The US Invasion in Iraq in March 2003 - Coursework Example

US-Led Invasion and Occupation in 2003 The US invasion in Iraq in March 2003 is one of the controversial topics that have generated a lot of heat among many researchers. The attack lasted for about 20 days, a time which involved serious war and the eventual occupation of Baghdad by the American forces. The attack was triggered by the persistent terrorist bombing in US, which the US government termed as an act of war. The US government suspected that the Iraqians were manufacturing dangerous weapons of mass destruction, which would be dangerous to the world. A close analysis by many researchers shows that the operation had both negative and positive impacts to Iraq. While some feel that this war was destructive and costly, other feel that it was the trigger for Arab spring and the quest for democracy in the surrounding countries. However, it is clear that the US invasion in Iraq was illegal and should it would had been a wise decision to check for international intercession through a negotiation process. 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 speculations1. 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 20012. 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 US3. 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. 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 matter4. 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. Other countries such as Germany and France felt that this was an overreaction and refused to support US in the operation.5 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 questionable6. In short, NATO was against the coalition organized by the US in support of the operation against Iraq. The Ramifications of the US invasion were negative especially to the innocent public. After the US government declared a war in the country and organized their troops to invade Iraq many people lost their lives and properties. While the US President, Bush, thought that there was a need for a war as the diplomatic process had lasted for long enough and organized thousands of troops to marched into Iraq and conduct an operation, they did not consider other ramifications apart from recovering 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. In total, over 100 thousand people died during the time of invasion and occupation, an issue that has led to the criticism of the US attack in Iraq7. In addition, the US soldiers also died as they engaged in exchange war with the Iraqians. Approximately, 4 thousand US service soldiers died in the war. On this note, the consequences of the Iraqi invasion were negative not only for the Iraq but also for the US and the allies. The cost ramifications of the Iraq war were great and this has been a subject of criticism of the war against Iraq. Estimates show that the total cost of the war in Iraq was approximately $ 3 trillion. This marked the first time that the US government made federal borrowing to finance the war. As compared to the war in Afghanistan, the Iraq war cost about four times than the latter war.8 The government borrowed about $60 billion to finance the war and to sustain the armies in Iraq. Other opportunity costs include the rise in the price of the fuel after the invasion. Before the war, the cost of an oil barrel was about $25 and this rose to $140 after the war. This was of great significance to the economic development as it increased the government spending.9 In Iraq, the war destroyed the communication infrastructure, homes and other facilities that were crucial for the people of Iraq. A number of scholars have linked the war to the eventual economic recession that came into play in the year 2008. Therefore, the war was costly and contributed to the economic backwardness that was experienced during the time of the war. Despite the blood-letting and the wreckage that came along with the war, some scholars argue that the war had its positive side. They believe that the Arab spring started with the toppling of Saddam Hussein who was a dictator and had declined to implement democracy10. The Arab Spring describes the emergence of a revolutionary period when the Arab world engaged in violent and non-violent demonstrations, civil wars and riots. This is a period that started in the years of 2008 when most of the Arab countries rioted due to a combination of factors. Countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia rose up against their government to topple dictatorship and pave way for democratic leadership. The argument is that the overthrow of the dictatorship leader by the US forces inspired other countries to stand up against bad leadership that had resulted to economic decline within the Middle East countries11. However, this argument has been another subject of controversy and cannot be tied directly to the Iraq war12. Evidently, other factors such as poverty levels, oppression, illegal arrests could have triggered the Middle East citizens to protest against their governments. On this note, this cannot be used as a justification of the Iraq war that was costly and resulted to the loss human life. In conclusion, the ramifications of the US invasion in Iraq were negative and there is need for the government to find alternative procedures of settling conflicts. Although the US government was reacting to matters of safety that matter to its citizens, it is clear that the opportunity cost of preferring a counter attack was high. The government lost many of its soldiers and the whole process was costly to the government. The fuel prices went high and the government borrowing increased, possibly paving way for the global financial crisis. In Iraq, innocent people lost their life and properties, which was a great loss for the country. The idea that the war resulted in the Arab spring which was the path to democracy for many eastern countries, it is clear that this remains a myth whose prove is yet to be found. Therefore, it is crucial for any government to find the most appropriate procedure for settling dispute to avoid far reaching ramifications. References Al-Chalabi, Burhan. "Why The US Should Apologise." New Statesman 143, No. 4 (January 31, 2014): 16. Business Source Complete, Ebscohost (Accessed June 28, 2014). Barry, Jack J. 2012. "Democracy Promotion and ODA: A Comparative Analysis." Contemporary Politics 18, No. 3: 303-324. Academic Search Premier, Ebscohost (Accessed June 28, 2014). De Castro Santos, Maria Helena, And Ulysses Tavares Teixeira. "The Essential Role Of Democracy In The Bush Doctrine: The Invasions Of Iraq And Afghanistan." Revista Brasileira De Política International 56, No. 2 (December 2013): 131-156. Academic Search Premier, Ebscohost (Accessed June 28, 2014). Dodge, Toby. 2013. "State and Society In Iraq Ten Years After Regime Change: The Rise Of A New Authoritarianism." International Affairs 89, No. 2: 241-257. Academic Search Premier, Ebscohost (Accessed June 28, 2014). Smith, Martin A. "US Bureaucratic Politics And The Decision To Invade Iraq." Contemporary Politics 14, No. 1 (March 2008): 91-105. Academic Search Premier, Ebscohost (Accessed June 28, 2014). Schuman, Howard, And Amy D. Corning. 2006. "Comparing Iraq To Vietnam: Recognition, Recall, And The Nature Of Cohort Effects." Public Opinion Quarterly 70, No. 1: 78-87. Business Source Complete, Ebscohost (Accessed June 28, 2014). Read More