They claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford. Nonetheless, America should act while others will not for fear of disturbing global peace. Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States and the security of countries around the world. For the past several months the United Nations’ Security Council has debated on whether or not to accept the U.S. proposal to force Iraq to comply the new and former resolutions. The new resolution calls for complete disarmament of Iraq and the re-entrance of weapons inspectors into Iraq.
Saddam Hussein was indeed a ruthless dictator who violated human rights and caused conflicts in the Middle East. Despite this, his threat to the world community was largely overstated by the US in its justifications for going to war. His reputation as crazy and unpredictable was countered in his psychological assessment, which clearly shows his motivations and identifies the amount of foresight in every decision he makes. Basically, his main motivation was to stay in power and he did everything he could to achieve that. Drawing off of this assessment, if becomes very clear that if he wanted to stay in power, even if he did have chemical, biological, or weapons of mass destruction, he would never use those in a foreign conflict, much less against the US because the US would turn around and take him out.
So either we support their words and actions or we are vilified as unpatriotic.” Bush had a dictator attitude when it came to his reasoning for war. He felt he did not have to justify or answer to anyone’s questions for his reasons. Bush let Americans believe some of the conspiracy theories in order to shift the blame away from his administration. Instead of finding the most qualified skilled individual to lead the investigation on the 9/11 attacks, Bush appointed an individual who has been under fire with the government before. Henry Kissinger, a man whose been investigated for his secretive activities and tried for war crimes, was now called to investigate the biggest crime against America.
In the article “War with Iraq” it states that the United States has proposed a resolution to Iraq but if Iraq refuses to comply with the resolution then the United States of America will use force to go out with the resolution (War). Although some people may think that going to war with Iraq is a bad thing to do. They think this way because they see going to war with Iraq that “nothing will be gained, and the U.S. just wants to obtain the oil that Iraq controls”(War). They criticize on the war because they see that by the United States sending soldiers over to Iraq to pursue a new revolution is just pointless and nothing will be gained by going Fletcher 2 to war with Iraq. People also believe that the only reason that the United States is gong to war with Iraq is because they believe that the United States is only going to war to have control of the oil that Iraq contains.
This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died in vain. Rather, that the Bush administration took advantage of the vulnerability and solidarity of the American people following the attacks of September 11 to create an environment in which any scrutiny of the justifications given for war was deemed unpatriotic and a threat to our nation’s security. In this way, the war, and Bush’s bid to maintain power through the 2004 election, went forward despite evidence that the reasoning behind going to war was, at best, misleading. The Case for War: The case for war put forward by the Bush administration rested on the establishment of Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States’ national security (see Table 1), which could only be lessened by attacking Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. In outlining the Iraqi threat, the Bush administration brought together two incidents—the September 11 attacks by Al-Qaeda and U.N. efforts to disarm Iraq following the Gulf War—which in reality had nothing to do with one another.
The War The war in Iraq is the biggest mistake that this Government has made. We were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which were a threat, but the Iraq Survey Group has proved that this was not the case and that the policy of containment was working. If inspectors had been given more time, they would have concluded that no WMD existed and a war which has killed many thousands of people would have been avoided. It is now clear that the issue of whether or not Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction was a smokescreen. Leaked government papers have shown that Tony Blair was committed to go to war with George Bush on the issue of regime change at least a year before the conflict, but he kept this secret from Parliament and the British people.
These tensions have fuelled gossip of US-led military intervention. However, whether the US should intervene militarily or not has drawn several opinions. Opinion based on humanitarian grounds that urge the president to intervene using military action, is one of them. The proponents argue from the point of view that suffering demands action (Moyn 3). This group believes that the United States is in the best position than any other country to stop the suffering of the Syrian people and the bloodshed going on, and therefore no action from the US means more innocent lives will continue to be lost (Moyn 3).
The Iraq war has been a very sensitive and divisive issue in today's society. Although we can not ignore the cloud around this administration when it comes to potential incentives that going to war presented, (such as oil for profits and retaliation to Saddam Hussein for the Gulf War and treatment of President Bush Sr.), I will look beyond these potential motives to explain why the U.S. involvement in the Iraq War was unjust simply because it doesn't fall into any of the four functions of force authored by Robert J. Art. The United States ignored the U.N. guidelines for peace, as well as its public protest against the war, to strike Iraq with an unprovoked attack. A war fought on the premise that this country had ties to Osama Bin Laden, was harboring terrorist, and had nuclear ambitions.
The fourth and final reason is by far the most important. If you look at history you can see that we already attempted to win this type of war and it has been proven unwinnable. The U.S may get minor victories, but we will never completely win over in the Middle East. ISIL is not a joke of an army it is made up of some of Saddam Hussein’s closest generals and to take them lightly would be downright idiotic. As supporters of not going to war say in the article ISIS, “[I]s America cause a backlash among the very people it needs to win over?” (ISIS) They make a very valid argument.
Proponents of such an approach, however, often underestimate the costs and risks involved. Instead of mounting a U.S. attack on Iraq as part of the current campaign, the Bush administration should take advantage of its success in Afghanistan to pressure allies and regional players to isolate Saddam's regime and to reinforce deterrence in an unambiguous way. A new "Bush Doctrine" should announce that Baghdad's support for terrorist networks, transfer of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups or individuals who target the United States, or the harboring of such terrorists will be considered an act of war and lead immediately to an American military intervention to overthrow the regime. Targeting Iraq There are many potential targets for a possible post-Afghanistan phase of the war—Abu Sayyaf guerrilla bases in the Philippines, for example, as well as terrorist headquarters and training camps in Somalia, Syria, and Lebanon. But none is more consequential or more prominent in the current policy debate than Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.