Opposing War On Iraq And Its Effects - Essay Example

Opposing War On Iraq And Its Effects What is War? War is a situation where there is an armed conflict amongst different countries or different groups within a country. Wars first took place in history at the birth of civilization around 5,000 B.C, and it represented a form of brutality perpetrated by humankind. People may read war literature for many reasons. It may give a reader a high level of enthusiasm hence leading to emotions of anger, physical challenge and goes to an extend of employment of military skills. Other people read war literature for the historical acquaintance. All these literature of war has a wider arc that takes to depict causes and consequences of the battle. Similarly, much of the familiarity of war remains an individual business, a personal testing and an act of becoming. The poetry of the revolutionary war is likely to be arithmetic and sentimental. The outcome of this war on an individual has generated a body of work that rivals the literary response to combat itself. Subject to this matter, the inversion of war may well turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster to the American history. What motivates bloody contests between two rivals is a defense fought by a greedy power against an equally greedy attacker thus creating a war between them. In ancient days, war was made up of War world I and World War II. This chapter is going to review why America should not go to war with Iraq, historical event of the distant or recent past and the effects. In addition, the chapter will also discuss the outcome if a different procedure had been followed, and finding an approach that can solve the lingering effects. At the early American military history, it had a few activities of the armies and a clash of nations. It was identified as little war and it waged against many countries. The study of America military history began as an attempt to address wars under the low-intensity conflict. However, early Americans understood war as a tool to disrupt enemy troop, supply networks and gathering intelligence through scouting, ambushing and destroying enemy detachments. They also destroyed rival’s villages, field, assassinating them and intimidating enemies in the population. The American way of war established a model that most scholars used to clarify the American tradition. However, the first way of war became a preferred tool of conquest in America which united behind the war effort. This war also had a far reaching repercussion for the United States Navy (Grenier, Pg 113). The war made it compulsory for many people to transform their personal views of the globe around them. It also brought changes in how people viewed their country. Before the war, most Americans viewed the United States initially, not as a nation but union of states. However, given the demise of the main reasons for going to war and the subsequent unexpectedly high American casualty levels, it is impressive that support for the war in Iraq remained as high as it did. This may reflect the fact that numerous people still connect the effort campaign on war against terror, an enterprise that continues to enjoy huge support, as did World War II or the Cold War. In addition, the toppling of Saddam remains a singular accomplishment as noted earlier, that the American people had been spoiling for at least since 1990. Despite continual assertions to the contrary from all sides, a fair number of Americans continued to see a connection between Saddam and the events of 911 in September 2006, two-and-a- half years into the Iraq war, 38 percent still remained convinced that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks (McNeese, 64). The guns of the America vessels outnumbered those of the enemies from the other countries, but it did not work for the country of Iraq. Saddam Hussein who usually posed threats to the United States of America, on the other hand, ruled Iraq hence the Americans saw the need for destroying Saddam’s regime and weakening the state of Iraq. However, the Americans by this means lost a significant counterweight to Iraq’s enemies (Weeks, 5) The entire country of America accepted explanations for the Iraq war as apparent and reliable. The America’s choice to attack Saddam Hussein’s administration on March 2003 was an invention of an ideological agenda, imprudent priorities, deliberate deceptions and grand strategies of the president. Disarming and democratizing Iraq’s brutal regime were viewed as moral imperatives and considered having long term security interests of the United States (Harvey, 10). The implication of Iraq war was not similar in every place. Citizens interpreted the war in diverse ways. Local television produced sets of images and rhetoric geared to go well with the reputed interest of their nations and their audience (Rutherford, 129). America should not set out war with Iraq simply because this is because Iraq uses chemical weapons to fight with its rivals. Iraqi use Weapon of Mass Destruction in order to get rid of their counterparts and improve human rights in their country. America knows that they use mustard gas hence fearing the fight with them because they would diminish whatever limited influence the U.S had in Iraq. America does not permit Iraqis to buy guns in the United State, but instead they have imposed an arm ban on Iraq. This is quite an essential principle, particularly in the Iraq’s violation of an international implementation that by its explicit proscription of chemical weapons use is a human rights convention, not a disarmament treaty. Although the ban of weapons raised many questions, the America wondered where Iraqis obtained these chemicals weapons. The disagreement for disarming Iraq using powers has become a major factor to the Security Council in America (Stich, p.152). America hopes that the Iraqi administration will one day meet the demands of the UN and disarm completely and calmly. The fortification of the American nation depends on completing this growing threat. Acting against the risk will also add to a great extent to the long-term security and constancy of the globe. