The Iraq War, our government’s invasion dubbed “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” had finally arrived after declaring war on March 19, 2003. The U.S.-British coalition to invade Iraq and remove Hussein’s dictatorship has been both a beneficial and damaging political effort. A war that began because of Hussein’s unwillingness to participate in weapons inspections became a messy situation that would last over a decade. President George W. Bush announced his trademark “War on terror” and, as a result, invaded Iraq on the grounds that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction which threatened world security. Prime Minister Tony Blair concured with Bush and believed that the world would be safer when Iraq disarmed itself. One year after the invasion of Iraq, Hussein had been captured, no weapons of mass destruction were found, leaked photos of abuse of Iraqi detainees, and other nations providing troops were withdrawing—Was Iraq worth it? Bush and Blair both argued that even with all the setbacks, Iraqi citizens were better off then, than under the Hussein’s command, especially with the democracy on the horizon.
On the one hand, Bush believed Iraq did in fact have weapons of mass destruction. In his first State of the Union Address after the attacks of 9/11, Bush pledged the foreclosure of any regime that promoted terrorism through the use of WMDs. With the prompt military success in Afghanistan, Bush’s war on terror would not stop there. The chief executive called the United States to stand firm against the “axis of evil”—North Korea, Iran and Iraq (Milkis 416). The term “axis” evokes memories of America’s enemy Axis of World War II—Germany, Italy, and Japan. This is misleading because axis implies an alignment of some sort. ...
... middle of paper ...
...aghdad: “I made it quite plain…that it was obvious from the briefings that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction and had only battlefield weapons…I could not have been more blunt” (Watt-1). After British troops went to Iraq, Cook resigned promptly afterward. Blair went into Iraq with the intention to disarm not to dethrone because of the imminent threat to British interests. The Prime Minister was well aware that President Bush was to go to war in any case, yet Blair believed “it would be more damaging to long-term world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so” (Wheatcroft pg.67). This is why British troops went to Iraq without the second United Nation Security Council resolution, which Parliament was promised by Blair. Tony Blair was committed to the Iraq War regardless of defections.
Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the speech.
No matter how well intentioned the invasion of Iraq may have been, it was an act of violence and deception that has left many American men dead for no clear reason.
When Iraq invaded and occupied the country of Kuwait in August 1990, the Bush administration was faced with several dilemmas. From a foreign policy point of view, this action could greatly destabilize the balance of power in a part of the world that was vital to U.S. interests. The United States was dependant on a continuous flow of oil to drive its economic machine, which Kuwait supplied greatly. In addition, this move would put more power into the hands of a government that was not only unfriendly to the U.S., but a sworn enemy of the state of Israel, a strong U.S. ally. In addition to, the fall of communism had created what George Bush had described as, "A new world order," and would become the first major test of how the U.S. would handle its role as the sole remaining super power in this "new world order." There were many challenges facing the Bush administration as to the manner in which they would handle this first major international crisis. The Bush administration had to develop a consensus of the major remaining powers, and appear not acting alone in its response to President Saddam Hussein's actions of invading Kuwait. They also yearned to keep Israel from being involved so as not to alienate the remaining Middle Eastern nations. Lastly, they faced a domestic dilemma, in that much of the American public had significant reservations about involving U.S. troops involved in a foreign conflict. There remained a bad taste of Vietnam among the American public, and there were very mixed responses to American involvement in Somalia, Nicaragua, and Grenada. For the Bush administration, Hussein was not a merchant who could be bargained with, but rather an outlaw who would have to be defeated by force. The Bush administration was faced with a task of developing (more or less) overwhelming support from the U.S. people to take any action in Kuwait, which was accomplished by a dramatic public relations move to demonize Saddam Hussein in the eyes of the American people.
The Bush administration claimed that they intended to protect the American people from the imminent or future attacks by Saddam from the weapons of mass destruction. They further claimed that their goal was to install the much needed democracy in Iraq. What surprises is the fact that these arguments were not questioned as it should in the US media. The Iraqi war was depicted as USA verses Iraq or Bush verses Saddam. The perception assumed that the only players were Bush and Saddam and the goal being to win the war.
On September 11, 2001, our country was hit with enormous devastation, just after eight o’clock a.m. the first of the twin towers was struck by a suicide pilot, the second was struck slightly later. The towers fell just after ten o’clock a.m., devastating the entire country, and ruining the lives of many. A plane also hit the Pentagon in Washington D.C., and another in rural Pennsylvania causing just as much grief. The U.S. is still in mourning, but standing tall, more Americans showed their American pride in the following months than ever before. In the months to come the only thing that was on the minds of millions was: Should we go to war? War is necessary for the survival of our country. Going to war with Iraq is a fight against terrorism. Many people believed that going to war with Iraq is unjust. Some believe that there are other ways in looking at the situation.
