The United States War on Iraq - Essay Example

?The United s War on Iraq Prior to its decision to invade Iraq, the American administration publicized a list of justifications for this war. Intheir address to the UN, American people, and the whole world, American officials declared that they decided to invade Iraq for a variety of good reasons, including the spread of democracy, inspecting mass destruction weapons, fighting terrorism, and removing the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. Within their propaganda efforts, US officials attempted to portray former President Saddam Hussein as extremely tyrannical and a real threat for the stability of the United States and the whole world. Nevertheless, in spite of all the claimed justifications given by the United States for the war in Iraq, the strong opposition for this war continued both inside and outside the United States. The invalidity of the declared goals and the difficult time American soldiers face in Iraq are the main reasons behind the growing opposition to this war. Actually, a growing number of political analysts argue that the declared justifications for the war in Iraq are not the real ones. As they successfully get to the Iraqi lands, the American troops did not find any proof for the claimed mass destruction weapons in Iraq. This seriously hurts the credibility of the American officials, who were asserting that Iraq possesses mass destruction weapons prior to their invasion of Iraq. As the war goes on, all the declared reasons that are publicized by the American administration before invading Iraq seems to be untrue, as they are used to disguise other imperialistic goals to protect the interest of the United States in the Middle East. Starting by the first invalid claim made by the American administration to justify its war in Iraq, it is actually the claim that Iraq owns mass destruction weapons, which may cause a threat to the whole world, especially in the Middle East region. However, this claim is later proved to be an illusion, as there was not any sign that Iraq has neither the capability nor the intention to possess weapons of mass destruction (Simpson and Rangwala). The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) itself declared many times that Iraq is not able to develop nuclear or biological weapons, especially after its initial attempts to produce nuclear weapons had been completely dismantled by the end of the second gulf war in 1991. Since the IAEA is the higher authority and main organization charged with inspecting and monitoring Iraq's nuclear capacities after the Gulf War, its official reports about Iraq's mass destruction weapons should have been the main source of information about this issue, not the claimed CIA reports that conflict with the declarations of the IAEA. In 1998, even the Security Council declared that in Iraq had compiled a "full, final and complete" account of its former nuclear projects. All these evidences refute the American claim that Iraq could re-build its nuclear ability in few years, with its economic and political hardships” (Simpson and Rangwala). As argued by some political analysts, Bush was completely "unfazed by a U.S. weapons-inspection report that said Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction" (Tomkins) Consequently, the issue of weapons of mass destruction is not a valid justification for the American administration to wage a war on Iraq. Going further in the issue of weapons of mass destructions in Iraq, it can be said that the invalidity of this justification can be proved by arguing that even if Saddam Hussein possessed these claimed weapons, this did not constitute an immediate danger that justifies a war with Iraq. Pakistan, India, and North Korea are three countries which declared their ownership of mass destruction weapons and the United States did not decide to declare a war on them. Thus, the fact that a country declares its possession of nuclear weapon does not in itself justify a war against it. Rather, this hollow claim proves that the United States should have other hidden reasons for waging the war other than the possession of mass destruction weapons (Becker). In an attempt to find an approach to improve his credibility in the international arena after the IAEA declared that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, Bush declared that he decided to invade Iraq "the Iraqi leader did possess the intent and capability of building prohibited weapons" (Tomkins). Obviously, the credibility of the United States is seriously hurt because it is illogical to declare a war just for the intention of possessing weapons of mass destruction. In addition, the tyrannical of the Iraqi regime was cited by the American administration as another justification for invading Iraq. Again, this claim is flawed and invalid. While Saddam Hussein may truly be tyrannical and suppressive, this fact does not give a justification for the United States to wage a war on Iraq. There are actually a number of other tyrannies in the Middle East, and the United States did not decide to declare a war on them because these tyrannical regimes are allies of the United States. In this context, it is important to state that the Iraqi regime was a former ally for the United States. When Saddam