Was The 2003 Invasion Of Iraq A Legitimate Humanitarian Intervention?

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 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.

Humanitarian Intervention is military intervention that is carried out in pursuit of humanitarian rather than strategic objectives. This term is controversial and therefore often debated, as it is an evaluative and subjective term. The common use of the term itself is the desire to come in help to other people, however according to some other opinions, it is the outcome of the intervention that defines it. Firstly, it is essential to define what is meant by the word abandoned in this context. As HI has been happening throughout history, abandoned would imply an on-going lack or diminishing numbers of interventions.

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

Following the attacks in America on September 11, 1999, there was a public outcry for justice throughout the country. Even with significant public support to wage war against Iraq, there was not enough reason to persuade congress. Over the course of two years, President George W. Bush proved that there was a purpose in the war, not only seek vengeance against terrorism; but, gift a people freedom from dictatorship. Yet, there were still downsides to war including inevitable loss of American life and damaged reputation for our country. For that reason, the United States of America should not have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 due to the extensive federal funding for undesirable warfare which took away from domestic prosperity, the preventable injury to veterans as well as violence against civilians, and the country’s damaged reputation achieved due to the illegitimacy of the war.

Former State Department Advisor Robert Ebel stated “We didn 't go into Iraq to get access to the sand. We got into Iraq to get access to oil. Period. ”Conspiracy theories never fail to exist yet those surrounding this dreadful day in American history surpass any other. September 11, 2001, is a date no one old enough will ever forget considering there were roughly three thousand innocent people killed. There are those who say, though nothing is proven, that George W. Bush was involved in the complot in order to have a reason to go into the Middle-East. Regardless the true motives for the United States invading Iraq the war was, by far, one of the most impactful occurrences in American history. Despite

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.

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq not only signalled the beginning of the Iraq War, but also demonstrated the power and unchallenged military dominance of the United States. Unlike the first Gulf War, many of the US public, media and officials criticized the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq by questioning the legality and the evidence used to justify the war. These arguments as to whether the Bush Administration was justified in its use of hard power to invade Iraq are diverse and disputed among many historians. The opinions of several historians including Pollack, Mearsheimer and Siilberman, in conjunction with the primary accounts of US president George W. Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein create a conflicting and questionable

“If Hussein's brutal dictatorship warranted war, then we might also need to invade Zaire, Zimbabwe, Syria, Libya, China, and a host of other countries” (Babka) . This is a common argument that has been brought up by others who believe the invasion of Iraq was illegal. However, the failed diplomatic policies of the United States are what led to the failed invasion of Iraq.

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 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.”

From the “shock and awe” invasion to the fall of the Hussein regime and the near half-million Iraqi civilian casualties, the Iraq war was one of the most complex and disastrous conflicts in modern US history. Though the Iraq war was made to appear as a defensive attack against terrorism and Saddam Hussein, and a plan to instill a much-desired democratic government, the underlying objectives and ulterior motives of the American government ultimately made the war in Iraq one of the most publicly opposed wars since Vietnam. The reasons American engaged in direct conflict with Iraq were largely unsupported and unverified, and many political statements had been massively inflated to justify the war and gain civilian support. Shortly after the invasion

An understanding of where the Syrian healthcare system stood before the civil war, the toll of the fighting and intentional targeting of medical personnel/infrastructure, ongoing humanitarian efforts, and America’s actions to date enable an informed evaluation of whether or not to use American military forces in a humanitarian assistance role in Syria. This context allows for an examination of the limitations of humanitarian aid, the advantages/disadvantages of plausible courses of action involving the military and the threat of mission creep. Before evaluating the merits of available courses of action the military can take to address Syria’s medical crisis, it is important to identify and understand the limitations of humanitarian assistance in general. Taylor Seybolt, Associate Professor in International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh an expert on military and humanitarian intervention, cites the following inherent limitations of humanitarian intervention: it does not provide a lasting solution to conflict; it has the potential to prolong wars; it can foster economic dependence; and it inhibits strong state development.19 When these limitations are considered in regard to Syria, military intervention for the sole purpose of providing medical humanitarian support does not make sense.

With reference to one example of a humanitarian intervention since 1990, assess whether it was ‘humanitarian’.

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will