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.
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).
...ed that we had the technology to develop satellites in space that would be able to shoot down any terrorist missile flying towards the U.S. Overall, his general style of foreign policies is extremely aggressive and even to some, way over the top.
... By making use of diction, Precedent Bush is again trying to make an appealing argument and strong support based on invalid assumptions and biased viewpoints. Since we are supposed to analyze his argument by using logic, it is hard to distinguish the logic from the issue because they are closely related. Nevertheless, I found out that the issue is that because of his personal values, assumptions, and illogical reasoning, he deceives American citizens to push a Middle East strategy we otherwise would not have. Six years after the 9/11 attacks, Americans are still looking for reasons to keep the troops in Iraq.
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.
Saddam Hussein’s main purpose of sending troops to take over Kuwait was to take control of their oil fields, which Hussein believed would be an easy task; however, he failed to understand that the United States and United Nations were keeping a very close watch on the Iraqi’s actions. Hussein also had other motives, such as freeing himself from the debt he was drowning in from the Iran-Iraq War just two years earlier. He set the pretense for war with Kuwait by defining their refusal to give land to Iraq as an act of military belligerence. President Bush ordered the United States to respond just five days after Iraq had invaded Kuwait. If the United States had not taken action, Hussein would have possibly continued to invade other oil producing countries and take control of the United States main sources of oil as well as threaten a number of innocent people’s lives.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein decided to declare massive aggression on the countries bordering Iraq. The most affected country was Kuwait. Due to the nature of their ties with the United States, Iraq had a well organized and equipped army that was capable of causing massive instability in Kuwait. The United States could not let this happen because of the importance of Kuwait to the US. Kuwait and the US were heavily involved in the oil business with Kuwait being one of the biggest oil suppliers in the world to the US. The aggression by Saddam Hussein to Kuwait was also a major threat to other Arab nations in the region that had formed trade ties with the US. The involvement of the US in this aggression became the first major predicament that President Bush faced regarding foreign policies and relations. The US could not allow Saddam to take over the Arab nations as that would pose a major threat to the supply of oil to the US. In addition, Iraq would have control over 20% of the world’s major oil supplies in the world. As a result President Bush responded to the Iraq despot’s power play with Kuwait to mobilize a global coalition with Arab nations in “Operation Desert Storm” that repelled Saddam Hussein’s aggression in 1991 (Crab and Mulcahy 255).
Secretary of State Colin Powell (directed by the U.S. government) reported in a speech given on Feb. 5, 2003 that Saddam had both the materials and the means to create weapons of mass destruction and also had links to the terrorists in al-Qaeda ("The Path to War"). This declaration led the United States declaring on March 17, 2003 that Hussein and his sons had 48 hours to leave the country or else the United States would take military action ("Iraq Timeline"). Hussein and his family did not comply, and on March 20, 2003, George W. Bush started bombing Iraq, particularly where Saddam and his officials were thought to be hiding. On May 1, 2003 President Bush declared the conflict over, a mere 42 days after the fighting officially started.
“ "Fool me once... shame on… shame on you...If fooled, you can’t get fooled again.” Moore agrees with this quote Bush said. Bush fooled the American people, they are fooled but it will not happen again. Moore believes that Bush was not a great president as he spent 42 percent of his presidency on vacation. He formed fear among the American people but put them on his back and led them with confidence and patriotism. The Iraq war is claimed to be pointless with none of the attackers from Iraq. Many people are dying in the Iraq war for no reason at all. Bush may continue to look for more weapons of mass destruction but is honestly wasting time. “Of course, none of these countries had an army, so it looked like we 'd be doing most of the fighting ourselves.” The United States kept invading but does not have much competition to fight
One of the main motives behind actually going to war aside from the acts that occurred on 9/11 was the belief that there were weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction were never found. Going to war w...
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.
What does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? Supporters of a war with Iraq say it will help prevent the risk of an attack by a weapons of mass destruction developed by Iraq. Critics of a military action that say nothing will be gained, and the U.S. just wants to obtain the oil that Iraq controls. 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.
...most distressed by outcome of a war, could exercise only inadequate control on the issue of armed action against Iraq. Most of the regional actors discarded the U.S. policy towards Iraq with varying intensity as they feared insecurity after Iraq’s disintegration (Reuters, 2003) whereas; Jordan decided not to endanger its rewarding ties with Washington. Another key actor at this level is the Baathi party in Iraq which was based on tribal division, domestic oppression and economic enticement. Under Baathi regime military, bureaucracy and security services was divided into several competing institutions which reinforced Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq. In the post war Iraq, the USA in collaboration with the Iraq National Congress and the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution started to make Iraq a democracy that is similar to the American political culture and values.
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.
Thakur, R. & Sidhu, W. P. S., 2006. The Iraq Crisis and World Order: Strutural, Institutional and Normative Challenges. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.