The US Involvement In The Iraq War - Case Study Example

?Ashraf Alhusaini Dr. Fred Lasser CMP-125-NO June 20, Argumentation Essay about the Intervention of the United s in Iraq 2003 Introduction The United States intervened in Iraq in 2003 and played a defining role in the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his regime. During March 20, 2003, the US and British soldiers attacked Iraq from Kuwait claiming that the reason for that was that Iraq had refused to abandon its nuclear and chemical weapons enrichment program in breach of the UNSC declaration 687. In essence, the US involvement in Iraq war has been subjected to numerous debates regarding whether the United States were justified to intervene in Iraq or not. The basic point underscored in most analyses is the fact that the US intervention in Iraq was not based on justifiable grounds and, therefore, constitutes an act of aggression and interference. The US employed numerous tactics to justify the invasion through the assertion that Iraq was a threat to its security and that of the entire world. The assertion that Hussein’s regime possessed actual nuclear weapons was, perhaps, the best approach used by the United States in justifying the attack on the Gulf country. Therefore, the perceived threat of Saddam’s regime on global peace and security was at the heart of the justification of the US intervention in the gulf conflict that resulted into the ousting of Saddam Hussein and his regime (Murphy 45). However, the unwarranted US involvement became a reality soon after the conclusion of the war; when it became apparent that Saddam’s threat to global society and safety was exaggerated to achieve a secret plan to overthrow his regime. There were no actual nuclear weapons found within the nation after the war. Therefore, to great extent, the US intervention was not justified as Iraq was not a threat to harmony, safety, and strength of America and the rest of the world. Background During the time when the intervention in Iraq was being prepared, the US government administrators and establishment pundits became self-proclaimed Middle East historians vigorously exposing the facts of Saddam Hussein's crimes – many were real, though some were simply imagined (Cimbala and Foster 33). Nevertheless, these same experts studiously shunned examining the well-detailed history of American and British actions – and crimes – concerning Iraq and its citizens. The Iran-Iraq war has a lot of bearing on the US intervention in Iraq in the sense that the Iraq-Iran conflict revealed deep US interests in Iraq and how the Saddam Hussein regime was propped up by US to serve its own purpose, “CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops” (King 4). Accordingly, many Americans would be amazed to discover that Iraq was earlier established in the interests of British imperialism, not the people living in the area; that when the Iraqi citizens rose to defeat their hated pro-Western sovereign, the self-declared defenders of liberty and democracy in London and Washington responded not with delight, but with threats of war, even nuclear war (Willett 22). Many later became shocked to realize that the U.S. government assisted in bringing the Hussein administration to power and that the US was openly complicit in the very crimes for which Saddam’s regime was accused: the use of chemical weapons, aggression against neighboring nations, and massacres against the Kurds “May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq” (King 7). Though Iraq had complied with the demands of the United Nations, this never stopped the US from venturing into the war toppling Hussein’s regime. Nevertheless, these are all well-prepared historical facts, as detailed in this work. Arguments in Favor of the US Intervention The US intervention in Iraq in 2003 was justified on several grounds; the main one has the concern for America’s national security. It is obvious that Saddam Hussein and his rogue regime was a huge threat to peace, stability, and tranquility not just for America but also to the world at large (Feste 87). Some sections of society would dispute that the US interference in Iraq is wrong for the reason that Congress was misled by the Bush regime on the need to get rid of Saddam Hussein from command. Therefore, the 2003 US incursion of Iraq can be depicted as desert storm II, the completion of the work that Bush senior failed to accomplish, protecting the Shiites. Of course, there were no actual nuclear weapons and the Bush regime chose to not release contrary evidence of actual nuclear weapons and overstated the evidence to assist them. Many Americans will contend against the US involvement in Iraq, as so many American warriors are dying. Regrettably, that is what soldiers do: they fight and die for their nation. These gallant heroes risk all to bring some kind of suggestion of self-determination to a populace who have extensively been oppressed. Less than 4,000 US soldiers have passed on in the four years of clash – the figure has to be contrasted with more than half of a million Iraqi soldiers who have perished for their country during the same period of time (Ryan 32). Arguments against the US Intervention The US intervention in Iraq was not justifiable under any circumstances, which makes the actions of America plain interference in the affairs of Iraq. On several grounds, the Iraq invasion that was orchestrated by the United States failed to satisfy any reasons for which it was established (McGoldrick 65). Prior to the war, America described Saddam’s regime as possessing dangerous weapons that would threaten world peace and stability. However, at the conclusion of the invasion, no traces of the alleged weapons were found, further pointing at a unilateral US mission to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Several other revelations