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of dictatorship to spread conflict and violence in America and other countries like Middle East. A coalition of more than 90 countries has been following the networks of the terror that the Iraqi had posed by using every tool of law enforce and with the military power. Americans proclaim that they will win despite their diminutive effort and they will succeed possibly by showing them the meaning of American justice. Moreover, they contrast in the opposing of the utmost danger in the war on terror, outlaw regimes that are appropriately armed with weapons of mass destruction. Nonetheless, they see themselves having the potential to lead in execution vital and unsafe work of destroying chemical and biological weaponry that Iraq poses. America usually provides security against those people who try to spread chaos or settle scores or intimidate the territorial integrity of Iraq. The globe has a clear interest in the increase of democratic values since constant and liberated nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. In confronting Iraq, the U.S also illustrates commitment to the effectual international institutions by showing them the permanent members of the U. N. Council. However, the Americans believe in the Security Council so much that they want its words to have a meaning. The global threat of propaganda of weapons mass destruction cannot be tackled by one nation by itself. If war is imposed upon the American by lraq's and Iraq refuse to disarm, they will have to the rivals who have terrible weapons and are competent in any crimes. These dangers are real, as soldiers and sailors, aviators and marines all come from Iraq. Contrary to these, United States is the leading global provider for weapons, some of which unavoidably end up in their enemies’ hands, as well as those of terrorists. Claims to the moral high ground in this Iraq discussion is nothing short of hypocritical to Americans. This is because of the historic use of armaments, which are widely predestined by the global community. Although other nations approved the method in which the United States has handled the circumstance in Iraq where major hostility ended, this created more negative assessment to the country than the public in that 50% condemned and 40% approved the war. Nevertheless, support for the Iraq warfare has been held firm over the earlier period month. Some Americans say the situation in Iraq is worth going to war while others say it is not. Another inquiry in the survey shows that Americans incline by saying the war is the right thing to do. These data also disclosed much doubt among Americans. In reality, a proportion of Americans are less than being completely confident in their assessments of the war. The Administration recently announced plans to speed up the evolution of supremacy from the U.S to Iraq with the hope of establishing Iraqi with a self-rule. It occurs as a key matter on how extensive the United States will preserve a military existence in Iraq. Likelihood of the outcomes, Iraq is usually based on U.S. troop presence. The citizens thought that Iraq would be able to ascertain a stable government and fewer thought that the Iraqi people will view U.S as a friendly nation. (Stich, pg.152). Majority of the America believes that chaos would develop under any circumstances, but they have faith that a steady government can be established in Iraq after roll. Even though Iraqis overlooked the United States in a responsive manner, the U.S government increased confidence in a tempered expectation. The American government ought to listen closely to what the United Nations have to say about Iraq. They are liable to support a military attack against Iraq if they are convinced it is breaching major UN weaponry agreements. Up to date, however, many Americans are not convinced that the most severe weapons charges against Iraq certainly have value. A survey carried out in America established the important benchmarks for a public opinion about Iraq's current weapons abilities. With all these issues, the vast popularity thinks that the charges are likely to be true. However, Iraq’s chemical weapons use was once spectacular. Even though Americans would be supportive of military action, they were shown a credible evidence that Iraq has existing stockpiles of nuclear substance and biological weapons. This depiction created fear amongst the Americans in viewing the attack hence making Americans not safe by igniting anti-America response around the world. Fighting Iraq will also lead to a costly invasion that will take the resources of the country to a high extent. They should consider the needed priorities such as failing health care systems and overcrowded schools. Americans, to a great extent, believed war is at close hand, and invading Iraq would be a difficult task thus making the U.S without allies implement peace in a country that is split by ethnic conflicts. They have to instruct their fellow citizens about why the war with Iraq can be wrong, instead, they should consider the accountability of the people. Americans are closely divided on whether the burden of proof now lies within the UN inspectors and Iraq to settle the issues. These issues will determine whether Iraq still have access to weapons that may cause damage. This attack force continues to raise permanent bases in America (Gallup, Frank, Rowman & Littlefield, p.214). The U.S see that there is no good reason for clashing with Iraq. They see war as last substitute of self-defense. This was a step to be put in use only after all other options have been exhausted. A growing popularity perceives that the Iraq war is not the excellent use of resources. It is believed that the war on terror should not be offensive to the degree in which the country's resources should be at stake. In U. S, a number of people argued that the underlying principle for the fighting was to achieve the power over Iraqi’s possessions. The opponents thought that the conflict would not aid in reducing the threat of the propagation and that the genuine cause of the war was to protect the control over the Iraqi fields. The war on Iraq has been discovered to be a total malfunction, especially in the light of the exposure. While the U.S. posses a military budget equal to the rest of the world combined, they still find it difficult to overcome and live in countries such as Iraq easily. In considering the terror’s effectiveness, Iraq advanced its utilization