U.s. Bush Address The World 's View On The Middle East And Launch World War II

The Bush administration's National Security Strategy was a product of America’s belief in American interventionism and exceptionalism, and marked a dramatic shift in the United State's foreign policy. In addition, it showcased the Bush administration’s push to find answers to 9/11. In the few years after the tragedy, the US would seek to strike a blow in the war on terror in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist regime had supposed ties to terror groups such as Al-Qaeda. The nation quickly moved to war, and invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003. However, even though the war was quickly declared over, the continued deaths of American troops in Iraq gave rise to powerful protests. Artist Joe Wezoreck’s collage War President, critiques the continued stay of American troops in Iraq. Once Iraqi accounts of the war, such as Wendell Steveanson’s collection of stories “Dispatches from Iraq” surfaced, the American public truly began to question the real purpose behind the Iraq war. These sources initiated the changing perception of the American identity as a bastion of freedom and democracy as a result of the Iraq war. In the end, the Iraq war ultimately failed to provide answers to a post 9/11 nation, and instead revealed the flaws of interventionism and muddled American foreign policy to the disillusioned American

During his announcement, President Bush claimed that Hussein’s government showed no regard for international law, human rights, or morality. He also promised that the coalition forces would make every effort to liberate people who were suffering from mass killing and other atrocities under Hussein’s regime. The goal was to remove the threat posed by Hussein’s regime and help Iraq to establish a democratic political system, which would allow it to become a benevolent and peaceful country.

September 20, 2001, was the day that President George W. Bush addressed the Nation in a Joint Session of Congress following the terror attacks upon America (also known as 9/11). His speech was given to induce a specific action while at the same time addressing the Nation and Congress of the coming war on terror. President Bush’s speech was not only meant to inform but to persuade the American people to feel comforted in the light of this tragedy and acknowledge that serious efforts are being put forth to resolve the aftershock of the attacks. He aims to persuade the Nation that war is coming and that it’s the best decision for America. He advises the Nation of the coming war, leading with, “Americans have known the casualties of war -- but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning.” (American Rhetoric, 2001). He further advises of the impending war with the statements, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated” and “How will we fight and win this war? We will direct every resource at our command -- to the disruption and to the defeat of the global terror network.” (American Rhetoric, 2001). President Bush’s purpose and message of the speech was made very clear: We are going to war, and it’s going to be long with several casualties.

The start of the 2003 Iraq War has been debated by many historians. The arguments made by Krebs and Lobasz in their article “Fixing the Meaning of 9/11 - Hegemony, Coercion, and the Road to War in Iraq” are very persuasive, as are the arguments made by David Lake in “What Caused the Iraq War?”. These arguments center around the mindset of the Bush Administration, which was fearful of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and eager to use the terrorist attacks of 9/11 as rationale for war regardless of clear evidence. Other historians have presented considerable arguments as well, such as Debs and Monteiro, who argue that Iraq’s possibility of having nuclear weapons posed concern to the Bush administration. However, the best rationale for the start of the 2003 Iraq War combines the coercion model put forth by Krebs and Lobasz with the Lake assertion that the post-war rebuilding was not adequately considered. Krebs and Lobasz have the most salient arguments on manipulations of information, with insightful points regarding the motives of the Bush administration. Their points, however, aren’t complete as David Lake contains stronger information in certain parts of the debate. Lake adds important observations about Saddam’s inability to admit to not having nuclear weapons and the U.S.’s failure to estimate the costs of the post-war were key causes for the start of the war.

Before there was conflict in the city of Fallujah, Saddam Hussein helped this city benefit economically. Some citizens were also employed by his administration as intelligence officers and military members. However most residents felt that Saddam Hussein’s government was oppressive, and had little sympathy when it was other thrown.

