Should the United States of America have Become Involved in Iraq - Essay Example

Should the United s of America have become involved in Iraq? Introduction The decision for the United s of America to go to war with Iraq in 2003 remains one of the most debated foreign policy act taken by the Bush administration. The debate revolves around whether going to war with Iraq was justifiable at that time given the level of threats posed and differing opinions on the role of international organizations like the United Nations and the entire International community. The discussion adopts the Just war theory to analyze and outline the decision to go to war with Iraq and the real threats that Saddam and Iraq posed to the United States of America. The proponents of the war argued that Iraq and Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the security of the USA while the opponents argued that waging war against Iraq was not justified given that there were a myriad of terrorist organizations and individuals such as Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden that posed a real threat to the security of United States of America and the entire globe. Discussion The Just war theory that gives us an insight on the justification of war is attributed to St. Augustine who was a Christian theologian. The theory judges and determines whether a state may be having war recourse and how it may approach the war. The theory is at pivotal point of the modern international legal system. St. Augustine split the theory into two parts; jus in bello (justice in war) and jus ad bellum (justice of war). The latter holds that for a state to declare war, it must have correct intentions, just course, have exhausted all avenues for the conflict resolution or have no other options because of the presented eminent attack. The state must also have a reasonable chance of success and should use minimal resources and force to achieve their means. The former on the other hand, presents a proportionality of means, entails double effect law and ensures non-combat immunity whereby there is the justification of non-combat looses if there are not foreseeable. (Gellman and Linzer, 2004) To understand and to establish whether there was a just cause for war, it is necessary that the paper evaluates the real threats that Iraq not only posed to the United States of America but also to the entire global village. President Bush was unambiguously convinced that Iraq posed a great threat to the Western World. Just like Cheney and Rumsfeld, he believed that Iraq under the leadership of Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. He also believed that Iraq was working in collaboration with Al Qaeda, the USA greatest terrorist threat group. The opponents believed that President Bush inflated the threat posed by Iraq and misled the Global village with regards to Iraq holding weapons of mass destruction. Bush believed that the threat of the world order was posed by Saddam’s propensity for aggression and the potential of the leader working with terrorist groups. (Teson, 2005) Despite the fact that the United States felt that the threat that was emanating from Iraq justified war, the threat must be able to substantiate the use of force. Tony Blair in one of his Speeches in Texas said “we must be prepared to act where terrorism of weapons of mass destruction threaten us”. President Bush and the entire administration believed that peaceful disbarment and containment were not viable options. However, the question that is still not clear is whether the threat justified the action of the military. It is clear that the issues around the use of force cannot be compartmentalized despite the fact that everyone seems to be focusing on the illegality of the war according to the International standards. (Lamy, 2009) For us to conceptualize why scholars have questioned the legality of the war against Iraq, it is order to dichotomize the response of the international community. According to the United Nations charter, the use of force is only justified if it is used for self defense or only if it is part of the sanctioned peace enforcement program by the Security Council. Given that there were succinct and certified links between the Al Qaeda and Iraq and that the creation of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq was a merely a speculation, the idea of war by the USA as an act of self defense remains questionable and debate. Some of the conservative American figures such as, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld rendered the war illegal when they refused to listen to the United Nations and favored a unilateral approach that did not take into consideration a number of factors. There were a number of World leaders like Tony Blair who attempted to convince Bush to respect the United Nation’s decisions. Tony envisaged an international order that is anchored on the foundation of the international norms with the United Nations being the source of its legitimacy. It should be noted that Britain later supported the war, in order to avoid the isolation of the USA which is the world’s Superpower. (Shapcott, 2010) Whilst the American policy turned after the 9/11, the reasons for starting war against Iraq are still scanty. Firstly, there was no clear evidence that Iraq was directly or indirectly involved with the terrorist who attacked the United States during the 9/11. Secondly, Sadam Hussein purely ran a secular government regime within Iraq’ borders. Thirdly, scholars believe that Iraq and the Western shared similar goals ion that both wanted to ensure they contained geopolitical ambitions of the Islamist Iran that increased day by day. One of the assumptions that a number of opponents have put with regards to decisions to attack Iraq was that the United States wanted to control; the vast oil reserves which were under the control of Saddam Hussein and its administration. They believed that the United States of America desperately wanted oil that time and Iraq was one of the softest spot to obtain that oil. It is undoubted that the involvement of a number of senior government officials in Bush regime simultaneously held senior positions in some of the major oil corporations was ubiquitous. It is speculated that Condoleezza Rice and Paul O’Neill had drafted plan to conquer the Iraq oil immediately Bush was sworn in as the president. By gaining such an important in the Middle East, analyst hoped that it would be able to control India and China who are some of the fastest growing economies across the globe. This discussion is an indication that the war against