The US Invasion of Iraq - Essay Example

INVASION OF IRAQ IN MARCH 2003, CHANGE IN THE WAY THAT FORCE IS USED IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS INVASION OF IRAQ IN MARCH 2003 Introduction The US invasion in Iraq is one of the controversial topics that have generated a lot of heat in the international sphere. Shortly after the Gulf War in which America successfully defeated Iraq, there emerged rumours that the Iraq government had plans to manufacture weapons of mass destruction. As this rumour continued to spread, the United Nations Organization reacted by launching a plan to inspect Iraq and confirm whether these allegations were true of just mere speculations (Art & Waltz, 2003). In various unsuccessful attempts, the UN negotiated with Iraq over the inspection, but Iraq leader, Saddam Hussein declined this effort and dismissed the allegations as mere speculations. An urge to conduct an investigation in Iraq emerged when the Iraq government attacked US in the year in 2001. The US government felt vulnerable, especially after this attack that is believed to have been an operation of Al-Qaeda, one of the rogue groups in Iraq. The US government felt vulnerable and feared that the Iraq government would use the weapons of mass destruction against the US government. Another fear was that with these weapons available in Iraq, the Al-Qaeda group would access them and conduct a more severe attack than one of 2001. Thus, the US felt the need to launch an effective operation to inspect and disarm the Iraq government of any weapons of mass destruction that they could be holding. Although many felt that the rumour on the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a mere speculation, the UN team engaged a powerful gear to unravel the truth of the matter. In 2002, the plan of inspection was underway and there was light that the Iraq government would comply with the inspection plan. On the other hand, the US government felt that this process was slow and that there was a need to hasten the process to avoid the looming threat that the weapons would be used against the US. In essence, they felt that the UN and the international bodies were slow in neutralizing a threat that would have dire consequences on US. However, the international body insisted that it was important to give Iraq sometime to comply with the demands of the inspection as there was still hope that the process would succeed. Even a number of the US allies accepted that this was not a time of war as there was no any evidence that there was any destructive weapon. Despite the efforts of many countries and international bodies to stop US from engaging Iraq in a war, the US government declared a war in the country and organized their troops to invade Iraq. The US President, Bush, declared that there was a need for a war as the diplomatic process had lasted for long enough. In this light, the US and its allies organized thousands of troops that marched into Iraq and conducted an operation that was meant to recover any weapons of mass destruction and demote Saddam Hussein of his leadership. There is evidence of excessive use of force that lead to the death of about 30 people per day in Iraq and others suffered rape and torture (Scales & Brown, 2012). This war in Iraq only ended after President Barack Obama came into power and ordered the withdrawal of US army troops from Iraq. This invasion of Iraq by the US has become a sensitive topic in the world history. Many nations and international diplomats such as Kofi Annan have come out broadly to criticise the action of the US against Iraq. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary declared the war as illegal and a killer of the diplomatic process. As many diplomats recommend that peace should be by no means acquired through the use of war, the 2003 can be seen as a change in the engagement of force in international relations. The international law states that it is illegal for any country to threaten or use force against another country that is a member of the UN organization (Schell, 2013). The central purpose of this paper is to show the extent to which the invasion of Iraq march 2003 signifies a change in the way that force is used in international relations. The Overview of the US Security Strategies of Bush and Obama The government of any states sets the role of protecting its citizens and their resources against external attack as a priority in its security plan. In the history of US, there has been a great revolution of security strategies as the power changes from one arm to the next. Notably, as the US power changed hands from Bush to Barack Obama, there was a great change in the design and implementation of the security strategy in America (Sahlane, 2012). More policy analysts have pointed out Obama as more diplomatic than his predecessor George Bush. One of the changes that have occurred in Obama security strategy is on the engagement of war in conflict resolution in the international relations. Many scholars have delved in a research to pinpoint the