excuse; Al Qaeda. Weaving a trail of propaganda and fear through the media with false information, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in pursuit of his form of hegemonic internationalism. The reasons broadcasted by the White House claimed that Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq in 2002) was building weapons of mass destruction and promoting/supporting terrorism which made him a grave threat to the western world. The real reason behind invading Iraq was to secure American access to vital resources, being oil. Iraq had been attacking Iran who was dangerously close to Saudi Arabia which is a huge supplier of oil to the United States. Once the United States had control of Iraq they installed a sympathetic “democratic” government which had eliminated the Iraqi threat to Saudi oil. Through the pursuit of hegemonic internationalism the United States had achieved one of its national interests, obtaining vital resources, but at a huge cost. Over 1 million

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

These politics do not have to be just foreign or international politics, but also domestic politics. To achieve these objectives, Clausewitz believed in two levels of war: strategic and tactical (Echevarria, 1995). One must also remember that Clausewitz did not believe war could be down to a science, it is far too diverse and unpredictable. He was a strong believer that a theory is an explanation, not a solution. In “On War” Clausewitz states, "the primary purpose of any theory is to clarify concepts and ideas that have become confused and entangled” (Clausewitz, 1832). His theory harps on this idea that if conflict of politics reaches an emotional high, organized violence can breakout. Clausewitz’s theory today is taught with “policy” and “politics” as interchangeable components. However, Clausewitz created his theory based around a dual meaning. He believed war could lose sight of its policy aims, but war could never escape politics. On this basis, he combined three forces into one, which is referred to as ‘wondrous trinity’ (Echevarría 1995).

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.