The Iraq war, also known as the second Gulf War, is a five-year, ongoing military campaign which started on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S. troops. One of the most controversial events in the history of the western world, the war has caused an unimaginable number of deaths, and spending of ridiculous amounts of money. The reason for invasion war Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, which eventually was disproved by weapons inspectors. Many people question George W. Bush’s decision to engage a war in Iraq, but there might be greater reason why the decision was made. The ideas of George W. Bush might have been sculpted by one of the greatest works of all time, "The Prince."
March 19th, 2003 marked the official start to the US invasion of Iraq. Prior to this, there had been a lot of tension and conflict building up in the Middle East. Just months prior, President George W. Bush said in his state of the union address, coined a term for three countries that were seen as potentially dangerous and threaten the peace of the world. He called them the Axis of Evil, and it consisted of Iraq, Iran and North Korea, with Iraq being the major topic of discussion. He said that Saddam Hussein was carrying weapons of mass destruction and further developing chemical and nuclear weapons. He claimed that they had already used on civilians, “leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children”. He painted a grues...
While there are many theories one can draw upon to explain the background and outbreak of political conflict this paper will focus on the ‘Misperception Theory’. The prime objectives of this paper are to clearly document and explain the different facets of misperception theory, to effectively explore the various means by which decisions based on this theory can affect state policy and state welfare, and to reveal how exactly the misperception theory can aid scholars in understanding how and why conflict erupts. This paper will utilise the misperception theory to illustrate how, and why, the US and Great Britain overestimated the military pedigree and threat of the Saddam Hussein governed Iraq. Their misperception of the situation ultimately resulted in the two superpowers combining forces and invading the Gulf state in 2003.
In September 1980, Iraq invaded Iran because of a territorial dispute. This led to a long drawn out war that cost many lives and billions of dollars in damages, with either side unable to claim victory. This paper will focus on the three things that distinguish this war from previous wars. First, it was an excessively protracted and attritive war, lasting eight years, essentially destabilizing the region and devastating both countries. Second, it was a disproportionate war in regards to the means employed by either side. Iraq was supported by Kuwait, the United States, and several other Western European countries, allowing them to acquire advanced weapons and expert training (History.com staff, 2009). Lastly, this war used three modes of warfare not seen in previous wars: ballistic-missile attacks, the use of chemical weapons, and attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf (History.com staff, 2009).
The war between Iraq and Iran initiated in 1980 and it lasted eight years (3). The invasion of Kuwait started on the second of August 1990. There are reasons and consequences for this invasion that I am going to talk about in this essay
Bush had been eager to go to war with Iraq from the moment he stepped into office and the administration's focus was chiefly on Iraq even before the war in Afghanistan had begun. In Where Men Win Glory, the text reveals that “in November 2001, President Bush and Vice President Cheney had instructed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to secretly create a detailed plan for the invasion of Iraq” (Krakauer 192).
Pick up any newspaper or point your web browser to any major or minor news publication and questions like these will be all over them. A lot of Americans feel that the War on Terror and our presence in Iraq has lasted too long. Are they correct? Should we pull out and call it quits? Should we have another repeat of the Vietnam War? Believe it or not, that's how a lot of people view this war, as another Vietnam. They feel that we are out there, putting the American nose into something that shouldn't be picked. But they are not entirely true.
The war in Iraq is over now. Looking back on a huge controversy makes one side seem clearly more “correct” than the other. Yet in the beginning there were two sides to the controversy about the war in Iraq. There was the terror brought upon by the 9/11 attacks, people that the government wished to punish or kill like Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden, and a country which was in “need” of US help both politically and financially. At the time of the Terrorist attacks, people were afraid of what else the terrorists were planning or could do and so George Bush sent troops in to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In hindsight the war on Iraq was a bad idea. The situation was handled poorly, far too much money was spent, and there were far too many casualties to say that the war was a good idea to enter into. To continue war efforts and gain support, lies were spread about finding actual weapons. Later in the war it was revealed that there were never any WMDs. So beyond the decision that was seemingly wrong after a decade of fighting to enter a way with Iraq, the US government lied to prolong the war and continue to waste resources.
Woods, Kevin M., Stout Mark E. 2010. “Saddam’s Perceptions and Misperceptions: The Case of ‘Desert Storm’.” The Journal of Strategic Studies (February): 5-41.
The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition. The US wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime and bring democracy. To addition to that, US and its allies believed that Iraq had secret stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons, hence Iraq was a threat to the world (Axford 2010). In March 2003, US air bombed Baghdad and Saddam escaped Iraq. The invasion disarmed the government of Saddam Hussein. President Bush in March 2003 gave a premature speech, that tyrant of Iraq has fallen and US has freed its people. President Bush flew into Iraq to show the world that the war is over, even though nothing was accomplished (Kirk et al. 2014). Iraq was facing 13 years of scantions, therefore regime diverted its resources to flexible networks of patronage that kept it in power (Dodge 2007, 88). Iraq faced widespread of lawlessness and after the violent regime changed US could not control the situation. Iraqi civilians were looting, attacking ministries building and this resulted into a series of event (Kirk et al. 2014) . From a military perspective the regime was taken down, but they made no commitment to rebuild or secure the country.