various differences between the use of military power by bother Bush and Obama. One major difference that has come up is that Bush was a man who believed on security through military power while Obama believes in peace through a diplomatic process. In various occasions, Bush has engaged military power to reinforce peace in his country (Judis, 2013: Duggan, 2012). On the other hand, Obama has used less force in initiating peace between his country and rival countries such as Iraq and Russia. One of the criticisms that have been launched by many political analysts is the use of war by Bush as part of his peace strategy. Berger (2010) pointed out that the peace relations in America depend on the way they have treated other countries but not on the strategies they have used to combat external attacks. Today, Al-Qaeda has become the real threat to America as opposed to the earlier times when other countries were threatening the country. The main reason why America is at high risk of being attacked by the Al-Qaeda group is because America, during the reign of Bush, has treated the Middle East countries (Scales & Brown, 2012). During the reign of Bush, he consistently used force as a part of security strategy in the US. For instance, in the war against Iraq, he launched a military attack in Iraq, which was a pre-emptive war. This action was criticized as undiplomatic and against the principles of international peace relations. As many would see it, failure of Bush to place value in diplomacy resulted in a weakness in his security strategy. On the other hand, Obama peace strategy relies primarily on diplomatic methods and less engagement of military power. When he gained power in the US, his first idea was to withdraw his army troops from Iraq, an action that Bush had desisted during his reign. It was only after he took up power that Iraq regained its freedom with complete withdrawal of the American army. Obama security strategy is depicted in his rationale that states that; “Create opportunities to resolve differences, strengthen the international communitys support for our actions, learn about the intentions and nature of closed regimes, and plainly demonstrate to the publics within those nations that their governments are to blame for their isolation." (Berger, 2010) This rationale shows that the theme of his national security strategy is to provide US with the opportunity to develop negotiations and avoid use of war as a way of regaining peace between them. The implementation of this strategy has been depicted in his willingness to engage diplomatic negotiations during their confrontation with Iraq and North Korea (Dana & Suzanne n.d). Today, America receives less threat from external attacks and there is hope of a more peaceful future in his reign. How the US and other Players Attacked Iraq The US attack of the Iraq was a plan that was aimed at neutralising the threats that surrounded the country. In 2001, the US government suffered a bomb attack from the Al-Qaeda group which sent the country in fear of future terrorism. To Bush, the president of the US at that time, that was not merely an attack, but an “act of war” and this seems to have been the main reason why the US government dreaded of using war to combat terrorism against America (McCann, 2006). The tension was heightened by the fact that there were unconfirmed rumours that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction that could have catastrophic impact in case of an attack. Although such weapons were viewed as a threat to the entire world, the US president saw it as bigger threat to America, than any other country. He felt that his country was the main target and consciously resorted in plans to launch a pre-emptive war rather than respond after an attack. Resultantly, the US president declared that it was time to create a rift between two groups of nations; those that supported terrorists and those that opposed it. Bush aimed at determining those countries that would support him in the attack against Iraq and those that could not back up the plan. He explicitly stated that his country was ready to engage in a preventive and pre-emptive war to safeguard the security of its nation. In the failure of support, he mentioned that he was prepared to go it alone as long as the looming threat would be neutralised and his country set free of the threats of invasion with weapons of mass destruction. At this time, the United Nations Security Council had already started a plan to conduct an inspection of Iraq to confirm the widespread rumour that Iraq was harbouring dangerous weapons (Plappert, 2010: Burnette & Kraemer, 2012). Although the process was slow, the United Nations Council urged US to remain calm and give the diplomatic process time as it was already taking shape. In 2003, the US government declared “game over” and declined to heed to the various diplomatic units that still insisted that there was an opportunity for peaceful resolution of the matter. The United Kingdom became a member of the willing Allies that decided to