An Attack against the Iraqi - Essay Example

An Attack against the Iraqi In March of 2003, the Bush administration launched an attack against the Iraqi government to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Both the American people and the global community have harshly criticized this preemptive strike. The war in Iraq has become decidedly unpopular leaving many wondering if the preemptive strike was justified or not. Based on speeches made by the President in March of 2003, the preemptive strike seemed reasonable and justifiable. However, as time progressed and the supposed weapons of mass destruction were not discovered, the assertions made by the President began to lose some of their value.

On March 16, 2003 President Bush stated the following: Saddam Hussein has a history of mass murder. He possesses the weapons of mass murder. He agrees -- he agreed to disarm Iraq of these weapons as a condition for ending the Gulf War over a decade ago. The United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 1441, has declared Iraq in material breach of its longstanding obligations, demanding once again Iraq's full and immediate disarmament, and promised serious consequences if the regime refused to comply.

That resolution was passed unanimously and its logic is inescapable; the Iraqi regime will disarm itself, or the Iraqi regime will be disarmed by force. And the regime has not disarmed itself. Following these assertions, the Iraq war falls between the difficult and easier to justify preemptive strike categories. President Bush cites instances when Iraq refused to comply with disarmament as determined by the UN Security Council. However, he does not give concrete evidence that such weapons have been discovered in Iraq.

In hindsight, weapons of mass destruction were not uncovered on Iraqi soil, therefore nullifying the Bush Administration’s claims to a legitimate preemptive strike. Question 2: The preemptive strike of 1967 completed by Israel falls into the easier to justify category. According to BBC.com, in 1965 Palestinian groups had begun a series of attacks that were backed by Egypt and Syria. In the following years, a buildup of Arab troops began to surround Israel. The build up of troops and attacks two years earlier on the border demonstrate an intention for further military action against Israel.

Troop movement and hostile rhetoric from the Egyptian President Abdel Nasser also fueled the perceived need for a preemptive strike by Israel. Moral issues also played a role in this strike. Jews were consistently persecuted in the region and this strike demonstrated their unwillingness to be taunted by their neighbors. There was a long-standing history of aggression towards Israel from her neighbors. Morally, the act was justified because of the perceived threat of hostilities from both Egypt and Syria.

While Israel did gain territory, it was returned after the UN agreement, therefore asserting that the preemptive strike was not based solely on the desire for land. The preemptive strike executed by Israel can be seen as both morally and tactically justifiable. The threat was not directly spelled out, therefore causing it to be categorized as an easier to justify strike and not a justified stick. Sources:BBCnews. 30 Nov 2008 .The White House. 30 Nov 2008 .