The Invasion of Iraq 2003 - Essay Example

The Invasion of Iraq 2003 By: Professor: Class: University: City: State: Date of submission: The Invasion of Iraq 2003 Introduction While attempting to evaluate the ongoing intervention of America in America, it is evident that there are confrontations associated with variegated, rational attempt, and intentions in explaining and justifying the war in Iraq. With such focus, the interests and claims are irreconcilable, contradictory, and dialectical. Although the arguments of Bush Administration were based on the intentions, it is apparent that repercussions of the US engagement in Iraq are dire with death rates increasing on both sides, minimum change effects, and increased chaos escalating the disunity in the national plague due to poor political structure. According to philosophers, it is important that US attempts to articulate what it considers just while empiricism holds that deontological rhetoric has been allowing the leaders to coerce various countries into prolonged arrangements though it also hold that such engagements often fail. In considering the 2003 invasion of Iraq, it was very clear that things were not materializing as earlier projected within the first few months. Some of the failures include inadequate weapons of mass destruction considered icing executive incompetence and state collapse (Carr, 2011, 105). The 2003 policy involved dual containment, which was a problem that required solution. The major question that arose was how the US would manage the pair of hostile states considered adjacent to each other. With the animosity of Hussein’s tenure and Islamic Republic of Iran, it was evident that none could achieve the overarching influence on the Gulf region. Dual containment became the case management method in the wake of Iraq war since the country has ceased to exist as the major strategic actor. Additionally, Iranian influence continued to increase in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Background of Iraq Invasion Through exploitative rhetoric and fear associated with increasing terror activities, Bush Administration managed to increase popularity in supporting the unfavorable foreign policy of the US and managing to secure its internal economic interests. However, the arguments for expansion and preservation of such foreign policy remained to undermine the American national security. After the occurrence of the first Gulf War, the aim of both Bush and Obama Administration was to integrate both containment of the military and sanctions. According to the US, such activities were to result in either the palace revolution or the military coup through the regime headed by Saddam Hussein, Baath. Even though that was not the UN policy, Washington through its unilateral efforts managed to change the existing tenure in Iraq. During their administrations, Bush and Clinton set their strategy of supporting a coup but not undertaking any American involvement in toppling Saddam’s tenure (Jakobsen, 2015). Upon the elapse of the Gulf War that occurred in 1991, the Bush Administration signed the order that allowed the CIA to throw out Saddam. However, in 1998, President Bill Clinton signed the law passed by the Congress worth about $97 to offer assistance to the military in a bid to support the forces that are against the Saddam’s regime and ensure adequate promotion of democracy in governance. Nonetheless, there were significant changes in the US policy since George W. Bush took power in 2001. The major features associated with American foreign policy included the national measures and freedom of action. Through institutions such as the UN, the US was unable to solve some of its problems. For surety, some extent of antagonism emerged between certain groups including the traditionalist in the manner they view the foreign policy (Vanderbush, 2014, 221). The US invaded Afghanistan in October 2001, which commemorated the beginning of international war against terror activities. The senate and the congress were able to pass the law after a year, which permitted the use of the armed forces against the Iraqi. As a result, the resolutions from the UN Security Council gave the president the powers of declaring war in Iraq. Therefore, before October 2002, the US had the ability to speak using a single voice on issues associated with foreign policy. From such perspective, the President had full control and charge on the situation in Iraq with assistance from different state departments (Jakobsen & Jakobsen, 2009, 669). Nevertheless, such activities seemed to imply unilateralism, it failed to mean that Washington would stop to seeking the legal requirements from the UN on matters that deal with foreign policy as outline in the UN Security Council Resolution. In the document, the council recognized the threat Iraq would experience for failing to comply with resolutions and proliferations on the weapons considered to likely pose threat to international security and peace. Such failures were to result in serious consequences due to the country’s continued violations of various obligations. The most important questions most researchers focus on are the manageability of dual containment in the long run. The US managed to spend more in the blood and treasure between 1991 and 2003. Based on the financial and military standpoint, the answer is clear: yes. Even though dual containment might have left Hussein’s regime in power, it is clear that the state would have avoided the severe civil wars, which the country endured. Classical Realism on Iraq Invasion Realism assists in explaining various phases of foreign policy, which consistently remain the same over time. Based on the realist perspective, governmental decision of starting war are subjects associated with involuntary participation with focus on gaining power and security, which are functions of global political environments. In such scenarios, each state fears the hostility presented by the other country. Rationally, it is important that leaders calculate the cost of war and benefits associated with such in terms of power and security of the state (Tharoor, 2014). Therefore, international behavior needs to reflect the constraints imposed on their actions through their respective positions in terms of power. In such regard, there was shift from the