The Presidency 's Actions Involving Iraq Essay

Justification of the War in Iraq Despite contrary belief, the Iraq War can certainly be justified. This war began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S troops under the command of former president, George W. Bush. This invasion can be vindicated for several reasons. The greatest is that Iraq was a severe menace to its own people due to a corrupt and distorted government, spearheaded by the dictator, Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq was a substantial threat to other nations in the world, including the United States of America because of its previous possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties with terrorist groups. It would be misleading to not mention the economic gains that motivated the American government to occupy Iraq.

When one thinks of Iraq war, the two key players are perceived to be George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. As leaders of the opposing sides, they are also perceived as the decision makers. In the individual and sub group levels of analysis, toppling of the Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a success. This success

What triggered the Iraq War that we are currently still having? During this time in history we were still in the cold war as well Cold War (1945–1991), a lot of events has happened during this time period. I am going to start with the Iran-Iraq war which started in 1980 and ended in 1988. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. (Wikipedia, Iran–Iraq War, 2011). This war had at least a million and half casualties and it severely damaged both their economies, the Iran-Iraq war conflict is often

George W Bush’s presidency can be associated with an infamous term that stood out from the State of the Union address, that term being ‘Axis of Evil’. In this context, Bush categorised the countries of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being ‘evil’ states. This neoconservative comment left little doubt as to what Bush’s foreign policy towards these states was going be (Baxter and Akbarzadeh, 2008). This comment would then define George W Bush’s presidency, due to the controversy over this phrase and the results that it would have on US foreign policy as “rarely had such a rhetorical device had such devastating consequences” (Ansari, 2006:186). This paper will argue how the use of the word ‘evil’, and the categorisation of these ‘evil’ countries, had a large impact on US-Iran relations.

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.

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.

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq not only signalled the beginning of the Iraq War, but also demonstrated the power and unchallenged military dominance of the United States. Unlike the first Gulf War, many of the US public, media and officials criticized the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq by questioning the legality and the evidence used to justify the war. These arguments as to whether the Bush Administration was justified in its use of hard power to invade Iraq are diverse and disputed among many historians. The opinions of several historians including Pollack, Mearsheimer and Siilberman, in conjunction with the primary accounts of US president George W. Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein create a conflicting and questionable

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.

“You’re fired,” the first thing an employee hears in his/her job at a real estate company in 2008 without knowing the cause while his/her CEO gets a massive raise. Ever since the subprime mortgage crisis occurred in 2008, which left a multitude of people without a stable, well-paying job, CEOs and other executives in the United States have been making gargantuan amounts of money from their respective companies while laying off workers. For example, according to From Beyond Outrage written by Robert B. Reich, “The chairman of Merck took home $17.9 million in 2010, as Merck laid off sixteen thousand workers and announced layoffs of twenty-eight thousand more.” and that is not just “worrisome, but also outrageous.” However, this paramount issue did not begin in the twenty-first century, but in the late 1980’s. During this time, George H. W. Bush’s Administration had utilized the concept of trickle-down economics that was implemented by the Reagan Administration, and, as a result, helped to create a growing gap in wealth in the U.S. Furthermore, this expanding gap has led to growth in poverty as well as the constant growth of the power of the upper class in which the author Gregory Mantsios, who wrote Class in Americaㅡ2012, wanted to clarify the myths and truths within the United States social hierarchy in order to explain the need to strengthen the middle class.

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.

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

The war against Iraq began on March 20, 2002, when the U.S lunched “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. This was after President Bush called Iraq part of an “axis of evil”, also calling the country dangerous which is threatening U.S with the world’s most destructive weapons. The major phase of the war began when U.S troops marched within 50 miles of Baghdad with heavy aerial attacks on Baghdad and other cities. After the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon which was believed to be the work of Al Qaeda, U.S was concerned about the security of the Untied States which lead to the war in Iraq. Even though U.S officials felt the war in Iraq is the main priority, but many people in U.S opposes the war which brings up a lot of controversial issues.

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

While the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980's may have permanently altered the course of progress in Iran and Iraq, the war also altered the resulting permanent involvement of the rest of the world in the middle-east. The rich and complicated history in Iraq has established numerous cultural and ethnic traditions that all play a part in where the country is today. The Iran-Iraq War brought into focus some of those traditions and how they conflicted, while also bringing Iraq and its economic situation into the spotlight. Being on top of some of the most mineral rich soil in the world makes Iraq a major contributor to the world's economy through petroleum and crude oil exports. This, among other reasons, ties nations