The Invasion of Iraq Has Negatively Affected The US - Research Paper Example

The Invasion Of Iraq Has Negatively Affected The U.S. On September 11, 2001, al Qaeda terrorists attacked the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania in the United States. This event put the threat of terrorism on the front pages of newspapers and forced it to the forefront of people’s collective conscious on a worldwide scale. It certainly was not the first act of terrorism based on ideological principles but was dramatic and impressionable. Most Americans had no knowledge of the terrorist organization al Qaeda until 9-11 and fewer still understood the motives of this Muslim fundamentalist group to perpetrate such a heinous act against the U.S. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003 was initiated and largely conducted by the United States in response to what it claimed was an attack on its soil by al Qaeda agents operating from within these countries. These actions were been defended by the U.S. government as not only legal but morally necessary to protect its citizens. The validity of these contentions by the U.S. must stand the scrutiny of the United Nation’s Charter as well as international laws concerning aggressive actions by one nation on another. First, this discussion will examine the motives postulated by the U.S. for military actions against these sovereign nations. It is the contention of this dialogue as well as the vast majority of the world and, as it now seems, the American public that these actions were patently illegal, immoral and inexcusable. In addition the senseless invasion further damaged the reputation and prestige of the U.S. while endangering the future by making more enemies than friends, acting as a recruitment tool for radical Islamists, exploding the national debt and contracting civil liberties. Most Americans now agree with what the rest of the world has known all along, that the invasion of Iraq was not in the best interest of western-Arab relations and was unquestionably illegal as defined by the International Court of Justice and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe. At best, the information provided to Bush was faulty, at worst his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. This flawed justification has since been proven to be untrue as well. However, because of the occupation of Iraq, the international terrorist organization al Qaeda has grown in number, increased attacks worldwide and has infiltrated the borders of Iraq. According to the prophetic words of a previous world leader, “If we don’t stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we’re going to have a serious problem,” George W. Bush, Jan. 2000 (“President Debate”, 2000). According to Bush, the Islamic terrorists ‘hate us because of our freedoms.’ This, of course, was flawed, simplistic reasoning much the same as the logic he used to promote his ‘Global War on Terrorism’ which has served only to increase terrorist attacks. There’s a faulty premise in the current strategy on the war on terrorism, that suicide terrorism and al Qaeda suicide terrorism in particular was mainly driven by an evil ideology, Islamic fundamentalism, independent of other circumstances. However, the facts are that since 1980, of the suicide terrorist attacks around the world over half have been secular. What over 95 percent of suicide attacks around the world are about is not religion, but a specific strategic purpose – to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland or prize greatly. This is in fact a centerpiece of al Qaeda’s strategic logic, which is to compel the United States and Western countries to abandon military commitments on the Arabian Peninsula. Half of those 462 suicide terrorists from around the world since 1980 are secular and therefore not religious fanatics. For most suicide terrorists they hate Western values or they hate being immersed in Western society. What we have evidence for time and again across the spectrum is that they are deeply angered by military policies, especially foreign combat troops on territory that they prize. Invariably, they believe they have no other means to change those policies (O’Brien, 2005). Osama Bin Laden obtained his wealth as an inheritor of his family’s highly profitable construction business. He has used this capital to finance the infamous terrorist group initially formed in an attempt to force the U.S. to remove its military base in his home country of Saudi Arabia. Since that time the groups’ objectives have evolved and, because of the illegal occupation if Iraq, al Qaeda has succeeded in several of what are now its main goals. It had been trying to convince Muslims that the United States wanted to invade Muslim lands, humiliate Muslim men, and rape Muslim women. Most Muslims found this charge hard to accept. The Iraq invasion, along with the Abu Ghraib prison torture scandal, was perceived by many Muslims to validate bin Laden’s wisdom and foresight. (O’Brien, 2005). Immediately following and as a reactionary response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Bush stated the county’s intent to initiate a ‘War on Terrorism’ which he characterised as a prolonged battle against those that would employ terrorist actions along with the nations that enabled them. In addition, the U.S. Congress gave formal authorization to the President on September 18, 2001 to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons” (U.S. Code 2002). On November 13, 2001, in the first such occasion since World War II, Bush signed into law an executive order that allows military tribunals to use any actions they deem necessary. The U.S. military could now imprison for an indefinite period of time and without representation, any person of foreign nationality who are simply alleged to have associations with terrorist activities. For example, when the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, legal advisors tied closely to the ideology of the Bush administration within the Justice Department’s Office advised Bush that the U.S. was not legally bound by the U.N. Charter or international laws with regard to rules of engaging a perceived enemy. These views were echoed by Alberto Gonzales, then White House legal advisor for the President and later appointed Attorney General of the U.S. He also advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in the handling of prisoners, or ‘detainees’ in this war on terror (Calame, 2006). The Bush administration chose to follow the advice of this jaded, self serving legal opinion in spite of strong disagreement by the U.S. State Department which cautioned against disregarding U.N. and international laws as well as covenants of the Geneva Convention. The Bush administration was head-strong in its cavalier use of military force and lack of respect for laws agreed to by the world’s community of nations (Mayer, 2005, p. 34). The ultimate culmination of the rhetoric and selective legal reasoning regarding the ‘War on Terror’ was Bush’s order of the U.S. military to invade both Iraq and Afghanistan, an illegal act on many fronts. Bush had constantly maintained that these actions against sovereign countries were legal. First, he argued, because of existing language within the UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, which was also publicly espoused by the British government and secondly, the invasions are an act of self-defence which international law permits. However, according to Richard Perle, a top official of the U.S. Defence Policy Board and advisor to U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone.” (Burkeman & Borger, 2003). Yet, this would have been “morally unacceptable” according to the Bush administration. At best, the information provided to Bush was faulty, at worst, his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. Contrary to these assertions of terrorist ties, then Secretary of State Powell stated in January of 2004, “I have not seen a smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the (terrorist) connection” (“Iraq After Saddam”, 2004). According to the United States Constitution Article One, Section Eight, only Congress has the exclusive authority to declare war. Presidents do not have this authority (United States Constitution). However, the War Powers Act of 1973 allows the President to deploy troops to a country for 60-90 days without the consent of Congress (War Powers Resolution, 1973). The U.S. government declared that ‘diplomacy has failed’ in March of 2003 and that, with a ‘coalition of the willing,’ it would proceed to invade Iraq for the purpose of ridding the country of its supposed ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ The invasion, termed ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’ began a couple of days later on March 20. Those countries and individuals, including some in the U.S., which opposed this action, based their viewpoint on the concept that nations do not have the right to intercede in another’s sovereign affairs. Others believed that while a nation could, in some circumstances, provide justifications for limited military interventions within foreign nations, they opposed this particular attack because it was conducted without United Nations approval and therefore was in direct violation with international law. The Chief Prosecutor of the war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials subsequent to World War Two, U.S. citizen Benjamin B. Ferencz, has condemned the Iraq invasion calling it an “aggressive war” and declared that Bush, the war’s architect, should be put on trial for his war crimes (Glantz, 2006). The trial at Nuremberg determined that military aggression is considered the most supreme of international crimes. Following the massive human carnage of the Second World War, the United Nations charter was written so as to prevent this type of action from ever happing again. It contains explicit provisions prohibiting any nation from using military force without consent of the Security Council (United Nations Charter, 1945). Nelson Mandela, widely renowned as one of the most respected statesmen in the world has also condemned this action as “a threat to world peace. It is clearly a decision that is motivated by George W Bush’s desire to please the arms and oil industries in the United States of America” (“US Threatens World Peace”, 2002). Mandela was hardly alone in his assessment. For example, U.S. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said on Meet The Press, a respected, long-running news program, “I believe most sincerely that one of the motivating factors involved in this effort to strike against Iraq is the desire on the part of some to be at the control the oil interests in Iraq, I believe that” (“Transcript: Dennis Kucinich”, 2002). The phrase ‘the first casualty of war is the truth’ likely could be applied at least in part to all of the conflicts between nations throughout the history of the world. The current Iraq war, however, will be forever labeled as ‘the war’ that was based exclusively on lies. The truth died many deaths prior to the human casualties since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. During one of the 2000 presidential election debates, Bush voiced his opposition to the idea of ‘nation building’ then as president invaded a sovereign country that had not attacked first. (“President Debate”, 2000). The Bush administration used the fear of terrorism as a political tool to garner public and congressional support for the invasion of Afghanistan, the country where the infamous al Qaeda architect bin Laden was thought to be hiding at that time. Critics of the invasion charged that no nation has the right, or the authority based on the UN Charter, to determine for itself whether or not Iraq was in conformity with UN rules or to take it upon itself to enforce them. The U.S. has also been widely criticized for applying a double standard in its reasoning. The logic of this action was in opposition to previous U.S. policies as it supplied chemical and other weapons systems to Iraq in the 1980’s to use against Iran . When the U.S. was looking for the alleged weapons of mass destruction, the popular joke being circulated was “The U.S. knows Iraq has weapons because they have the receipt” (Shannon, 2003). Following the invasion of Iraq, bin Laden became more popular than Bush even in a significantly secular Muslim country such as Turkey. This was a bizarre finding, a weird turn of events that should never had been the case regardless of how inept and incompetent Bush had handled his war on terror. Turks didn’t start out with such an attitude. It grew up in reaction against U.S. policies. Although the United States and its Pakistani ally have captured significant numbers of al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan and Pakistan, a whole new generation of angry young Muslim men has been produced. al Qaeda has moved from being a concrete cell-based terrorist organization to being an ideal and a model, for small local groups in Casablanca, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and elsewhere. The U.S. is not winning the war on terror. Al Qaeda also has by no means won and was dealt a severe blow by the killing of its leader last week. But across a whole range of objectives, al-Qaeda accomplished more of its goals than the U.S. has of its own. Additionally, terrorists, specifically Muslim fundamentalists, are concerned that their ancient culture is being replaced by a Western culture they despise. Globalization has allowed deviant Western traditions such as the exploitation of workers, sexual permissiveness and capitalistic icons such as Coca-Cola and McDonalds to seep into and change their cherished way of like. Allowing unfamiliar ideologies and customs into their lifestyles is difficult for religious fundamentalists of any description. Add the fact that the U.S. has built military installations on Muslim Holy lands and, along with the ‘coalition of the coerced,’ recently invaded two Muslim countries and killed many innocent civilians. Western nations are invading the culture, governments and sovereignty in a region of the world where religious fanaticism exceeds the fervor of what is commonly known in the U.S. as the ‘Bible Belt.’ It is little wonder that these people are fearful of the West and possess sufficient motive for terrorist acts. (Porter, 2004) The Bush administration cut the taxes of the rich while increasing military expenditures on The War on Terror, invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and the rebuilding of those countries. The debt has now exceeded even the Reagan administration’s record levels. It has severely hampered America’s ability to continue to effectively defend itself or become involved in other potential conflicts worldwide. “There is a growing concern about what the increasing U.S. national debt will do to the nation’s ability to influence world affairs” (Suter, 2004). There were the ‘war hawks’ of the Bush administration as well as politicians on both sides of the ideological aisle in Washington D.C. who wanted to fully commit to securing Iraq by staying until its police force and government were able to operate independent of outside assistance. Iraq, in their view, would be a blueprint for democracy that the rest of the Arab regions will be compelled to follow because their respective citizens will be envious. The thinking was as time passes, dictatorships will be replaced by democratic governments which will inevitably make the world a safer place. “Security in the world will improve, as democratically elected leaders will shun the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Sheikhdoms, monarchies, military dictators are out of