bipolar or two-superpower of power distribution experienced during Cold War to unipolar dominance of the US military leading to shifting of US policy strategy that deter or contain threats to policies in preventing the warfare against the threats associated with rogue states. The Soviet Union that used the unipolar dominance; thus, its failure led to creation of incentives for the US with an aim of deemphasizing the collective security and relying heavily on the military personnel. Considering the unrivalled power of the US, classical realism theory predicts that leaders would view the multilateral institutions as a hindering factor rather than assisting. In addition, realism emphasizes on the continuity and inevitability associated with military competition war among the sovereign countries acquiring credence despite the changes in leadership and collapse of the main rival. Clinton administration pursued various arms of building up ensure that the US military outspent both the ability of the rivals and bombing of Serbia in absence of the UN authority. However, the administration of Bush focused on the global hegemony for complete power for its inconceivability. According to Bush Administration, America intended to keep the military strengths beyond the challenges. Considering such strategic objective, overthrowing the government headed by Saddam Hussein could be viewed as an effort in improving the reputation and symbolic power of the US beyond any challenge especially after the occurrence of September 11, 2001 terrorism attack that might have highlighted the vulnerability of the US. In addition, upon publicly declaring the need for change in Iraq and considering it as priority for the US, US would have been viewed weak if there were compromises leading to the Baath tenure remaining intact (Pasha, 2008, 197). Through staking the reputation of the US for willingness to use force to achieve the required change, Bush administration made it clear on the inevitability of war due to the national security interests associated with the protection of reputation. Both symbolic and reputational motive could explain the reasons behind targeting Iraq rather than other states such as Libya, Iran, or North Korea whose weapons of mass destructions which in most cases the US considered invasion, highly advanced, and great threat. The reputational motive could as well explain the rejection of continuing with the inspection of UN weapons in Iraq by US after the admission of the global inspectors in 2002 by Iraq. If Bush administration aimed at discovering the threat associated with the weapons, then counter-productive practice would be non-corporation with the requests of the inspectors. Nonetheless, if the US motive was to enhance its of status on the willingness of using unilateral force especially after the occurrence of 9/11 attack, then averting conclusion of the UN inspections and accepting the less inclusive wars coalitions with US leading could be viewed in relation to calculation of the security interests (Al-Rawi, 2012, 98). To address why the US particularly targeted Iraq, classical realism would as well point to the geostrategic location of Iraq that impinged on the many security concerns that US considered vital. According to the realist perception, the invasion method used by the US was rational as it used the method to achieve the major goal which is demonstration of power to both the allies and competitors to prevent the occurrence of attacks (Lebow, 2013, 122). Additionally, invasion aimed to prevent Iraq’s potential using of the weapons of mass destruction and oil resources in threatening the either the US or its allies and preventing its collaboration with the anti-US terror groups. The national interest of the US to guarantee its oil supply while its domestic reserves were declining and increased global demand was achievable through military, which controlled the petroleum reserves of Iraq which Baathist, controlled could have remained exploitable by America’s competitors. In Iraq, US used unipolar power distribution mechanism, which it considered permissive reason behind the invasion to eliminate various check actions of the US actions. Besides, if Iraq were the client of Soviet state, then US might not have attacked Iraq. Shifting to unipolarity led to the assertion of dominance associated with both military and politics against the material that it was experiencing including the 9/11 attack (Del Castillo, 2008, 198). In such scenario, the 9/11 attack constituted the proximate cause of invasion in Iraq. Based on the classical realist perspective, the secondary motive of overthrowing the Iraqi regime was increment in the Israel security, which was the main regional rely of the US. Most of officials from US defense assumed that loosing the patronage in Iraq would lessen the militancy of Palestine in conflict with Israel. According to the administration of Bush, the presence of the US in Iraqi would put adequate pressure on Syria, as there is consideration of both US and Israel as the enemies of the government. The US could use its military bases in the Iraq and other bases in Afghanistan in pressuring Iran to stop its nuclear activities or assist to effect the regime change in Teheran. Generally, beyond the objective of symbolically introducing or reintroducing hegemony, the Iraq invasion also aimed at supporting the projection of the US power into other areas of Asia and beyond while assist to contain the pressure the environments considered hostile (Hanson, 2013). Therefore, the goal of preserving and consolidating the quasi hemogenic global dominance of the state would be service through undermining some of the countries that pose potential threat or challenges according to the US policy of administration of preventing war against the countries considered to be developing weapons of mass destruction. Implications of Realist Perspectives In most cases, there is realism of the rational perspective that leaders consider war when they believe its necessity for national security. From such perspective, the leaders believe that they have explanatory power, which is quite complicated in the Bush administration considering the exaggeration of the magnitude and imminence of security, which Iraq poses. The administration viewed Iraq as “mushroom cloud” that