War Many debates have emanated about the War on Iraq as orchestrated by President George Bush. As a result, the motivation and justification of the war have varied significantly since the 2003 US invasion of Iraq (Fisher and Nigel 687)…
Download file to see previous pages...
The motivation of the war on Iraq includes political, economic and social factors. Nonetheless, it is notable that later, the war faced a lot of resistance and opposition even from the Americans themselves. This is due to the negative consequences or implications of the war on the Iraq people, Americans and the two economies. This essay gives a critical analysis and discussion on US war on Iraq with a view of arguing that the motivation for the war was not justified. In 2003, the Bush administration argued that Iraq was a security threat to the US. This was based on assertions that Iraq had links with Al Qaeda terrorist group. This was translated to mean that Iraq was a terrorist threat to the American people (Sirin 254). On the other hand it is argued that Bush failed to prove the link between terrorists and Iraq (McHugh 458). In justifying the war, the Bush administration pointed out that there was a connection between the masterminds of the September 11 terror attacks and Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi leader (Coe 307). Nonetheless it is further argued that there is no evidence to support this connection (McHugh 459). The connection was related to postulates that Saddam was actively manufacturing weapons of mass murder. It was further predicted that there was a likelihood that these weapons would fall into the hands of the Al Qaeda group of terrorists (Fisher and Nigel 688). ...
Analysis of these assertions only act to disclose that the issue of nuclear threat from Iraq was not an honest justification for the war. Moreover, it has been argued that the US administration was aware that military action was not the best strategy of fighting terror and yet went ahead to declare war against Iraq (Miller 53). The risks that the Iraq war was associated with such as recruitment of terrorists and nuclear weapons falling in the hands of terrorists act to further demonstrate that the justification of the Bush government were not adequate to lead into war (Biggar 30). America’s commitment to fight terrorism was revealed by the Bush administration which budgeted for $1 billion for the sake of funding the operations of CIA within Iraq (Miller 57). A story published by Newsweek titles “The Salvador Option” described the plans of the pentagon to legitimate death squads that were aimed at countering any resistance to the US’s occupation in Iraq (Blanka 287). The publication disclosed that the Bush administration deemed the Sunni population as supports of terrorists and as a result they had to pay a price (Coe 320). It is because of this that the US invasion of Iraq has been described as a dirty war which was not based on unreliable evidence that the Sunni population had any support for terrorist groups (Davies 438). Opponents of the Iraq war point out that the Bush administration targeted Iraq civilians rather than the actual terrorists and resistance fighters (Biggar 34). It is in this sense therefore that the war against Iraq was not justified. The connection that was said to exist between Saddam and terrorists includes Abu Nidal and terrorist organizations (Blanka 280). The Bush administration asserted
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
In early 2002, General Franks’ “Generated Start” plan “called for very early infiltration by CIA teams, to build relationships and gain intelligence, and then the introduction of Special Operations Forces, particularly in northern Iraq and in Al Anbar province in the west”1.
Same is the case with the Iraq invasion under the United States and the coalition of 49 countries that started in March 20, 2003. The Iraq war, also called, Occupation of Iraq, the Second Gulf War, or Operation Iraqi Freedom by the US military, was alleged on the grounds of various accusations against Iraq.
Prior to it, Iraq had also violated 678(1990) and 687 (1991). In addition to this, UNSCOM, UNMOVIC, IAEA and UN Security Council have accused Iraq of non- cooperation (Weller, and Mark, 182-183.). The Iraq- Us war has been one of the disastrous wars of recent times.
Whatever the motive Bush Administration had, it certainly does not seem to bring anybody or us any good to take the war on Iraq. It has been a policy of the US in the recent years to take preemptive actions in the most bloody and deadly manners, against the nations who pose to be the potential threat to the American nation.
would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or not. Two days later the war began with an air strike against Hussein and the Iraqi leadership. Ground forces (almost exclusively Anglo-American and significantly smaller than the large international force assembled in the first war) began invading the following day, surging primarily toward Baghdad, the southern oil fields, and port facilities; Kurdish and airborne Anglo-American forces opened a northern front late in March.
Answering these one by one will make the picture clearer.
It was known that for the U.S and its allies for a military intervention in Iraq, a prior authorization from the United Nations Security Council was a must. It is believed that the invasion of an independent country like Iraq was a breach of international law laid by the U.N.
Then came the actual war in 2003. The question of the political expediency of the War of 2003 was drowned in a collective American fear of threats to security. George Bush's speeches were also engineered to keep the morale of the people high, in the tradition of past war leaders of the world (Churchill, for instance)
Another issue raised by the news article was the presence of 130,000 troops in Iraq. Whether or not there is an immediate need to pull them out. Their presence could not at all guarantee "to quell the violence at that point. At a minimum, we'd have to pull back certain military bases and try to keep working the politics," as Larry Diamond, senior fellow at Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California advised.
When World War Two broke out, it was a signal that turbulent times were ahead. Men were recruited to fight for their countries. Women had no choice but to let go of their men. It was unknown to everyone what the future will bring, but when the war broke out, it seemed
7 Pages(1750 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic What were the motivations of war in Iraq for FREE!