United States Led War in Iraq - Essay Example

UNITED STATES LED WAR IN IRAQ Introduction The long, arduous and costly war in Iraq has been on since 2003 to date. The United States started this war without the mandate of the United Nations which is the body regulating international invasions of one or more countries against another or others, should they feel it is in the best interest of the international peace and harmony (Youssef 2002). The question that was on every civilian, government or society was whether this invasion of the United States into Iraq was really warranted. Although Iraq’s refusal of disarmament of their weapons of mass destruction was a threat to world security, the US led the war against them for more personal reasons even without proper consultation from the international community. Theories on invasion There are different theories trying to explain reasons behind the United States war against Iraq. Firstly was the disarmament of the then regime led by Saddam Hussein and their weapons of mass destruction. Following Iraq’s rejection of the weapons inspection proposal from the Bush administration and Britain’s documentation of Iraq’s failure to comply with the UN’s resolution, the US deployed its military in Iraq. Saddam was known as a tyrant and a dictator who attacked his own citizens with chemical weapons to get them round to what he wanted. Saddam was also involved in ethnic cleansing against the Kurds. On the basis of this history, the United States and Britain led this disarmament exercise that was met with widespread criticism. The United States explained that the September 11 attack which employed weapons of mass distraction coupled by Hussein’s covert threat to develop and use weapons of mass destruction had given them a cause to act (Curdsman 1999). The United States argued that it could not wait on the United Nations’ mandate when their national interests were at stake. Disarmament would ensure that Iraq stops the acquisition and development of WMD as a way of promoting regional peace and democracy in the country. The United States later got a go ahead from the United Nations on the second phase of disarming Iraq. This phase would ensure that the Saddam regime is overthrown Secondly is Iraq’s close tie with Al-Qaida. Although the September 11 attacks did not have a direct reference to Iraq’s involvement, the United States felt that Saddam Hussein had close links to the terrorist group Al-Qaida which had claimed responsibility over the bombings (Nye 2002). Disarming Iraq would ensure that the regime does not supply terrorists with these weapons of mass destruction. Saddam had been linked to other terrorist groups such as Fatah Revolutionary council, the Palestine Liberation Front and the Arab Liberation Front among others (Cordesman 1999). This links gave the United States reason to believe that Saddam was a big supporter of terrorism and thus an enemy of the United States. The US had declared war on all who are planning and supporting acts to sabotage peaceful co-existence of nations in the world. Thirdly is the resource war. Iraq is the second largest distributor of oil in the world and the United States benefits from their oil reserves. The attitude of the US on Middle East oil control was affected by the bombing that occurred in 2001. The incident made the US wary of unpredictable relations in the future which may affect oil supply to their country by Saddam’s regime. This prompted their attack so as to ensure control over the flow and distribution of oil to their country. Finally is that the war in Iraq was a proxy war protecting Israel, a close ally of the United States from the threats that Iraq had issued. During the gulf war of 1991, Saddam Hussein launched 39 SCUD missiles at Israel so as to provoke Israel’s engagement in the war, erode Islamic support for the United States and get the US and Israel against some coalition of Arab regimes. This past experience strained Iraq- Israel relations and Saddam capitalized on Israel’s fear to intimidate and threaten them over his plan to attack Israel should it interfere with their nuclear weapons policy (Milan and Chomsky 2002). The United States therefore attacked Iraq beforehand to get them under control so as not to interfere with Israel’s support of the disarmament from weapons of mass distraction. Opposition on invasion of Iraq a) Popular Opposition The invasion of Iraq was an unpopular move among the Americans who seemed to favour a diplomatic solution as opposed to immediate military intervention. A New York Times poll revealed that 63% of Americans preferred diplomacy as opposed to 31% who preferred military intervention (Youssef 2002). As from the planning stage through to the actual deployment of military troops in Iraq, protests were held in the US across states like San Francisco, Seattle and Chicago with the largest gathering seen in New York on February 15 2003 involving an estimated 300,000- 400,000 people protesting against the government’s stand. Across countries demonstrations on the same were held with the US government being reflected as a bully and a tyranny invading in other country’s democracy. The protests went down in the Guinness book of records as the largest opposing group ever seen in history against a government. b) Opposition in the National Security Richard Clarke who served in the Clinton and part of the Bush regime as a chief counter terrorism adviser to the national security council termed the invasion to Iraq as unwise. Clarke felt that this would be a platform for terrorists targeting the US. His book “Against All Enemies” criticized the war as a threat to national security (Murray and Scales 2003). His interview by the 9/11 commission displayed Clarke’s opinion that the war would divert funds from the real course which was fighting Al –Qaida and other terrorist movements. By invading Iraq, the US was confirming Osama bin Laden’s allegations that they planned to invade the oil rich Middle East for their own interest. Osama indicated indirectly that bombing the US was their fight against the US oppression (Nye 2002). On the other hand, a group calling itself ‘ Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change’ which consisted of non-serving U.S. diplomats and Military commanders issued a statement against the war stating that it was a bad idea that would cost Americans their security and their taxes. c) Opposition in Europe Europe consisted of the region with the highest extent of opposition. People waved anti-Bush and Anti-war placards to make known their sentiments especially in Western Europe. Even when their individual governments were in