Operation Iraqi Freedom - Research Paper Example

Iraq had no link to terrorism, no weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and no legal rationale to attack. Despite this, Bush decided to invade the Republic of Iraq for causes deemed objectionable to the majority of other countries so he frequently relied on and utilized false information to rationalize it. He lied. This discussion will examine how the truth was a casualty early and often during the lead up to the war and outlines some of the consequences brought about by these far-reaching and deadly deceptions.

Bush voiced his disagreement to the concept of ‘nation building’ during the 2000 presidential election debates but as president waged an undeclared war against a sovereign country that had neither attacked first nor threatened to. Immediately following and as a reactionary reply to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Bush stated the county’s intention to begin a ‘War on Terrorism’ which he portrayed as a protracted battle against those that would use terrorist actions in addition to the countries that enabled them.

The eventual culmination of the selective legal reasoning and rhetoric concerning the ‘War on Terror’ was Bush’s order of the military to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq, an illegal action on many fronts. Bush had constantly claimed that these actions were legal. First, he argued, due to language existing within the UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding Iraq and secondly, the invasions were an act of self-defense which is permitted by international law. Conversely, according to Richard Perle, advisor to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and official of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, “international law .

would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone.” (Burkeman & Borger, 2003). However, this option would have been “morally unacceptable” according to the Bush administration. The United Nations Charter, Article 51, Chapter Seven stipulates “nothing shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations” (United Nations Charter, 1945). Article 51 allows a country the justification to “deter an act, or acts of imminent or ongoing violence” but only as a transitory solution until the UN Security Council takes the appropriate actions to ensure the protection of the affected region.

By precise interpretation of this Article, the rights of self-defense a country can exercise does not comprise the right to retaliate after an attack has ceased. The U.S. defended its invasion and occupation of Iraq to the countries of the world by announce, if not substantiating, that it was a undertaking to remove WMD which endangered not only the U.S. but all other countries as well. Secretary of State Colin Powell as well as other administration officials, predominantly with the U.S. Department of State, enthusiastically endeavored to state their justification for aggressive military actions and make this plan as acceptable to as many other nations as they could.

Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense at that time, is quoted in a Vanity Fair magazine interview dated May 28, 2003 as saying “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction” (Shovelan, 2003). Before to the invasion, Hans Blix, the man in charge of the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq, said unequivocally and very publicly