The War in Iraq - Essay Example

War in Iraq Student Name Course Tutor Date Introduction The War in Iraq also referred to as the Second Gulf War as a martial campaign that began in 2003, with attack of Iraq by a multinational force directed by troops from the United Kingdom and the administration of prime minister Tony Blair and the United States under George W. Bush. These two governments asserted that Iraq was under possession of weapons of mass destruction that threatened global security; Iraq had a history of hostility against its neighbors and had used poison gas on Iran and its own citizen1. Therefore the aim of US states invasion was to disarm Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power since he was cruel and a violator of human rights. However, several people have a different opinion on US invasion and feels that the invasion was about securing control over gas and oil and consolidating other strategic interests other than protection of human rights and disarmament and removal of a dictator. Proponents assert that the war on Iraq was about human rights and removing a Saddam Hussein from power. This is because Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, were a threat to the globe. He was also a violator of human rights and used biochemical weapons against his citizens and thus the international community wanted to free the Iraq citizens from this tyranny. He regularly murdered and tortured political dissidents and individuals he arbitrarily viewed as threat to his power. Therefore, the international community wanted to protect the human rights of Iraq citizens because gross misuse of human rights disrespectful to humanity and a threat to global stability2. According to the U.S. Saddam Hussein was unwilling to voluntarily disarm through destroying all chemical, biological as well as nuclear weapons programs and therefore he was to be forced to do so. In addition, Iraq tended to collaborate with the UN investigator only when the U.S. made threats to attack. For example, after expelling the United Nations investigators in the year 1998, Iraq didn’t permit another team of investigators to probe its weapons of mass destruction programs until when the United States threatened to apply force to guarantee compliance in 20033. It also refused to permit United Nations demand for U2 flights to scrutinize its weapons and activities until it recognized that that the United States was likely to attack to ensure compliance. Therefore, the Iraq War was aimed at disarming the country because it was not willing to disarm itself and also not ready to allow investigators to monitor its weapons activities4. However, opponents argue that US invasion was not aimed at disarming Saddam Hussein and his regime because other states like Korea, Pakistan, Britain, Russia, China and France are sufficiently armed with dangerous nuclear and biochemical weapons. Therefore, if the genuine reason for United States invasion on Iraq was disarmament, then as the single remaining super power, it must work toward worldwide disarmament. This implies that the United States and United Nations must work jointly to denuclearize and debiochemicalize the entire globe. If the United States insists that Iraq must be disarmed and keeps quiet on Israeli possession of nuclear and biochemical weapons, then its motive is selfish and directed toward the enrichment of its strategic interests and not on the safety of the world. Opponents also claim that the motive of the invasion is not to disarm Saddam of biochemical weapons which he uses against Iraq citizens. It is true that Iraq used biochemical weapons against the Kurds and the Iranians in the 1980s. Nevertheless, the weapons were utilized at a period when Saddam Hussein was a collaborator of the United States and the US really helped Saddam Hussein during the Iranian/Iraqi war for the fear that Iran could win5. In addition, The United States did not deter him from utilizing these dreaded weapons at the time and though the Iraqi use of dreaded weapons is well known, it does not imply that other regimes and leaders throughout the globe have not utilized these types of weapons against their unsuspecting foreigners and citizens. Though he has committed unpardonable actions against his opponents both outside and inside Iraq, United States knew that he wasn’t a democrat by all means and therefore there was no way the United States could declare a battle on the country and eradicate him from power. The United States and Britain were responsible for making Saddam Hussein a dictator through giving him financial, political and military support in 1970s and 1980s. When Blair and his ministries said that Saddam used poisonous gas against the Iranian and Kurds troops in 1980s, Britain responded by furtively encouraging exports of more nuclear and arms related equipments to Iraq whilst Washington gave the regime a more crucial intelligence6. Removal of Saddam Hussein as a dictator from power is also not seen as the main motive of Iraq war because there are still several dictators in the globe and authoritarian regimes that dominate the landscape in Middle East and majority of these regimes are friends with