support of the U.S. stand the people themselves objected to it. In Spain and Italy for instance, opposition was as high as 90%. Europe’s stand it is believed was because of the region’s economic interests. Some governments like France and Germany could not hide their stand because they were totally against the U.S. move. After the first resolution, the U.K and U.S. pushed for a second resolution on February 14, 2003 to authorize their invasion in Iraq. The French and German governments felt that the UN should be allowed to complete the inspection process (Cordesman 1999). The then France Foreign Minister, Dominique de Villepin was applauded for his speech against the war in Iraq. The governments of Italy and Spain on the other hand ignored public opinion and offered political and military support to the war until 2004 when Spain elected a socialist government. France and German have stayed true to their stand and have never in any way contributed to the war in Iraq. The U.K. government was the U.S. strongest supporter on invasion. Both the ruling Labour Party and the official opposition Conservative party agreed about supporting the war. Opposition however was widespread outside parliament with an estimated 750,000 and 2,000,000 matching on the streets of London on February 15, 2003 to protest the government’s stand on the war in Iraq. Prominent politicians and personalities joined concerned citizens on this walk among them Robin Cook who resigned two days to the day of the troop’s deployment in Iraq stating that he did not agree with the government. d) Opposition throughout the world The world in general as surveys showed was opposed to a war that did not have the U.N mandate. The U.S was now viewed as a threat to peace. In an interview by the BBC in September 2004, the serving UN Secretary General Kofi Annan termed the war as illegal since it did not conform to the security council’s regulations. Brazilian President Lila da Silva said the invasion reflected the U.S disrespect towards the UN’s role. Former South African President Nelson Mandela was against the U.S. methodology (BBC 2007). His message condemned in the strongest terms possible the violation of sovereignty of other countries. e) Religious Opposition The Catholic Church wrote to President Bush stating that it was against catholic doctrines to use military force to overthrow the government of Iraq. According to them the attack on Iraq did not satisfy the criteria for a just war. Reverend Jesse Jackson, a civil rights leader condemned the invasion and in February 2003 called on people to match until there is a declaration of peace and reconciliation. f) Protest against war in Iraq The largest protest movement across the world was recorded on February 15, 2003 across the world when millions of people took to the streets to protest the war in Iraq. Three million people matched in Rome, 300,000 in Berlin, 600,000 in Madrid, 2,000,000 in U.K and other several parts of the world (Pollack 2002). g) Official condemnation The following 54 countries have formally condemned the war in Iraq stating that it is illegal because it does not have the mandate of the United Nations and according to the principles held in their countries and internationally, they consider it wrong (Youssef 2002). These countries include: African Union. Arab League (except Kuwait) Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros ,Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, European Union Austria, Belgium, France Germany, Greece, Slovenia Sweden, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus[82] Brazil[83] Canada[84] Chile, China, Croatia, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuado, India, Iran, Indonesia, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Vatican City, Venezuela and Vietnam. Support for the war President George W. Bush while visiting Europe on a NATO summit declared that “Should Iraqi president Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him”. Coalition referred to supporting countries which added up to 49. Six of the 49 contributed their troops while 33 maintained the activities after invasion. The other six had no military troops. Iraq’s failure to conform to the UN resolution on disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, their link to terrorist group Al-Qaida and their violation of human rights by failing to protect its citizenry led to the US invasion with support from the UK as a way of freeing the people by supporting democracy. The loss and the gain The American and Iraqi governments have lost the war. The United States has lost their troops in war as well as a lot of money. According to (White House 2009), the total estimated cost of the war is $3 trillion with the UK having spent $9 billion and the total number of casualties of violent deaths in Iraq being 113,494-122,483. Thousands of soldiers have been killed in war. The United States has lost the war on Iraq. The consequences are dire with loss of human life at the battlefield and the great recession which has a lot to do with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The current move by President Obama to withdraw military presence from Iraq has been welcome by countries and the UN as a good move towards peace keeping. The plan of war having failed, it is time for the United States to try democracy. Reference List BBC News. 2007. “In quotes: Reasons for the Iraq war.” May 29. Accessed October 11, 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2948068.stm Cordesman, Antony. 1999. Iraq and the War of Sanctions: Conventional Threats and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Westport, CT: Praeger. Milan, Rai, and Naom Chomsky. 2002. War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons against War with Iraq. New York, NY: Verso Press. Murray, Williamson, and Robert Scales. 2003. The Iraq war: A Military History. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Nye, Joseph. 2002. “Attacking Iraq Now Could Harm War on Terror.” Wall Street Journal, March 12. Pollack, Kenneth. 2002. The Threatening Storm: The Case of Invading Iraq. New York, NY: Random house. White House. 2009. “Remarks of President Barack Obama- Responsibly Ending the War in Iraq.” White House press release, February 27. Accessed October 11, 2011. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-barack-obama-ndash-responsibly-ending-war-iraq Youssef, Ibrahim M. 2002. “Marching into a Trap: Bush’s Iraq Adventure is Bound to Backfire.” International Herald Tribute, November 1. Accessed October 11, 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/01/opinion/01iht-edyous_ed3_.html?pagewanted=1 Read More