support the US in the war against Iraq. The US government had two objectives in mind as they attacked the country. First, the troops were supposed to push Saddam Hussein out of power, as one of the supporters of terrorists. Secondly, the troop was sent with orders to disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction that they could be having in possession such as nuclear bombs (Cordesman & Davies, 2008). Other countries such as Germany and France felt that this was an overreaction and refused to support US in the operation. Although the two countries found the need to disarm Iraq, they felt that it was unjustified for US to take it personal while a diplomatic process was promising to yield a solution of the problem. For the first time in the history of the world, NATO refused to support US in the war against Iraq. When NATO was asked whether they “continued to serve the interests of the United States, ” they declared that this was not a time when war could resolve such a conflict. They explicitly stated that “There is still an alternative to war. The use of violence can only be the last resort” to hint on their trust on diplomacy. In this effect, NATO took the initiative to protect Turkey from the effects of the war that America was planning to launch against Iraq. The idea that NATO seems to hold is that the pre-emptive action of US was an overreaction that undermined the power of diplomacy and was even questionable (Harland, 2013). In short, NATO was against the coalition organized by the US in support of the operation against Iraq. The United Nations Security Council highly opposed the move of America to attack Iraq. The UN secretary, Kofi Annan declared the operation as illegal and unjustified on the part of America. As there was a plan to inspect the country and the process was materializing, the UN out rightly warned the US against such an action. However, the US President declared that every country had the absolute right to exercise its self-defence rights as it felt most appropriate (Davis, 1990: Szumanska, 2008). In this view, the US government organized thousands of troops to invade Iraq and carry an operation that he believed would see his country free from any form of threat from terrorist in the future. How the US and other Players attacked Libya The US attack in Libya is another example of the state’s reaction to acts of terrorism. In the early 1980s, Libya was gaining power and a revolution was taking place in this country. Rumours held that the country was in possession of nuclear power and that the President of Libya, Gaddafi, was planning to exploit the Uranium mines in his country to prepare more nuclear weapons (Stanik, 2003: Mcgoldrick, 2004). For the US, this was bad news and they felt Libya as a source of threat to their country. However, the government did not prepare any mission to attack Libya or even disarm it of these nuclear weapons. The war against Libya was ignited when Libya bombed America, killing people and leaving over 200 people injured in Berlin. In response, America garnered support from other countries and planned to launch a counter attack in this country (Burton & Katz, 2013). This time round, the NATO member countries immensely supported the country and provided aid during the mission. Germany, France and other 20 countries backed up US in this operation that was aimed at revenging against the attack perpetrated by Libya. In an operation that lasted about 12 minutes, the Libya population suffered a great loss as many people were killed and many left injured (Symonds & Clipson, 2001). On the other hand, the Libyan government retaliated and shot one of the aircraft that had two people. Although this war was supported by many countries, the international bodies greatly rejected the act and termed it as an act of aggression. The United Nations stated that America had taken the law in its arms by fighting Libya (Köchler, 2006). They saw this as an act that undermined the role of the international body in negotiation and conflict resolution. The act of war killed many innocent people and this was against the principles of the international bodies. On the same note, China declared this an unacceptable act that raised tension across this region and kept many people in fear. In brief, the international community was against the action of America to attack the US. How and Why the use of Force in International Relations Changed. In the event of the US attack on Iraq in 2003, it is evident that this was a new direction in the use of war in international relations. According to the international law, the most diplomatic approach should be used in the development of a strategy to resolve conflict. The international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council consider the severe effects of war as an unacceptable in the world. In the event of war, many innocent people lose their lives undeservedly. The humanitarian bodies condemn such actions that involve the use of military power as a tool for conflict resolution (Broomhall, 2007). This is