The Pros And Cons Of The Rogue State

President Bush creates a logical appeal through precedent and an immediate course of action regarding the issues at hand to both reassure the audience and gain their support for the war. When Bush states that “for the past 136 years, [wars] have been...on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941,” (Bush) he reminds the audience of the rarety and significance of war being fought within America. The minimal amount of precedent in recent American history for such an occurence makes the audience perceive fighting the terrorists logically the nest step, much like Americans supported entering World War II as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. George W. Bush announces “the creation of a Cabinet-level postion...the Office of Homeland Security,” (Bush) which presents an immediate and obvious way terrorism is being combatted, thus reassuring the American people. Bush strengthens his support further by creating an ethical appeal.

To begin, the U.S. should not have gone to war in Iraq because of the costly monetary value of the war. “I will soon submit to Congress a request for $87 billion. The request will cover ongoing military and intelligence operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, which we expect will cost $66 billion over the next year”(Bush). Although the many of the goals set to be accomplished in Iraq may seem noble, it will not be accomplished at no cost. Tens of billions of dollars will need to be spent to

…The U.S. began the Iraq war with the goal of ridding the region of a tyrannical government that didn’t protect its people. However, a decade later, at the conclusion of the U.S. military mission in Iraq, the people are perhaps worse off than they were before the

The happenings of September 11, 2001 were tragic and heartbreaking, and in the presidential speech that George W. Bush gave nine days later, he ties ideas of American exceptionalism into the works. In his speech he adds that, “as long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be a time of terror” (Bush, 93). Here, he is trying to boost the morale of Americans by saying that we will come together and will be able to get over this since we are exceptional from the rest and have a lot of power. Bush then declares that they will go to war and are “confident of the victories to come” (Bush, 94). He is able to say that with confidence because they are a

For the first time in American history the United States population felt vulnerable at home, the reality of being subject of such cruel actions said present and the war on terrorism became one of our biggest priorities. Together we have been able to make a lot of strides against terrorism, however as terrorism itself and those who carry it out have changed, at times we have also failed to foresee possible threats or to make the right decisions on time. Since 9/11 we have been able to eliminate both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, considered two of the world’s principal supporters of terrorism. We have effectively denied terrorist organizations the ability to operate freely, and have made it clear that we will definitely engage military with any nation supportive of terrorism. At the same time, we have reinforced our homeland security and redesigned our border security as a way to dissert any possible threat. However, even though the United States have developed innumerable strategies in order to prevent terrorist attacks there is still a lot to cover. We are surely safer than what we were at the time of 9/11, and the possibilities of an attack at such scale happening again is minimal. The West has successfully contained the terrorists who perpetrated 9/11. But al-Qaeda has adapted from the bottom up, producing a network that's scattered, disconnected and decentralized. The new jihadist movement doesn't have an operational leader, but it is every bit as dangerous as the old one.

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.

Snauwaert contends the Bush Doctrine cannot satisfy the Jus ad Bellum. Snauwert eschewed the Bush Doctrine shifted United States' international policy from containment to preemptive, which was a code word for prevention (2004). In other words, Snauwaert viewed the war on terror as comprised of military war actions that did not respond so much to an imminent threat as to potential threat (2004). Many times imminent danger is included in the Jus ad Bellum; nevertheless, this Snauwaert would likely view action based on potential danger also a violation of proportionate response. Likewise, Snauwaert finds

In the years leading up to and during the Iraq War, the United States pursued a neo-conservative agenda that aimed to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s regime, eliminate the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and install a democratic government in Iraq. To do so, U.S. policymakers deployed military forces and diplomatic ambassadors to intervene. This strategy, clearly seen during the early invasion in 2003 and the surge of 2007, produced mixed reactions. Indeed, more than a decade after the U.S. decision to mediate, the question remains: Can intervention actually work?

“If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” These were the first words spoken that would give any inclination towards what was soon to come. In George Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, he referred to the Middle East as an “axis of evil,” a term that would be used for the next ten years, throughout the devastating war with Iraq. Millions of American’s views on Iraq were clouded by the malicious actions of the few nineteen suicide bombers on September 11, 2001, and other preconceptions about the Muslim people. Consequently, today many people think that the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq was successful, removing Hussein’s regime and restoring freedom in Iraq. However, they probably aren’t aware of the massive impacts the war has had on Iraq and less importantly, America. The U.S./Iraq war has had a devastating impact on the social and economic states of Iraq, and has contributed to the U.S. pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the military.

The Bush Doctrine was put into practice first in Afghanistan. On 12 September 2001, the United Nations approved ‘all necessary steps’ to react to the previous day’s attacks. The same day, NATO invoked article 5, obliging it to protect a member. Less than a week later, a near unanimous

In the modern world, Terrorism seems like a daily occurrence. A bomb here and a shooting there is taken in stride, now. No more than a week and life is back to normal. There is no rallying cry. While most threats come from the outside, as is a hot topic recently, we also recognize that many attacks come from within our borders. However, there was a time when it was inconceivable that one of our own could think of hurting our country in such a way. We would have never thought that the ones we take a bullet for would be the ones behind the trigger.

Some individuals believe that America is headed for another large-scale attack. September 11, 2001 demonstrated that an enemy discovered a weakness to the proverbial super-fortress that citizens knew as America. Post attack; national security measures were questioned, government officials lost credibility due to disorganized legislation, and citizens feared for their safety for the first time in a long time. Americans realized that the inherent right to safety as a society was in question. Something had to be done, and was.

Based on a 2013 CNN report by Hans Blix, a Swedish Diplomat and former Swedish Minister for Foreign Affairs, “the [Iraq] war aimed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, but there weren't any” (Blix). In addition, Mr. Blix mentions the intent of eliminating the Al-Qaeda terror group in Iraq, “but the terrorist group didn't exist in the country until after the invasion” (Blix). Moreover, Mr. Blix elaborates by also stating how the locals of Iraq may have been against the 2003 invasion of the United States. He elaborates by saying that intent of entering Iraq was to set it up as a “friendly base for U.S. troops capable to act, if needed, against Iran -- but instead [the invasion] gave Iran a new ally in Baghdad” (Blix). Needless to say, this evidence can be used to explain why the initial entrance to Iraq was a bad idea from the start. Ten years later, Stephanie Condon of CBS writes, “Americans are still politically divided over the war, though most say the U.S. should have avoided it” (Condon). In addition, she too elaborates that “there was evidence that year [2004] that the war was not going as planned – such as the lack of weapons of mass destruction” (Condon). With all of that information established it really is no surprise to see why Americans and Iraqis alike were frustrated with the ever-lasting occupation of Iraq, which ultimately ended in 2011. However, with the phasing out of al-Qaeda and the rise of the Islamic State in the area, as well as airstrikes being conducted against the latter of the two, controversies are again rising, discussing if the United States should be leading and carrying out these

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 altered the environment of international relations, as the world saw first hand the damage a non-state actor can inflict on a regional hegemon. While non-state actors have always existed, for example maritime pirates or private mercenaries, the events of 9/11 provided non-state actors, in the form of terrorist organizations, the platform needed to expand their influence. Despite the urgency posed by the rise of non-state actors, the field of international relations continues to use an interstate framework to analyze conflict. This is the natural result of a long history of state-centered analysis that came to formal fruition post-WWI and dominated through the Cold War. Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, this discipline remained intact. However, as most conflicts today involve non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations in the mountains of Afghanistan and pirates off the coast of Somalia, this state-centric framework is deteriorating.

statelessness, result in other human rights abuses such as domestic violence, human trafficking and child marriage.