The Reasons Behind The Uk Participation

The Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, took place in 2003 and dragged on for almost nine years, until the withdrawal of US troops in December 2011. The invasion was justified by the US using the new National Security Strategy that was proposed by the Bush administration. One of the key features of the National Security strategy was the justification that the US could preemptively strike targets nations that it deemed a threat to the security of the US. In order to justify the invasion of Iraq, the governmental leaders in the US claimed that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaeda and other terror groups, as well as using Saddam’s use of chemical weapons as legitimization for the war. Once the war began on March 20, 2003, the original

Foreign Policy is something the United States takes very seriously. It often carries a lot of controversy. Throughout United States history presidents have made decisions that have always risen much debate. In 1945 the atomic bomb was dropped in Japan. In 1954 the United States sent troops into Vietnam. Both major moves in foreign policy. Both heavily debated. Today foreign policy is more modest and put into higher regards when it comes to lives at stake. President George W. Bush (R) and President Barak Obama (D) have very different point of views when it comes to foreign policy. Foreign policy is a widely controversial topic throughout all of politics. In 2002 President Bush announced that the United States forces would be invading Iraq in retaliation to the terror attacks that took place in New York City on the morning of September 11, 2001. This move by Bush would be seen widely as a poor decision. He would be criticized for misleading United States forces into Iraq. Bush lead his argument claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and were a true threat to American safety. Many men and Women would fall fighting in Iraq. Bush would approve the operative against Saddam Hussein

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.

Tony Blair introduced me to politics. Taken by my parents to protest in London against the Iraq war I experienced the inability of national politics and international relations to be mutually exclusive concepts. Key issues such as the growing refugee crisis, the debate regarding Britain’s place in Europe and trade agreements such as TTIP all have national and international implications. Britain’s political sovereignty has been eroded by Unions, Agreements and world events. This opens up the debate as to where power is concentrated. A more controversial debate would address whether national and global decisions are in fact being made by politicians at all, or if global corporations impose greater power. Regardless of this nihilistic view, the

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.

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

| |FOR ITS PLEDGE TO SIDE AGAINST ITS FORMER TRIPLE ALLIANCE PARTNERS. THE BRITISH EAGERLY SEEK

The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. Notably, one of the most crucial wars was the War on Terror. Beginning in March of 2003, this war initially served the purpose of getting rid of the country 's leader Saddam Hussein to prevent his use of suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was best-known as a Middle Eastern ruler with a violent regime. He governed Iraq from 1979 until his capture in 2003when President Bush presumed he was harboring chemical weapons such as synthetic warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. While politics justified invading Iraq, the conflict between the U.S. and Iraq began long before the war. In the post-election leading up to the war, political officials such as George Bush attested repeatedly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a danger to the U.S. and other targets. Bush sold the war to Americans by attesting these cases of threat to Americans openly with supreme certainty. The United States of America should not have invaded Iraq as it allowed the establishment of government power and democracy without evidence under prior resolutions, increased violence, and forced American citizens to inquire significant debt including the injuries and hardships sustained by U.S. soldiers.

With presidential insight overlooking Iraq’s government with a fine tooth comb, the Bush Administration decided to turn to public support as a means to increase the awareness in Iraq. This attention was based off the defiance amongst Iraq, and the United Nation (UN) ability to provide full access inside the country of Iraq. As public concern grew on the topic of Iraq, so did the presidential tone and manner when comparing Iraq to “the central front in the War on Terror.” This began a political push from leaders in and outside the U.S. to implement harsher penalties on Iraq or any country that didn’t obey UN weapons inspections (resolution 1441). The resolution 1441 stated that if UN inspection was ever detoured from leaders in the country would be subjected to war. Another country siding with the Bush administration to dissimulate and destroy the Baathist regime in Iraq was Britain and its Prime Minister Tony Blair.

On September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks took place on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. This led to the war in Afghanistan. Also during this time period Saddam Hussein was in power of Iraq. The Bush Administration claimed that the invasion was the right thing to do because Hussein was working with the Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden on the 9/11 attacks. They wanted to invade Iraq and stop Hussein. To do this legally however, they must prove that they began the war out of self defense or retaliation, or they must present valid proof and get approval from the United Nations Security

The Gulf War in 1990 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 both had a profound impact not just on the countries directly involved - primarily Iraq and the United States (US) - but also on the geo-politics of the world. Arguably, the War ended in a stalemate because the Iraqi regime that had started the War by invading Kuwait remained in power. Perhaps inevitably then, in March 2003 the US and its allies invaded Iraq with the stated aim of overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein and destroying that regime's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Some similarities between both Wars are immediately obvious: for example, the same country, the

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.

Britain and America claim to have gone to war with Iraq as they believed they held weapons of mass destruction and also because they wanted to rid the country of it’s “evil dictator” (who was in power for over twenty years before these two leaders decided to do anything about it). However, during Iraq’s war with Iran during 1980-1988, we gave this “evil dictator” weapons to use and when Iraq used chemical weapons in 1988 against their own people, no one opposed it. Britain and America also claimed that Iraq had broken several resolutions set by the UN (as have many other countries all over the world). However, by invading Iraq, Britain and America defied the UN and International Law themselves, as they went to war without the backing of the UN.

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