the principle reason why the UN and NATO condemned the act of war that US embarked on to settle a grudge with Iraq. The invasion in Iraq showed a new method of solving a conflict in which a country would omit the diplomatic protocols and the guidelines of the international regulations to pursue its personal defence. The rumour that was later confirmed untruthful, that Iraq was in possession of weapons of massive destruction was not a matter concerning America only but the whole world in general. Every country was at the risk of terrorism and thus this was a matter that needed to be handled by the international bodies rather than America. In short, America took a responsibility that did lie in its capacity to attack Iraq (Lee, 2009). This is the major reason why the majority of the countries condemned this act and failed to be associated with the coalition established by Bush in the planning stage. Traditionally, in peace construction in the international scope, war was seen as the weapon of last resort. As the NATO representative stated “… war can only be used as a last resort” to indicate that US was imposing a new change that had not been evidenced in the history of the world. Moreover, at the time of this war, the country was not retaliating to any direct attack and hence was not justified to conduct the operation against Iraq. This shows that this war gave a change in the definition of self-defence that was not formally stated in the international law. To justify this war, the US government pointed out that a country did not have to wait for an attack to launch its self-defence plans (Freedman, 2001). This was a new idea that seems to have been fuelled by other motives. He seems to define self-defence as the engagement of a preventive or pre-emptive war against any nation that a country is in suspicion with. This was a whole new idea that was unheard of. Comparing this incidence with the Libya attack, there is a notable difference in the application of self-defence rights. In the Libya attack in 1987, the US was responding to a direct attack after Libya had bombed Berlin and the president of the country had termed this as a heroic act. In this incidence, it is clear that it was a planned attack that could be directly linked to the Libyan government. As such, US had the right to engage in an act of self-defence, though a negotiation would have been more effective. In Iraq, the US president was not justified to attack the country as Iraq had not directly attacked the country. As a matter of fact, the matter was in the hands of the United Nations Security Council (Thomas, 2000). This is the principle reason why the United States received little support in this operation from other countries. The act of the US to bring a new approach to international relations has been criticized and seen as hypocritical. Many analysts have pointed out that the US government was pushed by other forced to fight Iraq and to forcefully demote their leader. As a matter of fact, most critics pointed out that the US President, George Bush, had strategized to attack Iraq since the first day he gained his power. Iraq having a history of rich oil wells that required little cost of mining is a fact that has been associated with this unwarranted attack. It is questionable why the US government would engage war while the diplomacy process was underway. Most people point out that the US president was finding a way in which he could control the oil fields in this country (Hendrickson, 2002, 2004). Bush understood that as long as the government was headed by Saddam Hussein, the country would not benefit from these oil fields (Bjola, 2000). Therefore, the US president only seized this opportunity to increase his chances of benefiting from the oil production in this country. The change in the use of war in international relations was to a great extent way off the mark. In reality, the use of war in 2003 increased the fear of terrorism in this country. As a matter of fact, the use of war has never been a solution to international conflict. In the war against Libya, the China government condemned the act and stated that this was more of a cause of fear than the solution to the conflict. In the revision of the national security strategies, the new US president, Obama, reduced the use of war and engaged more diplomatic strategies that will ensure that the country is at peace with other nation (Mintz & Derouen, 2010). His strategies to withdraw the US army troops from Iraq show his plan to desist the change that had been brought by Bush. He seems to revert to the previous peace regime when war was used only as a tool of last resort in international relations. Conclusion The US attack in Iraq in March 2003 to a great extent signified a great change in the use of war in international relations. Previously, the war was seen as a tool of last resort that could be engaged only if diplomacy and other peace resolution methods had failed. However, the US government deviated from this direction and decided to shun diplomacy and engaged in