Hussein committed a lot of atrocities towards the Kurdish minority in Iraq, the American administration turned a blind eye to that. Thus, it can be said that the United States has double standards in weighing its interest in the Middle East region. When a tyrannical regime threatens the interest if the United States in the region, the American administration rushes into military conflict with that regime; while when another tyrannical regime allies with the United States, there is high probability that this regime will be protected by the American administration. On the other hand, another claim that was used by the United States to justify the war with Iraq was that Saddam Hussein could impose a threat to his neighbors with the military power and weapons he possesses. However, this stands as an invalid justification, as most of his neighbor countries themselves did not complain. Actually, most of Iraq's neighbor countries in the Middle East region are in complete opposition to the war in Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Syria are clear examples of those neighbor countries which opposed the war in Iraq. Other countries in the region were neutral about Saddam Hussein. Even those neutral countries believed that he possessed these kinds of weapons just for his self preservation and dignity (Chapman). Accordingly, protecting the neighbors of Iraq from possible attacks by Saddam Hussein seemed another invalid justification given for that war. Consequently, it can be said that the United States had its own hidden reasons for waging the war in Iraq. These reasons are strongly related to the interests of the United States in the Middle East. As a matter of fact, each country should have its own strong reasons to declare a war on another country, threatening the lives of its soldiers. In this context, the United States invaded Iraq, first of all, to stabilize and enroots its existence in the region for a long period of time. The United States wanted to have a justification to exist militarily in the Middle East to be able to redistribute the wealthy resources of the Middle East, especially the Gulf region, in a form of imperialism. The Americans wanted to strengthen their domination of the strategic Middle Eastern region. As this goal seems extremely imperialistic n nature, it could not be declared by the United States. It remained hidden behind the other invalid declared claims. There are various political analysts in the world who believed that the imperialistic greediness of the Americans is the main reason behind the war in Iraq. For example, political analyst Brian Becker argues "that the United States interfered in and aggravated the Iraq-Kuwait dispute, knew that an Iraqi military response against Kuwait was likely, and then took advantage of the Iraqi move to carry out a long-planned U.S. military intervention in the Middle East" (Decker). Thus, it can be argued that the real reasons for waging a war on Iraq are too imperialistic to declare openly for the whole world. Instead, the American administration searched for other seemingly-noble intentions for the war in order to win the sympathy and support of other countries in the world. In this context, Brian Becker went to the extreme arguing that "the U.S. was eagerly planning to fight the war even before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990” (Becker). Consequently, it can be said that the United States war in Iraq is a modern form of the imperialistic wars of the past. Moreover, oil is another significant reason for the ongoing war in Iraq, as argued by many political analysts. As the major importer of Gulf oil since the 1970s, the United States wanted to secure its oil resources in order not to face any tensioned moments such as that of the 1973 oil embargo. To achieve this goal, the United States resorted to all possible approaches and policies to defend its oil supplies, which are central to the economic well being and industrial boom of the country. Accordingly, any Gulf regime that may constitute a threat to the oil supplies of the United States will face military threats from the United States (Owen). This made many political analysts, organizations, and individuals to describe the American war in Iraq as a 'blood for oil.' Again, since this intention can not be declared openly by the United States, the American administration resorted to the use of other untrue and unrealistic claims to justify the war in Iraq. In the United States, there are a huge number of oil monopolies which strongly impact the economy of the country. As such, these monopolies have their influence on the decision making process by U.S politicians. Thus, when the US administration feels a certain threat towards these corporations, it reacts accordingly. In that sense, the main aim of controlling the oil market in the Middle East region by the United States is that the kings and presidents of the oil-rich Gulf countries should be as loyal as possible for the U.S. giant oil monopolies. Consequently, it can be said that the American war on Iraq is, essentially, a war for oil (Becker). Since Iraq produces a major portion of the Gulf oil production, the United States wanted to execute control over this oil to help its oil giants maximize its profits through the oil contracts