tune with the present time. Their banishment from the Middle East should be the fringe benefit of the U.S. operation in Iraq” (Sud, 2004). Their theory continued, what were closed societies would open which would enhance European trade opportunities and oil would remain affordable. A free, stable Middle East would be economically advantageous for it and the bulk of the world’s nations. Israel would not be continually threatened at least to the same extent and the money saved by not having to quell future Middle Eastern disturbances could easily reach into the trillions of dollars. Pakistan and India, being in a more peaceful region, may strive to mend differences that have brought these two nations to the brink of war. “With this continued operation U.S. can assure peace at Israeli border and in the Indo-Pak context. These fringe benefits are worth having” (Sud, 2004). This, of course, was speculative yet a reasonable assumption given Iraq has become an example of democracy though shaky at best. These war hawks believe that withdrawing from Iraq was the wrong strategy, never mind that it was that democratic Iraqi government that showed the US military the exit door. Of course, this neo-con mentality was born from those who did want to leave Vietnam. Iraq is today in political and sectarian turmoil. U.S. troops were bogged-down in a bloody quagmire facing death, horrific bodily destruction and life-long mental issues. Still, after all the unnecessary American and Iraqi deaths and horrific injuries, the neo cons argue their position. Their sacrifice will not be in vain if they are allowed to accomplish the mission. They admit that engaging in the war was wrong but still say with great patience and further sacrifice; the end-result could be viewed by future generations as well worth the terrible costs. The U.S. military is only one in the world that is large enough and technologically advanced enough to effect positive changes, to bring freedom to this historically tumultuous region of the world. If not the U.S., who, and if not now, then likely never which is the worst of all options as their theory goes. The U.S. military had committed many illegal and immoral atrocities since its occupation of Iraq which will not be mentioned in this discussion. It also used illegal, clandestine threats against other nations in an attempt to coerce their support. A report published by the Institute for Policy Studies analysed what it termed the ‘arm-twisting offensive’ by high-ranking U.S. officials to garner support. Bush describes the nations that supported him as the ‘coalition of the willing,’ but as the report concluded, it could be better expressed as a ‘coalition of the coerced’ (Anderson et al, 2003). As the war progressed the Bush administration had lost much confidence among the American public who were more and more of the understanding to what the rest of the world has known since Iraq was first invaded. The war was unquestionably illegal as defined by the ICJ and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe. These illegal, immoral actions have brought shame upon the country and a diminished degree of respect and therefore prestige among the community of nations. Significant policy changes that the United States should pursue on both moral and pragmatic grounds – withdrawing all military forces from the Middle East/North Africa and ending reflexive support for the brutal Israeli occupation of Palestine and oppressive dictatorships – would lessen the threat immediately. The instances of misused military power over the past half century have escalated in the past 10 years which has caused an ever-widening credibility deficit for the U.S. Now, more than ever, it is vital that the U.S. formulates a reasonable policy which dictates the specific guidelines for engaging in foreign military operations. Within this policy, American interests should always be unambiguously defined. An understanding of both the potential and limits of military intervention must be clearly understood. If not, situations such as the Iraq/Afghanistan debacle and its peripheral consequences including an increase of global terrorism and the growing hatred of America will continue. War produces change and if applied in an appropriate situation can prove to be effective, but if applied incorrectly will lead to disastrous consequences. The involvement in Iraq and the Vietnam War proves this point. Although inflexible guidelines for engagement are impractical, political leaders must recognize that objectives must match the cost, whether counted by deaths, credibility or other peripheral circumstances. U.S. political leaders must also resolve to use military force only as a last resort or in self-defense and not simply because they have the ability. In short, they should follow the guidelines of the military itself. “Traditionally, the defense establishment has advocated military action only in cases where vital national interests are threatened and there is a clear, obtainable objective” (Ignatieff, 2000). We stop terrorism first of all by stopping our own terrorism. We cannot fight terrorism by becoming terrorists. We cannot curb al Qaeda’s influence by using the methods of terrorism to bomb and kill Iraqis, to occupy Iraq, to