of the chemical weapons from the battlefield to threaten defenseless civilians. It had started to extend its chemical warfare northwards by extensively using gas as the weapon. The possible future effect that the critics claimed is that if America goes to war with Iraq, it would continue being a superpower. Since the U.S is not an old civilization, it is ranked as high among the most vital war makers in history because it stand unequaled in its military ability. It could lead to many deaths of the Iraqi people and its militia. World War II changed the appearance of America civilization in so many ways. It stimulated the American aspirations because its government set prices, allocated staff, shared consumer supplies hence sticking to the old pattern of separation and discrimination. It changed Americans military spending by pulling the nation out of immense distraction. It also drew many people into getting jobs and being paid. Americans then shared harmony, success and an effective unity. These encouraged the American to keep off war with not only Iraq but also to other countries. In addition, the World War II had an impact on religion whereby several young men found themselves reliable to God and many from the battle dedicated themselves to God. Those commitments helped the Americans by serving the basis of becoming united. The U.S communal view heavily preferred a diplomatic resolution to an immediate military intervention. If another option was to be followed, the effect would have been so diverse because few important associates of the military force and state defense communities would have been decisive of both the verdict to raid Iraq and the action of the war. Although each and every America republican members and the majority of the independent candidates supported the war, most of the democrats also disapproved the war's prosecution. On the other hand; the U.S Catholic bishops signed a letter which stated that any preventive, unilateral exercise of military force to conquer the government of Iraq might not be acceptable. They came to this scenario by assessing whether an attack in opposition to Iraq would satisfy the criterion for the war as classified by Catholic theology. American are not set to support consequential attacks on racial discrimination or poverty that is why they cannot engage in wars and for this reason they are disapproving communist threats. They have also tolerated other wars in the past which caused them rationing, black market in addition to shortages hence avoiding war with Iraq. Meanwhile, they join the nationwide mobilization to end the war on Iraq through organizing an anti-violence event in every community, united for peace is as well an approach that has plenty of thrilling action, ideas and guidelines. In addition, organizing a weekly vigil in opposing to the war at a centralized building or within the cities is as well a good support. Another approach is to give out flyers to people on how to prevent a war before it start. These fliers can be distributed to subway stations, bus stops, universities, campuses, grocery stores and other commercial places. Americans should attach with groups that enhance peace in the community therefore having undoubted ideas for how they can to put an end to the war. Several peace groups have come up with campaigns policies to forcefully keep the communist out of the industry so as to boost their economy because engaging in war with Iraq will bring down the entire industries in the American economy (Harvey, 10). Setting signs that indicate No to War in a famous open place can boost abolition of wars with Iraq. The use of banners is an indication that discourages wars; they are placed as a symbol so that people can observe it while it is up hence comprehending to the hostility that may cause war. They can be hanged from throughway bridges and out of the casement of the buildings in the business areas. Moreover, America should educate themselves about Iraq and the U.S allegations in opposition to Saddam Hussein can be discussed with the neighboring and other countries. Besides calling for peace, U.S should also call a press consultation where politicians, local community leaders, veterans, religious leaders and others can articulate against the war. Americans have particularly made an armed linkage around the globe and have settled for peace while its military base remains strong. (Grenier, 113). In conclusion, there are still many ways to stop the Iraq invasion. However, the pacifism or just war reflection had little effect; Americans thought that war was not only a conspiracy of the military engineering complex but a great economic downfall. Sentimental to appeal for peace in America is focused hence ordering the opposition of the war with Iraq. One could put a challenge more concretely by asking why it was probable for the United States to conduct the second war against Iraq. The reason behind is because they have military left over from the Cold War. Iraq’s suspected chemical capability played a major role. This shot up the United State's invasion of Iraq that it brought the key argument that U.S officials presented in favor of removing the regime. According to these officials, they viewed Saddam Hussein not only having the weapon of mass destruction but also had the skill to use them. They view Iraq as a nation-state that is competent to strike overseas and has acquaintance, expertise and skills to engage in a war. Americans welfare is seen as undividable from that of the rest of the globe. Work Cited Grenier, John. American War Making on the Frontier, 1607-1814. Cambridge University Press, Jan 31, 2005 Print. McNeese, Tim. America's Civil War. Lorenz Educational Press, Sep 1, 2003 Print, Weeks, Albert, L.. The Choice of War: The Iraq War and the Just War Tradition. ABC-CLIO, Nov 25, 2009 Print. Harvey, Frank. P. Explaining the Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence. Cambridge University Press, 2012 Print. Rutherford, Paul. Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing the War Against Iraq. University of Toronto: Toronto Press, 2004 Print Stich, Rodney. Subverting America, Volume 2. Silverpeak Enterprises, Sep 1, 2008 Print Gallup, Alec, Rowman ,Frank, & Littlefield. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2005 Jan 1, 2006 Print. Read More