Essay War Ethics in Iraq

The 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, a unit known as the Rakkasans, were conducting Operation Iron Triangle in 2006 in Iraq when soldiers killed eight unarmed Iraqi men. The US military severely reprimanded the Commander of the Rakkasans, COL Michael Steele, for the unethical command climate his leadership allowed to exist within the unit at that time. This unit will need a new commander that can set and maintain an effective, ethical command climate through his leadership. That new commander should resolve the issues that led to the reported war crime in order to establish a culture that perpetuates an ethical command climate.

The soldier guilty of these acts is just hurting his own career in the long run by getting negative counselings which after so many are going to turn into an article 15 with extra duty or lose of pay and rank or all three combined. The other soldier or soldiers on the team could end up suffering as well just by having to work with such a dysfunctional team. Or perhaps one of the other soldiers might want to go to a school or something of the sort they might look at how the team functions and assume that he is the same as well and will consider what they will see as a better choice for certain opportunities, privileges and favorable actions.

The book Black Hearts by Jim Frederick is an in-depth narrative about the 1st platoon, Bravo Company 1-502nd Infantry 101st Airborne Division deployed to Iraq in 2005. The leadership failures documented in this book range all the way from the general officer level down to the lowest private. LT general Ricardo Sanchez failed to understand the climate his command group was entering as they were deployed into Iraq. From then on the entire leadership failures continued to compound upon each other with improper time to plan. It is customary to have a six month lead time to have a proper battle hand off when preparing to take over an AO from another unit. To compound this problem, the entire time the 502nd was in pre-deployment training, they

From the battalion level to the company level the leadership from the top started to makes its way the individual squad members. As 1st platoon continue to have their struggles with the leadership they begin to also have them with the battlefield. The constant stress from the leadership began to build up and continued to build up with the environment they were set in. A lot of the company commanders became passive leader not knowing what to or did not want to do anything that would get on LTC Kunk’s bad side. CPT good did show signs of stress in some of his decision making one in particular cost him the lives of his men. The platoon leader of first platoon LT Britt was an enthusiastic leader who everyone in his platoon respected but later feared for his life before dying to IED. The platoon sergeant seemed to take everything well even with the lack of sleep and supply. The squad leaders

Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their

Robert Bowdrie (Bowe) Bergdahl is a United States Army sergeant who left his post in Afghanistan 2009 purposefully and intentionally. The Bowe Bergdahl case is an odd case that sometimes does not make much sense. He will be facing court-martial sometime this year for is desertion and misbehavior. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is very similar to regular law but has some adjustments that pertain to certain military rules and regulations. Bergdahl violated one of the most important rules and the first General Order, these orders are a soldier’s guideline on how to conduct

By now, most Americans should be familiar with our history with Vietnam and the war we had with them almost six decades ago. It was a dark time in U.S history, and is an event that is never seen in a good light on either side of the spectrum (which, in this case, is the United States and Vietnam). Around 48,000 American soldiers lost their lives in the war (plus countless Vietcong), and those that did survive usually came home with some form of trauma, be it mental, physical, or both (www.cnn.com). Combine that with the rampant protesting across the nation, the shady nature of Nixon 's presidency, and the mounting debt being created, and this whole situation creates what one would call a “mess”.

On August 2nd, 1990 Iraqi military forces invaded and occupied the small Arab state of Kuwait. The order was given by Iraqi dictatorial president Saddam Hussein. His aim was apparently to take control Kuwait's oil reserves (despite its small size Kuwait is a huge oil producer; it has about 10 per cent of the world's oil reserves ). Iraq accused Kuwait, and also the United Arab Emirates, of breaking agreements that limit oil production in the Middle East. According to Saddam Hussein, this brought down world oil prices severely and caused financial loss of billions of dollars in Iraq's annual revenue.

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.

In March of 2003 George W. Bush declared war on Iraq. The war against this country was expected to be a quick victory for the United States. Sure enough, in May of 2003 Bush declared an end to major operations in Iraq. The United States had taken the country from Saddam Hussein with little resistance. Americans were mixed in the approval of the use of force, and their doubts of Bush’s faults were boosted when no weapons of mass destruction were discovered. However, during the war, the United States suffered a very small number of human casualties. Since Bush declared the end of major military operations, more than 150 U.S. soldiers have lost their lives in occupied Iraq. This number is much higher than the total of

1,922 people. According to the Huffington Post, that is the number of people killed by ISIS in June 2014 (Wing).  ISIS is a dangerous force in the world, and the United States has a moral obligation to end its rule.  ISIS has threatened America many times, it has killed thousands of innocent people, and its extreme wealth is allowing the organization to continue the attacks.  The U.S. has a duty to itself, and to the rest of the world, to stop the brutal regime of ISIS.  America needs to increase its military action against ISIS so that it can protect the people of the world.

Over the previous two decades, the number of countries acquiring a democratic regime has increased dramatically. Democracy is a political regime allowing a system of government that is based on the belief of freedom and equal justice. Power is held by elected representatives through free and fair elections, resulting in a system that reflects the people’s choices. Democratic countries rarely, if ever, wage war on each other and tend to resolve disputes in a more peaceful manner rather than declaring war on their opposition. However, they are not the utopias of peace that many people envision democracies to be. The invasion of Iraq by the United States of America in 2003 stands as a strong example where the impact of a forced regime change has resulted in unrest and violence. IGO’s like the UN promote democracy in a less invasive and obstructive way and are a lot more successful. The invasion of Iraq clearly demonstrates the dangers of promoting democracy in an undemocratic international system. The spread of democracy cannot be imposed by force as it is discrediting the idea of freedom that the regime itself represents. Is democracy a reason for peace just as much as it is a justification for war? I believe democracy does make the world a more peaceful place, however, the forceful spread of democracy does not.

Operation Desert Storm or otherwise known as the Gulf War was a huge victory for the United States and its allies while at the same time a devastating defeat for Iraq.1 The attack led by the United States on Iraq nearly destroyed the Iraqi's military capabilities which forced Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and led to changing Iraq’s southern border in a way that was in favor of Kuwait. The attack also instigated differences in opinion in Iraq and generally weakened Saddam Hussein's regime.2 As Robin Wright stated, “Operation Desert Storm served as a textbook case of how to deal with aggression in the post-Cold War world”.3

In January 11, 2002, Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) was opened as a prison camp at the Naval Military Base in Cuba to detain terrorist suspects during the Bush Administration. Since President Obama took office in 2008, continued operations of the prison camp has been largely debated between both the Obama Administration and Congress (“Barrack”). Currently, there are 91 remaining detainees housed at Gitmo. President Obama, in his 2016 State of the Union address, stated that he will continue to work towards closing the prison because, “...it’s expensive, unnecessary, and serves as a recruitment tool for American enemies.” Members of Congress, on the other hand, rejected President Obama’s plan to close the facility because his plan includes integrating a number of high risk detainees into our U.S. Federal prisons which threatens the safety of the American people. The war on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has developed over the last several years while our military base has been reduced (“2014 Trending”). Closing the prison camp will only send a message to our enemies that the U.S. is, once again, retracting efforts to end the war. Gitmo should remain open as long as the war on ISIS exists and it should continue to serve as a prison camp to terrorist groups but, the prison should be reformed from its reputation of torturing detainees and serve primarily as a prison to house those who are a threat to our United Sates citizens. As of now, the plan to transfer the 91

To be successful in Iraq, and in any war for that matter, our use of force must be tied to a political objective more complete than the ouster of a regime. To date, that has not happened in Iraq. It is time it did.