later emerged, indicating how the US government designed a program to get rid of Saddam Hussein and his regime, and information tracing deep US interest in Iraq government, including the assistance given to Saddam in his ascendancy to power. These revelations have brought out the inherent weaknesses in the US justification of the war on Iraq. Besides being unsuccessful in obtaining the UN support for the incursion in Iraq, the United States faced opposition from Turkey. America hoped to launch a northern front based in Turkey against Iraq. According to the agreement, America was supposed to base its soldiers in Turkey, and the US would have tendered $6 billion in funding and extra billions in advance if Turkey had approved its deal, although Turkey’s assembly rejected the plan. Turkey’s choice represented a main setback for the Bush regime. While faced with the resistance in the UNSC and unwillingness on the side of Turkey, Britain and the United States remained unwavering to initiate military action and established a coalition force in Kuwait. They battled Iraqi armed forces of less than 400,000 soldiers, who were suddenly overwhelmed by the US air attacks. Major contest commitments ended about 3 weeks afterward, after the United States soldiers entered Baghdad and accomplished the toppling of Hussein government. The military operation was short and one-sided. President Bush announced an end to most important combat operations on May 1, 2003. On the other hand, by late April 2003, a harsh and constant guerrilla resistance has been commenced within the Sunni Arab against the foreign armed presence in the country. The guerrilla partnership expanded in strength; this made impractical America extract most of its soldiers in summer 2003, as the department of Defense had projected. The US made a mistake by disbanding the Iraq military after the fall of Saddam more particularly because the top Sunni military leaders had lost confidence in Saddam Hussein (McGoldrick 52). As announced, on 8 November 2002, the UNSC passed Resolution 1441 granting Iraq a final opening to conform with its disarmament requirements, including open inspections by the United Nations observers, particularly Atomic Energy Agency. Saddam Hussein acknowledged the resolution on 13 November 2002, and experts returned to Iraq. Connecting that period and the period of the attack, the IAEA found no proof or plausible suggestion of the restoration of a nuclear arms program in Iraq. Contrary to the US claims, the examination concluded that Iraq had obliterated all major accumulations of actual nuclear weapons and stopped production in 1991, when sanctions were imposed. The stoppage to find confirmation of Iraqi weapons programs following the incursion led to considerable disagreement in the US and globally, including a declaration by critics of warfare that Blair and Bush regimes deliberately manipulated and distorted intelligence to push for an invasion. Many countries dispute the legitimacy of the attack. Initially, the use of force by a state is prohibited by Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter 18. The only exclusions to the use of force are with Security Council endorsement under Chapter VII 19, not including the cases when this permission was not granted, or in the instance of self-protection against an armed attack by another country prescribed under Article 51 of the Charter 20 (although Iraq never attacked either state i.e. US and UK). It is said that the era before the US plagued Iraq is officially a cease-fire period; as a result, we cannot identify self-defense in this case 21. Subsequently, the use of force by the UK and the United States on Iraq is widely perceived to have been illegitimate and is deemed by many as a contravention of international law contravening the UN Charter, since the US failed to expand the UN support for the military interference. Nevertheless, the US presumes that the incursion was explicitly authorized by UNSC declaration 678 and that it is in conjunction with international law. Countries such as France, Russia, and China made a common statement stating that UN Resolution 1441 did not authorize the use of force and that a supplementary declaration was required. The UN chief Kofi Annan articulated his opinion about the incursion of Iraq saying that it was not in accordance with the UN agreement from the UN purview – from the contract opinion, it was illegal (Ryan 43-44). Alternatively, some critics state that the US practiced double standards, because Israel also contravenes UN declarations and has actual nuclear weapons. As a result, there is a UNSC undertaking that might support an intrusion in Israel. Iraq imposition was uncalled-for and represented an attack on a self-governing country, being a violation of the international law. Saddam Hussein’s regime was not an adequate threat to justify the invasion. Regarding the resistance movements in other countries, in 41 states the majority of the population did not justify an invasion of Iraq without the UN authorization. Hence, the intervention was a unilateral military incursion into a sovereign state that cannot be justified under any circumstances. In essence, the Iraq conflict presents a failure by the US not only to abide by international law but also to abide by territorial respect for a self governing country. Therefore, the sovereignty of Iraq was violated when America and Britain attacked the country, overthrowing the regime of Saddam Hussein. The inability to obtain the UN approval for the war presents the first signal of the violation of international law and deliberate attempt by the United States to determine the political future of an independent country. The distortion and manipulation of intelligence by the UK and the US is another viable pointer to the unjustifiable nature of the military intervention. The