Iraq was not just. (Walzer, 2006) The war on Iraq was coined by the Bush administration as the war on terror. From the Just war theory, the war with Iraq would have been successful if Bush had concentrated on fighting individual terrorist as opposed to the tactic of the terrorism itself. In one of his speeches, Bush said that “Our war on terror will be much broader than the battlefields and beachheads of the past. The war will be fought wherever terrorists hide, or run, or plan.” The problem with his statement and approach is that he wasn’t able to identify and pinpoint the terrorist and where they were likely to carry out the attacks. It therefore gave very minimal hope of the chances of success leading to the war remaining unjustified. (Byford, 2002) The proponents have used the doctrine of humanitarian intervention to justify the war on Iraq. They argued that going to war in Iraq was intended to help stop some horrific crimes against humanity that were being committed by the administration of Saddam. They believed that the World super power would not watch as serious atrocities were being committed against humanity. In this approach, there is nothing to be gained by the United States of America and only protected the humanity in Iraq. The proponents continue to hold that the war was intended to bring to an end the continuous Saddam’s regime that saw a number of people loose their lives. The mere humanitarian intent was enough justification for the United States of America to go to war with Iraq. The proponents of the debate held that, it is only through the elimination of the tyranny and instilling of democracy that the people of Iraq would be free. They argued that humanitarian interventions should not only be preserved in situations of mass killing like during the Hitler’s time but also in all instances when humanity is threatened. (Roth, 2004) The opponents on the other hand look at the war to against the Humanitarian grounds. Even the critics who have always defended the right to humanitarian intervention oppose the invention in Iraq. The United Nations were opposed to the forceful attack in Iraq. They believed that attacking Iraq would result to further humanitarian crisis. They advocated for other means that could be exploited by the United States of America and countries like the British who later supported the course. A myriad of other critics claimed that the attack was a revision in the previous known doctrine of the humanitarian intervention where it is only permitted as a result of crimes against humanity, mass killings, genocide amongst others, all of which were not witnessed during the Saddam’s regime. The traditional humanitarian doctrine holds that the intervention on humanitarian grounds is only and only justified if it results into more good than harm. In the Iraq’s case, there were a number of negative connotations that were recognized because of war. The United States also overlooked at the predisposition of the international community on the policies of non-interventionist given that there was consensus on the coexistent rules. The war in Iraq destroyed business and interfered with the ability of the citizens to invest and make money. They were neither able to travel nor communicate. The acts by the United States of America further violated their rights compared to Saddam’s regime. A number of scholars have also asked why the United States of America are very reluctant to do the same thing on areas where such crimes take place like Somalia and Sudan. The USA did not intervene in the Rwanda’s case where more than a million people lost their lives during genocide. It ther3efore appears that the question of humanitarian assistant to the Iraq people were used to conceal an ill motivated agenda by the Bush administration. (Cook, 2004) Conclusion When analyzing the decision to go to war with Iraq, the fundamental questions that should be considered and analyzed is the overall outcome of the war. Whether the United States of America went into war with Iraq because of Humanitarian reasons, defense reasons or the matters that were of interest to the Bush administration, the question that analysts ask is whether Americans are now safer because Saddam is on power. It also questions whether the people of Iraq are now politically, socially and economically better off because Saddam is dead. The best evidence for the proponents of the war is the lack of terrorist in the United States since the attack begins. It is however questionable whether Iraq was a home for terrorist given that there have been incidence of terrorist attacks in other parts of the world. There are a number of the United States of America allies that have been attacked by terrorist after 9/11. Kenya for example that has gotten a lot of support from the United States of America especially its intelligence has faced a number of attacks. The same is with Nigeria. The world is therefore not safe because Saddam was killed. The war in Iraq actually is perceived to have increased radicalization in the Middle East and making it easy for the Islamic Extremists to access ammunition. The bombings in Madrid and London among other areas faced bombings which is an indication that terrorists still present a potential threat to the global security. In real sense, the war in Iraq, appears to have destabilized the economy in the entire Middle East through the creation of a power vacuum for Iran to easily occupy. As a result, Iran has gained greater influence in the region which has further created conflict with the United States. Islamists radicals have taken advantage of this to oppose most of the Western policies hence more terrorist threats. References Byford G, (2002)“The Wrong War”, originally appeared in Foreign Affairs, (July/August 2002), cited in Hoge Jr and Rose, Understanding the War on Terror,New York Cook, R, (2004) The Point of Departure: Diaries from the Front Bench, Pocket Books Lamy S.L, (2009) “Contemporary Mainstream Approaches: Neo-realism and Neo-liberalism”, in Baylis and Smith, Globalisation of World Politics,Oxford: University Press, pages 126-141 Gellman and Linzer ( 22nd October 2004), Afghanistan, Iraq: Two Wars Collide, The Washington Post Roth K., (2004), The Law of War in the War on Terror: Washington’s Abuse of Enemy Combatants, Foreign Affairs Shapcott R.,(2010) ‘International Ethics’, in Baylis and Smith, Globalization of World Politics, pp.201-2. Teson F. (2005), Humanitarian Intervention – An Enquiry into Law and Morality, Transnational Publishers Inc., U.S Walzer M. (2006), Arguing About War, Yale: University Press Read More