What motivated the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 despite strong opposition from the international community? On one side, the administration maintains that the invasion was necessary to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In his memoir “Decision Points”, Bush argued that Saddam posed too much of a threat–he brutalized his own people, violated international demands, and sponsored terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. On the opposing side, critics of the war argue that the Bush administration used the 9/11 terrorist attack and the threat of WMDs to justify waging an illegal war against Iraq in order to extract Iraqi oil to fund the military-industrial complex, to secure Israel, and to “finish the job” of deposing Saddam. While these explanations for the invasion have some merit, they are problematic because they fail to capture the extent of the administration’s actual ambitions. An analysis of how individuals on Bush’s administration, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, viewed the world reveals that the invasion of Iraq was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of and necessity for preemptive action, overthrow Saddam, and transform the Middle East. However, what was perceived to be a quick and easy operation to stabilize the Middle East and secure America’s interest backfired and turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists.

Before the American intervention, Iraq was safer and wealthier. It was a relatively wealthy nation in the 70’s to the 80’s, until Saddam Hussein went to war with Iran. After the war, Iraq needed a lot of money to help fix it’s main infrastructure. He was accused by locals of not spending to fix the infrastructure, instead spending money on a lavish lifestyle, including construction of palaces for himself. Saddam Hussein's autocracy gave base camps, working bases, and other backing to terrorists battling the administrations of neighboring Turkey and Iran, and in addition to hard-line Palestinian organizations. Amid the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam charged a few fizzled terrorist assaults on U.S. offices. Preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department recorded Iraq as a

The invasion of Iraq was a surprise military invasion without the official act of declaring war. This eventually led to an occupation and the taking of President Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was tried by the new Iraq government and executed. From the start of the US occupation to years later, little had improved in Iraq despite media portrayals and in 2008 Iraq was number five on the Failed States Index. The 2003 Iraqi war symbolizes an international event that created a type of propaganda varying from the media broadcasted in previous wars. It also represents a defining moment in US history for its public relations campaigns. Even from the beginning of the war, the United States already labeled the event as “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Following defeat in 1991, where US Air Land Battle doctrine and “second offset” technological advantage were demonstrated effectively, Hamdani recommended transforming Iraqi land forces from “heavy mechanised” to “light infantry” with focus on “guerrilla war” to counter US air power dominance. However, Saddam was in denial viewing the “Mother of All Battles” a victory; this was logical to him – he remained in power when his enemy was no longer POTUS and he still had a military with the world’s largest Arab army. He regarded internal (coup, Shia) and regional (Iran, Israel) threats ahead of external (US) threats with “the possibility of … American invasion … nonsense.” Having successfully quelled in March 1991what he perceived as the greatest danger to his regime, an internal uprising, he intended to maintain the military capability proven to ensure “the internal security of the Ba’ath dictatorship” ; viewing change unnecessary. But he was wrong: the US threat was credible and his military was not fit to counter it. Nonetheless there was no transformation. The regime complied with his will, coerced by fear. Saddam’s draconian leadership created a culture of deceit. Most feared for their lives and ‘toed the Ba’ath Party line’ with lying becoming commonplace across government and the military. “The resulting personal and organizational paranoia profoundly affected how Iraq addressed its strategic and military problems.” This negatively affected Iraqi military readiness and planning. To the contrary, Hamdani, viewed as a competent officer with ‘top cover’ from

In 1969, my mother’s family fled Iraq for the United States in hopes of establishing a stable, opportunistic lifestyle. However, their refuge to the land of opportunity was not without adversity. Saddam Hussein’s rise to power was arguably the best and worst event that happened to the Chaldeans. Before Saddam, Iraq was led by nationalists who were not fond of Christians and their beliefs. However, Saddam’s prime minister, Tariq Aziz, was Chaldean and allowed Christians to practice their religion without feeling oppressed as a minority in a majority Muslim country. Still, the majority of their liberties were still restricted, and their obedience to Saddam and his Ba’ath Party regime was mandatory. In 1990, after ordering brutal chemical attacks

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 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

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

In recent years, the Iraqi nation has endured a crisis that will forever remain in the hearts and minds of the Middle Eastern culture. However, the outcomes of the War on Iraq will not change the long-lasting and passionate traditions and memories that have been held in the country for decades. One major event that happened in Iraq’s history is that on October 3, 1932 Iraq was established as an independent nation. Iraq has always been a country in which respect and generosity have been highly valued and play an important cultural role in everyday life. Additionally, approximately ninety-five percent of Iraqis are Muslim, and therefore Islam is the official religion of this nation (Gutierrez 1). Furthermore, Iraq is a