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.
I am sure as soon as this new leader does something wrong to the Untied States he will get taken out of office and a new president of our choice will be put into office. Most people would argue that if someone is considering going to war, it is better to fight for noble principles such as liberty, democracy, security, and human rights rather than for strictly economic interests. Such considerations have to be dealt with when policymakers will gain so much by going to war. In the real world it is consequences that matter. If it is true that President Bush and his advisors want to fight a war for oil, than they can do it.
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. The reasons for going to war with Iraq were just and reasonable. Terrorists from Iraq attacked national monuments and important US buildings killing many innocent people. It turn, the bush administration put forth a statement to rid the middle east of their WMDs and to impose a “power house” of sorts to keep terrorism out of America.
Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation. The Bush Administration’s plan for war in Iraq, violates International laws, furthermore being ethically wrong (Walton).
War With Iraq Have you ever took aside time to the and wonder why is the United States of America still in the war with Iraq and what do they have to gain out of the war? Is it because the United States of America is trying to go after the oil supply that Iraq contains or is it just simply that they are trying to prevent any future terrorist attacks from happening? It is arguing in the article “War With Iraq” that the supporters of the war thinks that “it will prevent the risk of an attack by a weapon of mass destruction developed by Iraq (War).” In the article people who is opposed to the war think that there will be no benefit or anything gained and that the United States of America is just trying to get a hold of the oil supply that Iraq holds. Many people believe that the war’s casualties is “too costly for Americans to afford (War).” They also think that America should take action towards Iraq because Iraq pose a great danger to the people and securities of not only the United States of America but other countries around the world. The United States of America once had weapon inspectors in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction.
The United States was successful in driving out Iraqi military from Kuwait, but didn’t continue to pursue Saddam militarily. Instead, laws were created through the United Nations that would require weapons inspections to occur frequently. These inspections would be carried out by U.N. officials throughout Iraq. Over the last 11 years, Saddam has continued to defy resolutions made to contain his military. Since then Saddam’s military has increased in both troops, and weapons.
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.
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. Many people “claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford” (War). On the other hand, I disagree that nothing will be gained because by going to war with Iraq it will give the United States a better chance to find weapons of mass destruction, therefore having a lesser chance of a terrorist happening in the United States. I also disagree that the United States is only going to war with Iraq just to have control of the oil that Iraq contains. I strongly feel this way because if the United States where only in the war to control the oil that Iraq contains I believe that they would have already used force to go out with such actions.
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.
One obvious question when considering costs is why the government has to ask for supplemental appropriates in the first place. Why can't it be put in the annual budget request? According to Chris Preble, director of foreign-policy studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, DC, "There is one good argument for not using Iraq costs for not being in the annual military budget. That is the risk you build in tens or hundreds of billions of dollars that are not applied to Iraq, but applied to somewhere else. However, that concern is completely overwhelmed by the fact that funding for war by supplements really seems to be intended to conceal some of the costs, and to present costs to Congress to be a fait accompli.