that will be made after the war. As a result, it becomes obvious that the real aims of waging the war on Iraq are completely different from those that are declared by the American administration. However, it can be said that such a war would have extremely negative effects on the United States as well as on the Middle East region. In fact, this war would have serious negative consequences, not only on those who are directly engaged in the war, but also on the international community at large. One of the most serious effects of the US invasion to Iraq is the deepening of the conflict between Islam and the West. There is currently a growing public opinion in the Islamic countries, which looks at the US war in Iraq as a war on Islam. The bias of the United States towards Israel against the Palestinian point of view is the reason for this rising feeling in the Arab and Islamic worlds. Accordingly, it is expected that this feeling of rage and hatred for the United States would be intensified as the war with Iraq continues. The expected result in that case is the emergence of more terrorists, which stand in direct contradiction of the declared reason of the American administration. As declared publicly by many terrorists, their hostility to the United States emerged primarily from the American existence in the Islamic lands; so, it is expected that more terrorism incidents would occur as a result of the war (Carroll). Accordingly, the longer the war in Iraq lasts, the more probable tension and armed conflict in the region will continue. Another negative consequence of the American war on Iraq is the distortion of the relations between the United States and the Arab world, including its allies in the region. The Arab regimes are not able to oppose their anti war public opinion, so, they will have to show an increasing resistance to this war and a deterioration in their relations with the United States. Consequently, all the United States interests in the region will be severely threatened. Besides, the image of the United States as a democratic country is harshly affected in the eyes of the Arab world and in the world in general. The United Stated is currently viewed as a country, which resorts to the use of wars and military invasion not in cases of self-defense only but to achieve its imperialistic goals (Carroll). Thus, both the interest and the image of the United States will be negatively impacted by its current war in Iraq. A third and more serious impact of the American war in Iraq is felt in the Middle East region. This war has brought the Middle East to a state of chaos and instability more than ever. This stands in direct opposition with the declared intention of spreading democracy and stability in the region as a result of this war. This is because democracy can never be imposed by external military forces. Democracy can not be dictated through war by military action, particularly if this war is strongly opposed by the people of the region themselves. Consequently, the current chaotic situation in the Middle East during the war and the expected instability after the US military forces will leave Iraq will badly affect the interests of the United States in the region (Telhami). As argued by James Carroll, in the Boston Globe Magazine, "there is good reason to believe that Bush, in his highly personal, irrational, and thoroughly Manichaean campaign against Hussein, has set the very world on a course toward disaster" (Caroll). Accordingly, the current war in Iraq would leave its destructive consequences on the Middle East region as a whole, and will lead to the rise of Islamist movements and terror attacks in the region. In fact, the increasing number of deaths, causalities, and displaced persons in Iraq gives a clear indication about the negative effects of the American war in Iraq. To conclude, the United States has completely undeclared and unpublicized goals for waging the war on Iraq that are different from what its administration declared prior and during the war. The negative consequences of this war are so serious that this war should not be conceived as a war between two nations. Rather, it is as a war between two cultures, civilizations, and conflicting interest. What complicates the whole situation is that this war is conceived by many Arabs and Muslims as part of the global war on Islam. This would actually lead to serious negative impacts on international relations and stability at large. Therefore, any one who attempts to analyze the causes and consequences of this war should be fully aware of the undeclared intentions of the United States when it decided to wage a war on Iraq, as opposed to the recurrently cited justifications for waging this war. References Simpson, Alan. "The dishonest case for war on Iraq." Cambridge University, UK. 02 Dec. 2011. Tomkins, Richard. "Bush says Iraq report justifies invasion." United Press International. 02 Dec. 2011. Becker, Brian. "U.S. Conspiracy to Initiate the War against Iraq." 01 Dec. 2011. Owen, Roge. "War for oil?" Al-Ahram Weekly Newspaper. 02 Dec. 2011. Carroll, James. "Questions on Bush's War on Iraq." 02 Dec. 2011. Telhami, Shibley. "A Hidden Cost of War on Iraq" The New York Times. 01 Dec. 2011. Chapman, Steve. "Making excuses for a war with Iraq?" 02 Dec. 2011. Read More