Baghdad in 2006 was a place of bias, controversy, and terror. The capital of Iraq was shaking not only by their new government that reflected dealmaking not meritocracy but, also with an internal religious struggle that was peaking with seventy or more deaths a day. Death was far too easy in Iraq, the United States was in the search for the for the best approach in a hostile environment where the identity of the enemy is masked by the surrounding civilians. The pending question that comes from the war in Iraq war, What is the right approach to for the U.S. military to take in Baghdad. When the Bush Administration took a look at their current state they were in and they found three approaches that were all very different. To get out, to hand over Iraq back to the people after stabilizing it, and the surge were the options that the President and his advisors had to choose from. Three options were brought up to the Bush Administration. The first approach was brought up and supported by the Iraq Study Group as well as Bush’s new Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. It can be stated quite simply, Get out of Iraq. This approach may not have been the most ideal but, in Baghdad 2006 was a deadly time for all people involved since enemy attacks had risen a third higher than the year before. Major controversy was also going down within the US military regarding the question of who the enemies were. The unknown frightened many because it was a clear flashback to Vietnam, as well it
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.
The invasion and the war in Iraq remains a continuous topic of divisiveness and sensitivity in today’s America. One of the negative evaluation of the war is attributed to the false impression of the length of the war which lasted seven years, not six months as presumed in 2003. As the invasion initiated, the ideologies of American government then failed to perceive the large number of troops required, casualties and the financial toll in the interest of the preventive war doctrine. However, when weighing the failures of this war, there are successes brought home that relate mostly to the lessons the American military and the government learned with the use of counterinsurgency tactics after “winning the hearts and minds” of Iraqis (Young). Nevertheless, with evaluation through levels of analysis, the accomplished agenda of ending Saddam Hussein’s regime justifies success and failure, mutually.
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
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
There is much controversy surrounding the war in Iraq, both in terms of its legality, its practicality and its current course. Within all of these elements there are arguments to be found that suggest that the troops currently in Iraq should indeed come home. The main argument for bringing home the troops is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place, as no weapons of mass destruction were found, and they are now doing virtually nothing to help the situation, and may indeed be worsening it.
With numerous opinions regarding whether the United States should continue airstrikes, re-send troops, or go another route, it is difficult to resolve the situation. Former Michigan representative Kerry Bentivolio’s thoughts that the removal of the United States’ troops from Iraq allowed the militant group easier access to overthrow the government is shared by many conservatives. Bentivolio (2009, para. 10) said in his address to congress
To understand this subject and cover all the aspects of it, we need to look to every simple and small details very carefully to find out what strategy will help us to win the war. Also, what make this effort success. It’s the view of administration on this war, can we end this endless war? When President Obama took the office, he wants to end this war. Changing the rule to more transparency, more ethical, and counterterrorism policies nimbler (Jessica Stern 2015-62). Since US army, military forces, agencies, and coalition forces left Iraq. There was a big gap in power, authority, and civil war going on. However, this wasn’t something new, it was going for ears but in small scale. Once US left Iraq in December 2011. That leaded to free movement of terrorist groups and fighter in middle east, especially Iraq and Syria. The military action is the cure for this vacuum now. “When the IS advance was stalled by coalition air strikes later this summer, IS militants and equipment melted into urban landscapes, operated at night, and distributed their forces into smaller tactical units, while limiting unsecure cell phone and radio communications. They deployed mines and improvised explosive devices to deny mobility and frustrate counter-offensives by Iraqi and Kurdish forces in Tikrit and Jalawla. Mines proved an especially effective means to passively control key areas because they are not vulnerable to airstrikes. Removal requires time-consuming and dangerous clearance techniques
In a speech given by President Bush, he called the surge “A new way forward”, which indirectly confirmed to many that the White House was aware of the military shortcomings in Iraq. Although the Bush administration most likely had the best of intentions, there are a few key reasons the Iraqi surge did not have sustained positive results. The surge strategy was to increase the number of troops in Iraq by 20,000; these troops would be used in urban civilian areas where military forces have had a difficult time clearing out neighborhoods. The surge was initially a success, however, after several months it became clear the success was short-lived, and the overall strategy was short sighted. Members of Al Qaeda simply left the region while it was heavily occupied, only to return when the U.S. threat had vacated the area. There was a survey conducted by Iraq, and the overwhelming majority of Iraqi citizens felt that daily living conditions had not changed they were in favor of American troops leaving their country. Although the primary goal of improving the lives of citizens was not fully realized, there is a bigger flaw with the surge, it had aimed to reduce American and Iraqi casualties, as well as lower the number of Al Quad attacks. As already stated, these surges did have some fleeting success, which were able to produce statistics that briefly pacified many critics of the war,
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.
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.
The war in Iraq has drawn a very rough line that the U.S. will not stand for terrorism and will fight to destroy these threats of the world. Destroying terrorism will make many individuals feel safer than they have felt since 9/11. Many people say Saddam was never a threat and the U.S. should have never stuck their nose in Iraq, but those people are ignorant because Saddam was always a big threat. The leadership under Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction and hurt Iraq immensely, causing people to lose their
According to Simon (2008), In January 2007, President George Bush declared a contemporary method to the war in Iraq. By that time sectarian and insurgent heating were accelerating far of any dominance. New Democratic in Washington was asking for ending the war in Iraq, but Bush refused that demanding and pushed for winning the war according to his policy that he promised to accomplish in Iraq (Simon, 2008). So, he made his decision not to retreat and go for concluding his mission with "The surge" in Iraq (Simon, 2008). According to Simon (2008), the administration of Bush, generally , is holding the responsibility of failing the surge in Iraq.
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.
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
As seen through today’s prism of operational art and design, the U.S. military’s campaign planning for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) was not successful. This failure resulted from flaws in the planning process itself, and the conclusions that flowed from that process. The lack of adequate advance planning for Phase IV stability or transition operations proved especially problematic. This contributed directly to rising levels of violence in Iraq, and indirectly to increased public scrutiny of the war at home. Throughout 2006, the U.S. public, pundits and military planners debated the way forward in Iraq. The plan that emerged from this period, known as the surge, successfully overcame the deficiencies in the initial planning and execution