The United Kingdom And Iraq During The Invasion Of Iraq

Tom: Australian forces had quite a lot of involvement in the war in Iraq. They were involved primarily in three operations; Operation Bastille, Operation Slipper, and Operation Falconer.

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.

On March 19, 2003, the United States along with forces from the United Kingdom, initiate a war on Iraq. U.S. President George W. Bush announced that American and coalition forces are beginning military operations to disarm Iraq, “free it's people and defend the world of grave danger”. President Bush believed Iraq, under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, had in their possession or were building weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. had given Saddam Hussein time to leave Iraq or face war.

The disbanding of the Iraqi army and “debathification” or dismantling of the government in place only served to increase the casualties of American troops and Iraqi civilians as the radical Sunni insurgency expanded. This point of cause and effect, clash of two distinct political and cultural worlds, defined this war for the generation serving, at home and the future generations. The threat of increasing terrorism after the attack of September 11, 2001 was one of the driving force of invasion of Iraq. However, in one analysis the increase of global terrorism today is told to be well contributed by the conflicts that were fueled by the western presence in Iraq and the surrounding

suffered the same issues during the 2003 Iraq War and made the same mistakes the British made in the American Revolutionary war. The U.S. failed to allocate the proper number of troop strength. The lack of control of the civilian population and the mistakes the U.S. made in Abu Ghraib became the rally cry for the insurgents. (Montanus, 2005) The United States initially losing the hearts and minds of the populous and as a result there were more Iraqis supporting the efforts against the United States. The difference between the U.S. now and the British 200 years ago, the U.S. adapted and formed a strategy to help the local populace. The U.S. opened dialogues with the Tribes to resolve conflicts and issues in order to win their support for the war. The U.S. assisted the Iraqi’s create a democratic government, provided logistic support and training of the country’s security forces, and resulted in stabilizing the country. (Montanus, 2005) The U.S. established a Counter-Insurgency

On the other hand, the Bush Administration claims the whole aim of the operation in Iraq was not to only disarm Iraq, but to stop the dangerous spread of weapons of mass destruction through the military force (Schell). Although the support of many U.S.A. citizens is weak, President Bush insists “We muchs prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world (Schell). President Bush also mentions how we will “not permit” (Schell) Iraq to

In the weeks immediately after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the nation watched anxiously as the Bush Administration declared war on terror. Following the invasion of Afghanistan to hunt down those responsible for this horrific incident, the U.S. swiftly changed its priority to invading Iraq and overthrowing its government by capturing its president, Saddam Hussein. In this mission, the U.S. scrambled to find a connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qa’ida. Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, 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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

Primarily, it would be imperative to establish the history of this conflict and exactly how it got to the point of war not only from Blair’s point of view but also from the other generally considered reasons, mainly Oil and the US. Secondary sources such as ‘Iraq between Occupations: Perspectives from 1920 to the Present’ (Zeidel, Baram and Rhode, 2010), ‘Britain and the Middle East in the 9/11 Era’ (Hollis, 2010) and ‘Blair’s Just War: Iraq and the Illusion of Morality’ (Lee, 2011) are examined. There are a few books that discuss the Anglo-American relationship, the best of which are; ‘Blair’s Britain 1997-2007’ (Seldon, 2007) and ‘The Special Relationship, A Political History of Anglo-American

In order to fully interpret the nation of Iraq’s holistic condition during and after the Saddam Era, Social, Political, and Economic factors must be weighed accordingly and in contrast to each other. In order to do this, the span of years leading up to 1989, and