allegations of presence of actual nuclear weapons offer a credible indication of a unilateral plot to blackmail the US population as well as the global community into offering its support for the infamous war. In the aftermath of the incursion, there were no traces of deadly weapons as insinuated by US and UK intelligence sources. Hence, the intervention was driven by a sole motivation of getting Saddam Hussein out of power. Wider Perspectives Other perspectives against the US interference are that the Bush regime could not find a way out of a soaked paper bag, let alone properly wage a war. For all the contentions of the Bush regimes errors concerning the war, not one explanation of bringing soldiers home makes for a stable Iraq. Then there are the spiritual implications of it all. Having described Saddam Hussein as a part of the alliance of evil in his State of the Union speech during his initial term as President, Bush provided lots of people (both in foreign lands and domestically) with the notion that it was a holy war against fundamentalist individuals and not a freedom of the oppressed people. It was a mistake in judgment that troubles him to this day; however, it is no closer to being truthful than when this entire episode began in 2003. Yet others are disheartened due to the proposal that we overran Iraq for oil. If we had attacked for oil, we would not have sought so hard to maintain civilians out of harm's way. This allegation is as unintelligent as the thought that we started a jihad. Finally, many arguments against the conflict stem from the reality that so numerous Iraqi inhabitants have died in the course of the US occupation of Iraq. Obviously, there has to be a news description about a US serviceman banding a blast to the trunk and going to a very open place so he could ignite it and kill himself and as many people as possible. Hundreds of residents of Iraq have killed thousands of their beneficiary Iraqis for their own religious reasons, although the report is still expected. There are 3,500 US servicemen who have passed on making Iraq a better place for Iraqis to live. Conclusion In conclusion, the US intervention in Iraq in 2003 is a contentious subject that attracts support and opposition in equal measure. In essence, there are arguments in support of the US intervention and arguments against the intervention of America in the war, pointing at valid perspectives of the conflict. As regards the legality of the attack, it depends on the position one takes owing to one’s perception of the events. Regarding the aspirations of the attack, the coalition soldiers have been victorious in eliminating Saddam Hussein from power and in bringing democracy to Iraq. Nevertheless, the USA failed in its stated desire to destroy the actual nuclear weapons, and not any have been found, though some chemical elements were discovered that were available from the Iran-Iraq conflict. In addition, it is further argued that there was modest or no pre-continuation of Al-Qaeda incidence in Iraq. Similarly, the 2003 incursion was not a justifiable involvement but an armed one. The US and UK never brought autonomy to the Iraqi populace or to the Middle East; however, they heralded suffering and oppression instead. The Persian Gulf conflict was a multinational interference, while the 2003 Iraq war was more a one-sided one. In November 2006, the UNSC extended the authorization of the dislocation of the international forces in Iraq pending the end of 2007. The move was demanded by the Iraqi regime, which required the soldiers until it developed its own defense forces. In 2006, Iraq was the 2nd most unstable country in the world (Murphy 65). After this breakdown, the US has been reducing its dominance under the watch of other states. On November 7, 2006, the US midterm elections took the Republican Party from control of the two Chambers of the US assembly. The deteriorating situation in the Iraq conflict was identified as one of the most significant causes of the Republicans victories. It can be stated that the military intervention was not an obligation; it was not a realistic involvement; rather, as it has been realized, it was launched in order to rally the US’s own interests. Moreover, the war was not compulsory for the security of the US; it was a conflict of choice. The involvement was rather a blunder; the prominence was put on the actual nuclear weapons and Saddam’s security threat to America and its cronies. On the other hand, these were not justifiable; as they were incorrect. It was simple and did not take long to remove Saddam Hussein from the position of power, and the claims concerning the existence of actual nuclear weapons were erroneous. The US (Bush) administration in this case made a gaffe in the policy on the subject of the validation of the war. Subsequently, this collapse indicates that the US needs to reconsider its hegemonic ambitions. Works Cited Cimbala, Stephen, and Peter Foster. Multinational Military Intervention: NATO Policy, Strategy and Burden Sharing. Washington: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., 2010. Print. Willett, Edward. The Iran-Iraq War. Washington: The Rosen Publishing Group, 2004. Print. Feste, Karen. Intervention: Shaping the Global Order. London: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. Print. King, John. “Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement.” Iran Chamber of Society. 26, June, 2012. Web. March 2003. McGoldrick, Dominic. From '9-11' to the 'Iraq War 2003': International Law in an Age of Complexity. Washington: Hart Publishing, 2004. Print. Murphy, Sean. United States Practice in International Law: 2002-2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Print. Ryan, David. America and Iraq: Policy-making, Intervention and Regional Politics. Washington: Taylor & Francis, 2009. Print. Read More