Unjust Iraq War Essay

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.

One must examine the fine points of each argument that the administration had proposed for the immediacy of war in order to best refute them. The first and often most repeated argument that Saddam Hussein posed a direct threat to the United States is that he possessed weapons of mass destruction. I am willing to concede that the Iraqi military possessed both chemical and biological agents. Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of them that were never accounted for after the first Gulf War. He has even used them on several occasions on Kurdish minorities in Northern Iraq. However, no proof was ever offered that he possessed nuclear weapons or the means to develop them in the near future.

The first step in establishing an Iraqi threat was to demonstrate that Iraq possessed WMD, meaning chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver these weapons. The possession of these weapons would be in direct violation of U.N. resolutions put into effect after the Gulf War and hopefully justify any use of force under international law. Time and time again the Bush administration put forth statements that, “Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving even closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” In February of 2003, one month before the U.S. waged war on Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell brought the administration’s case for war before the United Nations Security Council in an effort to garner U.N. support for an effort to disarm Iraq. By one count, “Powell made twenty-nine claims about Iraqi weapons, programs, behaviors,

The principal issue presented by this source is that US military strikes on Iraq are justified.

"An American Attack on Iraq is Not Justified" was written by John E. Farley in 2002 when congress was considering a resolution to the 9-11 attacks. Farley is a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University and still participates in war protests to this day. Farley's argument is exactly what the title states, a war in Iraq is not justifiable. The United States ultimately went to war against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Since then, the question of whether or not the war is ll, showing that he cares to inform everyone about the current situation.

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.

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.

The bottom of the line is that the Coalition, mainly America, was going to win this war via superior technology and man power. Before this war, the Republican Guard was seen as the greatest military force in the Middle East and no one was going to beat them. We see in the six week campaign that this was not to be the case, as casualty reports for the Iraq side to be 20,000 all the way up to almost 35,000. Whereas US forces had 148 KIA throughout the entirty of the seven month event including both operations.

The reason for the invasion of Iraq was that they were suspected of harboring weapons of mass destruction and they were a potential threat to world peace. However no evidence has ever been found of the existence of such weapons in Iraq and this brought a lot of criticism on the US. This was however not the first altercation the US has been involved in in the Gulf war they fought with Iraq in order to protect their oil interests in the gulf region. The united states in the past has been known for going to war to protect is economic interests from the second world war, to the Vietnam War to the Korean War. All was aimed to protect the economic superiority of the United States. The resolution that brought the gulf war to an end put Sadam Hussein in power and thereafter he failed to follow some compliances the United Nations had imposed and in 2003 the Us led a coalition of forces aimed to remove Sadam Hussein from power and it was successful as he was executed 3 years later. This however started war in the country with the people bring opposed to the occupying forces and the new government that was in place. They also had additional reasons for

In the years leading up to and during the Iraq War, the United States pursued a neo-conservative agenda that aimed to dismantle Saddam Hussein’s regime, eliminate the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), and install a democratic government in Iraq. To do so, U.S. policymakers deployed military forces and diplomatic ambassadors to intervene. This strategy, clearly seen during the early invasion in 2003 and the surge of 2007, produced mixed reactions. Indeed, more than a decade after the U.S. decision to mediate, the question remains: Can intervention actually work?

The Iraq War was a 8-year conflict between a US-led coalition and Saddam Hussein’s regime. The Bush Administration suspected that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and was planning attacks on American soil. On the Twentieth of March, 2003 the US invaded Iraq and within weeks, toppled the government (Biography.com). Many historians question whether the Americans actually had the justification to invade Iraq. Given the information that American intelligence had at the time, it is clear that the American invasion was justified. The Americans acted to secure what they thought to be a large cache of WMD, they upheld international law and they offered a deterrent against future attacks.

Various people may argue that we attacked Iraq since they are responsible for the attacks on September 11th and Americans needed to fight back. However, the Washington Post printed the following statement in June 2004, “The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no ‘collaborative relationship’ between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging another one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq”(Pincus). This confirms that two of the key components for our invasion on Iraq were spurious and Bush had no explanation to proclaim war with Iraq. Former President Bush utilized his authority in an effort to make Americans feel secure, by declaring an avoidable and costly war that has yielded nothing more than debt and death. No weapons of mass destruction have been recovered along with no established link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda; therefore, the invasion on Iraq was not justified and must end soon. Subsequently, the war in Iraq is not only unjustified, it is mismanaged and our soldiers are suffering dreadfully.

The two most effective options are containment and invasion, as they utilize military force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Invasion is a viable solution because Hussein is a dangerous threat and needs to be removed from power immediately. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly proven to be uncooperative and deceptive in dealing with the United Nations weapons inspections. Also, defeating the dictatorship in Iraq will send a message to other countries, just by mobilizing their troops that this behavior will not be tolerated by the United States, and that we are willing to invade, regardless of support from other powers (Mack). The regime in Iraq is a threat to the Iraqi people, the citizens of the United States, and all of the surrounding countries.

     The final and most important reason for the United States not to wage war against Iraq is that it will cause many war crimes. Wars always involve taking the lives of innocent people, and many other injustices that can be illustrated if we look to wars fought in the past. First of all, innocent civilians will be killed. The loss of every innocent life is an injustice and a tragedy. Secondly, after the Persian Gulf War fought from 1990-1991, the troops who fought in the war and the people of Iraq developed increased incidences of cancer and birth defects to their newborn children. This was later found to be due to the radioactivity of the depleted uranium used in the weaponry to fight the war. The current war against Iraq employs the same weaponry made of the depleted uranium, and will only cause more generations of people with cancer and birth

The war on Iraq was in response to the imminent threat of Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism as reported by the United States government, or that’s what the citizens of the United States were told by George W. Bush. He told the world that the Iraq war was a war on terrorism following the September 11 attack of the World Trade Center in New York City. At some point during the war, Bush thought he could make a deal with Hussein that included allowing Hussein to stay in power in exchange for oil drilling rights for the United States. This was because Bush knew that if Saddam Hussein were to sign with members of the United Nations on oil drilling rights, the United States would lose all power to Iraq’s oil. “If those sanctions were removed while Saddam Hussein was still in power, companies from all of