could unleash threats especially with the purported acquisition of the uranium and aluminum tubes meant for production of manufacturing nuclear weapons, which raise question on how US perceives Iraq as sufficient threat that warrant invasion (Pasha, 2008, 201). Addition, there was inadequate assertion that Iraq could attack the allies or US unless the leaders in Iraq were irrational. There were no administration warnings about the ability of or motivation of Iraq to provide the anti-US terrorists with the weapons for mass destructions based on the analysis of the unfounded speculations and imaginations. There is possibility that the administration officials were genuine to believe that security of US on the success on Iraq invasion for the reputation and material reasons and knowingly exaggerated the purported threat with an aim of gaining domestic and support from international sphere. While such interpretations are in line with realism, the conclusion arrived at by the US leaders seemed to have been convinced by ideological and psychological factors associated with imminent threats in which none really existed is inconsistent with the domestic constituencies. According to the realist perspective, as long as the US remains committed to achieving the hegemonic status and understanding that its security depended on the demonstration of military strength, then it would have to respond to actual and potential attacks on it or the allies as if the national security interests were under threat. While in Iraq, the US was less constrained than in the Cold war (Zeger, 2007, 55). Whenever the superpowers considered having interest in avoiding any direct confrontation, there is often increased adoption of policy for prevention of war. Nonetheless, the policy that prevents war could be expected to encourage inadvertently the actions through motivating the states that threaten those that aspire hegemon. Particularly, the targets of US would view their deployment and developments associated with the nuclear weapons as a response, both rational and necessary, to the insecurity engendered through the US efforts in ensuring its security. Motivated biases are likely to manifest in the decisions that involve high stake and actions considered consequential that could affect the critical values or the tradeoffs among the important values. In most cases, the stress that result from threats to the basic values which makes the decision makers to deny such threats or need of making the tradeoffs between the values. Even though the judgment of probability and outcomes of utility needs to be independently in any rational calculus. Besides, the desirability of the outcomes always influences perceived likelihood that would occur (Farley, 2015). Most of the researchers seem to argue that Bush administration strong preference for the war against Iraq in 2003 could have been triggered by belief that the existence of Iraqi nuclear program constituted the best way of mobilizing the various domestic support wars. As a result, such activities led to exaggerated perceptions that Iraq was in possession of the nuclear weapons. Conclusion The paper focused on the analysis of classical realism perspective in accounting for the significant aspects of Iraq invasion to ensure cumulative decision on the reasons behind the invasion in Iraq. Considering the invasion based on the decision in light with the classical realism provides the opportunity of identifying the links among different factors that contributed to decision. The attack that occurred in 9/11 offered the administration the opportunity to enter Iraq. The US used unipolarity which is considered the permissive cause. Other factors that assisted in decision making include the bureaucratic politics and intelligence agencies. if the US motive was to enhance its of status on the willingness of using unilateral force especially after the occurrence of 9/11 attack, then averting conclusion of the UN inspections and accepting the less inclusive wars coalitions with US leading could be viewed in relation to calculation of the security interests. To address why the US particularly targeted Iraq, classical realism would as well point to the geostrategic location of Iraq that impinged on the many security concerns that US considered vital. References Al-Rawi, A. K. (2012). The Iraqi Media after the US-Led Invasion. Media Practice in Iraq, 4(2), 62-108. Carr, E. R. (2011). The Nemesis of utopianism’, extract from The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939: An Introduction to the Study of International Relations, in CW Hughes and YM Lai (eds) Security studies: a reader. London: Routledge. Del Castillo, G. (2008). US‐led reconstruction amid US‐led occupation: Iraq. Rebuilding War-Torn States, 2(2), 191-218. Farley, R. (2015, June 28). The Ultimate 'What If': A World Where America Never Invaded Iraq | The National Interest. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-ultimate-what-if-world-where-america-never-invaded-iraq-13206 Hanson, V. D. (2013, March 26). Why Did We Invade Iraq? Retrieved February 6, 2017, from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/343870/why-did-we-invade-iraq-victor-davis-hanson Jakobsen, T. G. (2015, October 25). Why Did the United States Invade Iraq in 2003? Retrieved February 6, 2017, from http://www.popularsocialscience.com/2012/10/25/why-did-the-united-states-invade-iraq-in-2003-2/ Jakobsen, T. G., & Jakobsen, J. (2009). The Game: A Rational Actor Approach to the US-led Invasion of Iraq, 2003. Strategic Analysis, 33(5), 664-674. Lebow, R. N. (2013). Realism’, in T. Dunne, M. Kurki, and S. Smith (eds) International Relations Theories Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pasha, A. K. (2008). US Invasion of Iraq and Indo-Iraq Relations. Jadavpur Journal of International Relations, 11-12(1), 181-212. Tharoor, I. (2014, June 16). Iraq’s crisis: Don’t forget the 2003 U.S. invasion - The Washington Post. Retrieved February 6, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/06/16/iraqs-crisis-dont-forget-the-2003-u-s-invasion/ Vanderbush, W. (2014). The Iraqi Diaspora and the US Invasion of Iraq. Diaspora Lobbies and the US Government, 3(2), 211-236. Zeger, S. L. (2007). Estimating excess deaths in Iraq since the US-British-led invasion. Significance, 4(2), 54-59. Read More