a war that was unwarranted. Their war was a reaction to a rumour, that later was proved to be a lie, that Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. The US government changed the interpretation of the law that gave all countries the right to exercise procedures that concern their self-defence. However, this pre-emptive war received a lot of criticism from NATO, the UN and the US allied countries such as Germany. This war was an absolute change of the principles of international security. The US government seems to have been driven by their interest in Iraq’s oil fields, rather than disarming the country of weapons of mass destruction. Bibliography Art, R. J., & Waltz, K. N. 2003. The use of force: military power and international politics. Lanham, Md, Rowman & Littlefield. Bjola, C. 2000. Legitimising the use of force in international politics: Kosovo, Iraq and the ethics of intervention. London, Routledge. Berger, S., 2010. Obama’s National Security Strategy: Little of George Bush, Lots of Bill Clinton. The Washington Post. Broomhall, B, 2007. International justice and the International Criminal Court (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 46 Burnette, A, & Kraemer, W. 2012, The rhetoric of imperial righteousness in a post-9/11 world, Journal Of Argumentation In Context, 1, 2, p. 143, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 January 2014. Burton, F., & Katz, S. M. 2013. Under fire: the untold story of the attack in Benghazi. New York: St. Martin press. Cordesman, A. H., & Davies, E. R. 2008. Iraqs insurgency and the road to civil conflict. Westport, Connecticut, Praeger Security International Davis, B. L. 1990. Qaddafi, terrorism, and the origins of the U.S. attack on Libya. New York, Praeger. Dana M., W, & Suzanne R., S n.d., Americans and Iraq, twelve years apart: Comparing support for the US wars in Iraq, The Social Science Journal, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 January 2014. Duggan, SE 2012, Redefining the Relationship: Reclaiming American Public Diplomacy from the US Military in Iraq, Middle East Journal, 66, 1, pp. 53-78, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 January 2014. Freedman, R. 2001. Soviet policy toward Israel under Gorbachev. New York, Praeger. Harland, M 2013, Democratic vanguardism: Francis Fukuyama and the Bush Doctrine, Arena Journal, 39/40, p. 51, Informit Literature & Culture Collection, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 January 2014. Hendrickson, C. 2002 Clinton’s Military Strikes in 1998: Diversionary Uses of Force Armed Forces & Society, Jan; vol. 28: pp. 309–332 Hendrickson, C. 2004 NATO’s Secretary General and the Use of Force: Willy Claes and the Air Strikes in Bosnia. Armed Forces & Society, Oct; vol. 31: pp. 95–117. Judis, Jb 2013, LESSONS FROM OBAMAS ALMOST-WAR, New Republic, 244, 16, pp. 32-34, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 January 2014. Köchler, H. (2006). The use of force in international relations: challenges to collective Security, Vienna, IPO. Lee, S. 2009. International Herald Tribune: Election results spur threats and infighting in Iraq. International Herald Tribune. Mccann, J. T. 2006. Terrorism on American soil: a concise history of plots and perpetrators from the famous to the forgotten. Boulder, CO, Sentient Publications. Mcgoldrick, D. 2004. From "9-11" to the "Iraq War 2003": international law in an age of complexity. Oxford [u.a.], Hart. Mintz, A., & Derouen, K. R. 2010. Understanding foreign policy decision making. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Plappert, S. 2010. Why did the USA invade Iraq? An answer with references to the political, economic and ideological interests/purpose of the US, ignoring the reasons stated by the Bush administration and the Blair government. München, GRIN Verlag GmbH. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-20100916742. Stanik, Joseph T. 2003. El Dorado Canyon: Reagans Undeclared War With Qaddafi. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press Symonds, C. L., & Clipson, W. J. 2001. The Naval Institute historical atlas of th US Navy. Annapolis, Md, Naval Inst. Press. Szumanska, E. 2008. Iraq against the United States of America (events 2003-2004) A proposal of a judgment of the International Court of Justice. München, GRIN Verlag GmbH. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2010083013815. Sahlane, A 2012, Argumentation and Fallacy in the Justification of the 2003 War on Iraq, Argumentation, 26, 4, p. 459, Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 January 2014. Scales, R, & Brown, S 2012, US Policy In Afghanistan And Iraq : Lessons And Legacies, Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Discovery eBooks, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 January 2014. Schell, J 2013, The Iraq Disaster, Nation, 296, 13, pp. 3-8, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 22 January 2014. Thomas, W. 2000. The ethics of destruction: norms and force in international relations. Ithaca, Cornell University Press. Read More