The Unjustified War on Iraq Essay

In conclusion, President George Bush’s letter shows how united the world is against Iraq’s aggression. Twenty-eight countries would give military aid and one hundred governments would agree with the United States position. Iraq has no allies in their takeover of Kuwait. Bush’s threats of military action challenge Saddam Hussein’s arrogance and sense of infallibility. Warnings of the destruction of Iraq’s military and loss of life would be on the hands of Hussein himself. The United States would not be responsible for Iraq’s losses. Again, the primary audience for this letter is Hussein himself, because in a dictatorship such as Iraq, the people themselves are deprived of such information. Brute

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.

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

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

…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

Zunes, Stephen. "A U.S. Invasion of Iraq Is Not Justified." The Nation 275 (30 Sept. 2002): 11. Rpt. in Is Military Action Justified Against Nations Thought to Support Terrorism? Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document

On the aftermath of the 9/11 Terror attacks by Al-Qaeda, The US declares "total war on the evil forces" and invades Afghanistan, but Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda remain elusive and undefeated. In this course of action, public pressure is mounting and there is a need for a concrete enemy that can be Militarily defeated. Within this pretext the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein enters into the equation as the "Axis of Evil" instead of the real enemy - Al Qaeda, and is announced as the main Military target by the US government.

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.

This essay is in defense of the Iraqi War. President Bush’s vocal critics state that American troops’ have been sacrificed in the Iraq War. First of all, the word “sacrifice” means that a person voluntarily does or gives up something at his or her own free will (like a bunt to advance a runner in baseball or Catholics sacrificing and giving up chocolate for Lent). I don’t believe that any of those soldiers that have been killed in the war deliberately intended to die or were “sacrificed” as Michael Moore has erroneously stated. And I’m sure that if President Bush knew the names of those soldiers that were going to be killed, I’m certain he would have ordered those individuals to stay on U.S.

America is under attack, not from an enemy in a faraway land, but here at home, by our own government. In the current year 2010, almost 7 years after "shock and awe" campaign that officially started the war in Iraq, the U.S. government fails to recognize that our efforts in the Middle East have plateaued, and it is time to bring our troops home. The surge campaigns in recent years were felt by many, to be an unofficial recognition that the war is not going well, and several top generals have had high hopes for this military strategy, but compelling evidence concludes this was a short-lived success. No one can deny the financial toll the Iraq war has had on America, for America is in the middle of one of the worst economic crisis in recent

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.

June 7 2005, 42 Iraqis reported slaughtered in revolt related savagery, 67 individuals reported harmed in four bombings - three in the northern town of Hawija and one in Baghdad, 3 US officers executed, 1 remote prisoner taken, 40 outside prisoners accepted to be alive in confinement, 20 presumed agitators caught in Tal Afar, 8,000 Iraqi troops, 30,000 US troops working in Baghdad, 1,800,000 barrels of oil created, 25 percent of Iraqis totally subject to government nourishment hand-outs, 50 percent of Iraqis with no entrance to safe drinking water. Women and honorable men, welcome to a typical day for an Iraqi. Taking after the September 11 fear based oppressor assaults on the world exchange focuses in America, there has been a sentiment anxiety and a need to get revenge on those dependable. This response however has streamed into what we now know as the war in Iraq. Being an Australian, it is simple for us to be tricked by the media and media representations of these issues. We just realize what we see and what we see is not generally reality. President George Bush has intense issues. Prior to the main organization of troops to Iraq, Bush put forth various clear expressions about the reason the United States expected to seek after the most radical activities any country can embrace - demonstrations of war against another country. Presently plainly a number of his announcements seem, by all accounts, to be false. President Bush tended to the United Nations on September 22nd

     The war waged on Iraq by the United States has been the cause of heated debate all over the world. Many people have opposed the United States attack on Iraq for many viable reasons. Some of these reasons include that it is not in the best interests for the reputation of the United States with the other nations of the global community, it poses an increased threat to United States homeland security, and it will result in many unjust crimes committed by the United States.

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