Earlier this week we were privileged to watch the PBS Frontline film titled, “Losing Iraq”. In the beginning of this film, General Keane believed that the United States shouldn’t invade Iraq. Keane noticed that the war plans didn’t include adequate plans for securing the country. At the same time, General Franks announced that by September 2003, 110,000 troops would be prepared to leave and that a division of 30,000 would stay and handle Iraq. At this point of time, this was huge news for the United States, they truly believed that the major combat phase of the war in Iraq was over. United States next step was to send Jerry Bremer to Iraq to attempt to fix 20 years of dysfunctional government. Jerry Bremer was a very interesting candidate …show more content…
My answer is, bring ‘em on. We got the force necessary to deal with the security situation.”
The plan to send more than 100,00 troops home by September 2003 was now absolutely out of the question. As the war continued, thousands of Iraqis were swept up in raids. The reality became that you’d go into a village and just arrest everybody. Things were beginning to get out of hand, the Defense Department decided it wanted Iraq to be given back to the Iraqis as soon as possible. Soon after the discussion, the US Army captured Saddam Hussein and he shared that he was willing to negotiate. Many believed that this would lower the tension in Iraq, but they were absolutely wrong. Four American contractors were murdered and two of the bodies were hung from a bridge. This upset George Bush very much and he demanded that the Marines retaliate. The Marines took the order and moved into the city, killing people. Once the Marines were ordered to stop fighting, they were now ordered to simply surround Fallujah and contain the insurgents. Soon after this, Bremer formed a new government, and handed Iraq back to the Iraqis.
As the war continued, the United States Army was fighting the Mahdi Army. They pushed the Mahdi Army into Sadr, but the White House didn’t want to risk destroying the mosque so the Army was ordered to cut a deal. The deal was to have their militia not oppose the Americans. The United States
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
President George W. bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq just months after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. There is evidence that shows Bush was after Saddam Hussain from day one of his presidency. Paul O’Neill claims that Bush started constructing arrangements for the invasion of Iraq within days of Bush’s inauguration. Bush denied these claims and discredited O’Neill by declaring he was a dissatisfied employee who was dismissed by the White House and that O’Neill had no reliable comprehension of U.S. foreign policy. The Iraqi National Congress argues that soon after Bush’s inauguration, Bush contacted them to discuss how to remove Hussein from power, which confirms O’Neill’s allegations
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.
Soon after the invasion, Hussein went into hiding. American and coalition forces were able to take control of Iraq's major cities in three weeks, without many casualties. On May 1, 2003 President Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq, although guerrilla war continued in Iraq in the years that followed and thousands of coalition soldiers and civilians were killed.
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.
In the weeks immediately after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, the nation watched anxiously as the Bush Administration declared war on terror. Following the invasion of Afghanistan to hunt down those responsible for this horrific incident, the U.S. swiftly changed its priority to invading Iraq and overthrowing its government by capturing its president, Saddam Hussein. In this mission, the U.S. scrambled to find a connection between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization al-Qa’ida. Since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion
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
In 1993, John Keegan, the world’s most prominent military historian, called the war “a triumph of incisive planning and almost faultless execution.” Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first war, later to become Secretary of State, concluded in his 1995 biography that even though Saddam Hussein remained in power, “the remaining Iraqi army is
However, this external trust has been fraying from the edges for many years – clear and realistic political strategy has been lacking from civilian leaders, a well-meaning yet disengaged public, and an insular military class that fails to organically adapt to emerging technologies. A clear and realistic political strategy determined by civilian leaders addresses the first leg of the strategic triad – government. It is said success begins at the top, with a cohesive vision and unified guidance. One doesn’t have to look further than the 2003 invasion of Iraq - then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed it would require no more than 150,000 troops to secure Iraq, despite the insistence of then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki that it would take 300,000 troops, a number derived from his experience in Bosnia. (Mills, 2013) However, this detail overshadows the deeper implication – that civilian leaders were not planning for stability operations, or had a plan in place after the conventional phase of the war. The lack of guidance and vision from the nation’s strategic leaders make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for the military to effectively prosecute
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.
…The U.S. began the Iraq war with the goal of ridding the region of a tyrannical government that didn’t protect its people. However, a decade later, at the conclusion of the U.S. military mission in Iraq, the people are perhaps worse off than they were before the
Even though there was considerable lack of cultural awareness and trust by the U.S., and the Sunni 's: both parties help to created the battles of Fallujah as the torture and killing of four Blackwater military contractors on 31, March 2004 was the consequences of actions that took place on 28, April when gunshots fired into an anti-American rally, killing 17 and wounding more than 70 Fallujah protesters, this event ultimately was the catalyst of the insurgency mainly due to the people of Fallujah feeling honor-bound to exact revenge (Knarr, Castro, & Fuller, 2009, p. 13) which created a considerable lack of trust by the Fallujah people. Lack of support and coalition made it easy for insurgents to take over the Fallujah territory.
forces at a hideout in Abbottabad, Pakistan. In June 2011, President Barack Obama announced the beginning of large-scale troop withdrawals from Afghanistan, with a final withdrawal of U.S. forces tentatively scheduled for 2014. Many people throughout the world (though not all) are in agreement that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. In losing Hussein, the Iraqis gained freedom of expression. Due to us fighting the war they are slowly turning into a democracy. Iraq could eventually serve as an example of democratic transition for other nations in the Middle East. However, it’s too soon to measure the benefits of the Iraq war. It remains to be seen how history will judge America’s involvement in Iraq. The war against Iraq was a war that needed to be fought. If we fought more ruthlessly it would of been over sooner. In October 2002, a National Intelligence Estimate stated that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction,” or WMD. On March 19, 2003, with the support of Congress and the majority of Americans, the U.S. military began bombing Baghdad in a campaign titled “Shock and Awe.” The result was 189,000: Direct war deaths, which doesn't include the hundreds of thousands more that died due to war-related hardships. 4,488: U.S. service personnel killed directly.32,223: Troops injured (not including
America is under attack, not from an enemy in a faraway land, but here at home, by our own government. In the current year 2010, almost 7 years after "shock and awe" campaign that officially started the war in Iraq, the U.S. government fails to recognize that our efforts in the Middle East have plateaued, and it is time to bring our troops home. The surge campaigns in recent years were felt by many, to be an unofficial recognition that the war is not going well, and several top generals have had high hopes for this military strategy, but compelling evidence concludes this was a short-lived success. No one can deny the financial toll the Iraq war has had on America, for America is in the middle of one of the worst economic crisis in recent
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
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