the United States in spite of their non democratic status. Majority of leaders of these nations have executed despicable actions against their nationals and yet their right to rule their nations is not being questioned by international community. In addition, people are conscious of this difference in the American foreign policy, thus, the doubt about the United States need to democratize Iraq, particularly when the Iraq national congress is being recommended as a potential substitute regime to Saddam Hussein. The cynicism over the dispute that it is essential replace Saddam Hussein with a democratic regime is the truth that majority of the United States allies who are in support of overthrow of Saddam Hussein are also authoritarian governments and therefore it is not possible to establish a democratic regime through undemocratic means and allies7. Opponents of US motive of protecting human rights and removing and disarming a dictator argues that the war was aimed at securing control over gas and oil and consolidating other strategic interests. This is because big United States gas and oil companies were behind the battle and Cheney and Bush were pressured by handlers of huge US oil corporations to launch the battle so that United States oil corporations could grab the countrywide owned Iraq oil refineries and fields8. They claim that went to battle to safeguard oil for the US nationwide interests that were threatened by Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein closed down Straitz of Hormuz, invaded the Gulf States, incited rebellions in Saudi Arabia and reduced the flow of oil from Middle East to the United States and its allies. This implies that a regime that was not a Middle East client was a threat to European, Japanese and United States access to oil and thus US had to use power so as to gain access to oil9. Opponents of war for oil claim that The US oil corporations were not supporting the battle through congressional lobbying, propaganda, or via other political vehicles and thus they did not have interest in controlling oil fields. In addition key oil corporations did not created economic ties with Iraq before invasion and they were actually working via furtive third parties to trade on oil from Iraq. They also feel that all US major oil corporations operating within the Middle East were majorly concerned with political stability, liberalization of economic policies of the area and opening oil services for overseas investors10. These individuals also feel that the strategies of the big oil corporation were advancement of their international interests through the continuing liberalization procedures in the Middle East and acquiring new oil resources and markets via their alarming market authority, investments and technology. The commencement on the United States attack on Iraq was viewed with concern and anxiety as a military activity, which could destabilize the area, increase aggression to their interests all through the Gulf and slow down the process of liberalization11. The holders of the oil companies did not view the invasion of US as a positive measure of national security, since they were aware that Saddam Hussein, over a decade of military and economic sanctions and regular bombings of his military infrastructures and installations throughout the rule of Clinton, wasn’t in a position to initiate any actions of hostility against the Gulf oil corporations or states. Additionally, the oil corporations had numerous real visions of creating profitable service and commercial oil contract s with the regime of Saddam Hussein people the war. Therefore, it was the United States government under the pressure of the Zionist Power configuration that pushed the legislations that blocked big oil companies from completing these economic pacts with Iraq12. Conclusion The war on Iraq has drawn a heated debate on what the US invasion was. While US asserts that the war is aimed at disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction and removing Saddam Hussein from power as a result of violation of human rights, other people feel that the invasion at securing oil fields. These opponents assert that US oil companies pressured Bush to launch the invasion so that US could grab and take control of Iraqi oil fields and refineries. They also feel that the war was not about disarmament because US had initially provided Iraq with weapons and there are also other countries like Israel that are in possession nuclear and biochemical weapons which are a threat to the world but Us is not determined to disarm them. Bibliography Lewis, A, (2007). The American culture of war: the history of U.S. military force from World War II to operation Iraqi Freedom. New York: Routledge. Davies, N., (2010). Blood on our hands. The American invasion and destruction of Iraq. California: University of California Press. Kristol, W., & Kaplan, L., (2006). The war over Iraq: Saddam’s tyranny and the America’s mission. New York: Encounter Books. Henschen, B., (2007). America at Odds. New York: Cengage Learning. Watts, D., (2010). Dictionary of American Government and politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Read More