support the terrorist occupation of lands and to hold the world hostage with our nuclear weapons. We must bring the troops home from Afghanistan, fund nonviolent democratic peacemakers in the Middle East, support United Nations’ nonviolent peacemaking solutions, end world hunger immediately, cut all U.S. military aid everywhere, dismantle every one of our nuclear weapons, fund jobs, education and healthcare at home and abroad, clean up the environment and teach nonviolence to everyone around the world, beginning at home in every U.S. classroom. Violence cannot stop violence. If the current policies continue, the terrorist attacks will continue as well causing not only bodily damage but political damage as well which could last for hundreds or thousands of years. Terrorism is a fact of life but does not have to be at today’s levels. In former President Bush’s handling of the war on terror, three facts stand out: Bush launched a sustained military action against an enemy that had not attacked the U.S., the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was not based on fighting terrorism and it has provided fresh examples of U.S. brutality for al-Qaeda recruiters. The illegal war in Iraq has caused terrorist attacks to increase as well as the loss of many thousands of Iraqi and allied lives and as a consequence and has cost the U.S. dearly as far as international respect is concerned. Additionally, this ‘war’ has monetary costs reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars which has crippled the U.S. economy and will continue to for many years in the future. It has caused the U.S. national debt to skyrocket which will have to be paid instead of spending federal revenues on healthcare, welfare programs, education, defense systems, etc. The U.S. military is crippled as well, both literally and conceptually. It could not respond to a crisis of any size which potentially could result in a disastrous situation. As the war has progressed, the Bush administration lost much confidence among the American public who now better understand what the rest of the world was telling us, France for example, since Iraq was first invaded. Bush’s foreign policy is based on greed, was promoted by lies and has cost the U.S. worldwide respect that may never be recovered. It is a war that was doomed to failure from the beginning and it has lived up to its promise. The conflict in Iraq proves that if this important lesson learned from the involvement in Vietnam was not understood and the U.S. is finding itself in other foreign relations quagmire which is weakening its military, economic stability and political standing within the world community. This is a lesson the defunct Roman Empire never learned and a similar fate awaits America if it continues to repeat the same mistake that was Vietnam and is now Iraq and who knows what country is next. Works Cited Anderson, Sarah; Bennis, Phyllis & Cavanagh, John. “Coalition of the Willing Or Coalition Of The Coerced? How the Bush Administration Influences Allies in its War on Iraq.” (February 26, 2003). May 14, 2011 Burkeman, Oliver & Borger, Julian. “War Critics Astonished as US Hawk Admits Invasion was Illegal.” Manchester Guardian. (November 20, 2003). May 14, 2011 Calame, Byron. “Rewriting the Geneva Convention.” New York Times. (August 14, 2006). May 14, 2011 Glantz, Aaron. “Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor.” Common Dreams (August 25, 2006). May 14, 2011 < http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0825-06.htm> Ignatieff, Michael. “Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond” New York, N.Y.: Metropolitan Books. (2000).   “Iraq After Saddam: GIs Swoop Down On Tikrit Suspects Iraq.” CBS News. (January 9, 2004). May 14, 2011 “Transcript: Dennis Kucinich stated in an interview with NBC's Meet the Press broadcast.” (September 17, 2002). May 14, 2011 Mayer, Jane. “Outsourcing Torture: The Secret History of America’s ‘Extraordinary Rendition.’” (February 14, 2005). The New Yorker Magazine. Porter, Keith. “Globalization and Terrorism” Coming to grips with the new shape of the world. Global Envision Mercy Corps (December 31, 2004). May 14, 2011 < http://www.globalenvision.org/library/8/703> “Presidential Debate Fails to Draw Large Audience; Gore and Bush Travel to Swing States.” CNN.com. Transcripts (October 4, 2000). May 14, 2011 Shannon, Mike “Revisionist Victory” Information Clearing House (June 8, 2003) May 14, 2011 Sud, Hari. “Should US stay in Iraq and make it a role model ?” South Asia Analysis Group. (April 27, 2004). May 14, 2011 Suter, Keith. “The Next International ‘Debt Crisis’ is in North America.” Online Opinion. (June 30, 2004). May 14, 2011 < http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2328> United Nations Charter. Chapter Seven. (1945). May 14, 2011 U.S. Code Collection. “Title 50 Chapter 33 § 1541: Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution 2002.” Cornell Law School. (2002). May 14, 2011 “US Threatens World Peace, Says Mandela.” BBC News. (September 11, 2002). May 14, 2011 War Powers Resolution Public Law 93-148. 93rd Congress, H. J. Res. 542 The Avalon Project Yale Law School (November 7, 1973). May 14, 2011 < http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp> Read More