Iraq War and the Masterminds - Case Study Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Iraq War and the Masterminds Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Introduction Iraq war was a military operation which began in 2003 on March 20 with the invasion of the nation by the international force led by troops from the United States under the leadership of the then President of America, George Bush and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair. Before the invasion, the concerned governments of United States and United Kingdom realised the possibility of Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction. In the previous year, the security council of the United Nations had passed a resolution 1441 which demanded to cooperate with the weapon inspectors of United Nations for verification that they were not in possession of the weapons for mass destruction. When given access to weapons, they did not find anything of evidence (Christopher & Preble, 2004). Invasion of Iraq The aim of these the masterminds who led the invasion of Iraq was to sweep away the old order of Hussein and bring in new one which was expected to be liberal, democratic and aligned with the United States. According to the then president of America; George Bush and the Prime Minister of United Kingdom impelled their nations in support of others like Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and overthrew the regime of Saddam Hussein. United States led by the then president of America George Bush and United Kingdom led by their Prime Minister Tony Blair led other troops like Australia and Poland on the operation of invading Iraq. According to Gardner (2007), some officials from United States blamed the president of Iraq; Saddam Hussein for harbouring and supporting al-Qaeda. The ideologues in the Bush administration convinced themselves that the American power and ideas to transform the system in Iraq. This was the driving force of their movement to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s repressive dictatorial regime and jumpstart a new style (Crawford, 2005). According to Reinhold Niebuhr as a pastor, teacher and a moral theologian, in response to the many dilemmas which confronted America as result of its existence as a global superpower, the persistence sin of the American exceptionalism was one of the assumptions that he made towards the condition and the others were: false allure of simple solutions, the indecipherability of history and the importance of the appreciating limits of power (Irwin & Gungwu, 2003). In support of his assumptions, the guru tried to explain the difficulties that the Americans were undergoing in seeing themselves what they really were. In his speech during the Union Theological Seminary held in 1959; he said that the most important moral characteristic is that it is hypocrisy. He did not exempt his own nationalism from his judgement. The main distinctive feature of American Hypocrisy lies in the certainty that the America’s very founding was a beneficial operation Americans realised itself as set apart, their motives irreprehensible, their actions were above the standards of the other nations thus they were not to be judged by the same standards. He said that each nation has got its own form of spiritual pride and specified that the version of the United States turned back upon the vices Europe and made a good beginning. The reasons of the plan to invade Iraq are self explanatory. Things have changed since then with most of the events improving much beyond the expected. Most of the gurus in the field say that in Iraq the progression path has changed to be more deceitful and impulsive for the understanding of the masterminds who convened its attack (Christopher & Preble, 2004). This invasion resulted to an occupation and imprisonment of President Hussein and his trial followed in an Iraq court of law and executed by the new government system. Iraq insurgency and strife between Shia and Sunni groups later occurred as a result of aggression against the coalition forces in the midst of various sectarian organizations. According to the surveys carried in 2008 16 % of the population were recorded to be refugees and 2.7 million were internally displaced. In 2007, the Iraq ant corruption had reported that 35% of the children were orphans and Red Cross reported that the humanitarian situation of the nation was recorded the most crucial because of its severe consequences; most of the residents were left to rely on donations or insufficient food and water supply (Anderson & Nachtwey, 2003). In 2009, the newly appointed president Barrack Obama pronounced an 18 months removal for the combat forces with an approximate of 50,000 troops remaining in the nation to train and advice Iraq security forces as well provision of surveillance and intelligence. Ray Odiernao, the top military commander in Iraq said that his aim and objective is to have all the U S troops to have evacuated by the end of 2011 while the UK forces had ended their contest operations by 30th April 2009. In his speech on August 31 2010 the President of America; Barrack Obama announced that the contest mission of the Americans in Iraq had ended and the residents had freedom and responsibility for total security of their land. By the beginning of September 2010, the operational name of the Americans changed from to "Operation New Dawn." From its initial "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and the remaining American troops were selected as members of advice and assistance brigades and their operations were expected to be none combat (Christopher & Preble, 2004). During 2002 at the initial stages of the invasion, the then president of America; George Bush tried to warn against any military action unless checks up were allowed to progress imaginative. In accordance to the UN Security Council Resolution 1441, Iraq agreed for the renewal of the inspections of the weapons late 2002 but none of the said dangerous harms were found. Sometimes before the invasion of the nation, Hans Blix who led the inspection of the weapons advised the Security Council of UN that Iraq was cooperating during the inspection as a confirmation that that disarmament through inspection could be easily achieved within a short period of time. During the early stages of combat on terrorism, George Tenet led the Central Intelligence Agency and their operations rose to prominence. When Tenet tried to organize a personal meeting with George Bush but there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda. A pentagon Unit which was known as Office of the Special Plans (OSP) created by Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and was headed by Douglas Feith with the intention of supplying the administration officials with raw intelligence pertaining Iraq (Karoubi, 2004). The masterminds of the invasion of Iraq thought that after the movement, the nation would be expected to become moderate, democratic, and aligned with the United States. Most of the norms and standards of the global governance were associated with those of the United States and United Kingdom. They also wanted to change the style of leadership from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to become more democratic or independent like the other nations and have all their standards allied with the United States for it to fit in the international norms. This movement although had negative effects on the residents and the relationship between the involved nations was officially ended by the current President of United Nations when he stopped all the combats between the troops of America in Iraq thus declaring it a free nation and those American who were left in Iraq were expected to only advice and train the soldiers of Iraq (Reinhold & Bacevich, 2003). Alexander & Ernest (2006) note that all the nations which are possessed by great confidence in their personal military competence are notably vulnerable to the appeal of simple or fast solutions. The patients of the Americans although not very long; are not resistant to the temptations of believing that their military was the most powerful with the combined energy of the United Kingdom and the other nations like Australia in the backbench. Although they were sure that Iraq never possessed any weapon of mass destruction after conducting a research for them the defence of Saddam Hussein was so severe that the administration smitten with the military insisted on the necessity of inserting force to get rid of the putative threat which was presented by the Saddam Hussein. Finishing the administration of George Bush was his target and the dangers he posed seemed to develop or get more complicated each and every day thus delaying the process of getting rid of him was like risking with the survival of the nation because they realised that his influence was rather strong and his military posses some of the most dangerous weapons. Tessaleno & Kondratieff (2006), argue that besides seeing the necessity of war between Iraq and America; there were arguments that preventive war would be better so as to reduce the severity of the war and its negative effects on the residents of either of the nations. Sometimes back, Reinhold Niebuhr had come across arguments which could be said to be related during the frustrations of the trying to deal with the Soviet Union together with the knowledge of United States nuclear power to make calls for preventive calls against the USSR. The advocates of the movement suggested that the United States should do away with its rival with its neighbouring nation in the name of alienating them and adapt a style of permanent peace and security (Cordesman, 2003). Niebuhr as a Guru argues that democracy is a way of finding effective solutions to complicated problems and its main focus is much on constrains of liberation. According to him the tendency of the Americans political values and its policy at large is like abomination. He argues that it is only through self realisation that the Americans can be able to acquire more mature appreciation of their past position. The modern people do not understand that the historical events were endorsed within the frame of meaning too big for any human understanding. Conclusion The aim of these the masterminds who led the invasion of Iraq was to sweep away the old order of Hussein and bring in new one which was expected to be liberal, democratic and aligned with the United States. This however was not simple as they expected because the targeted subjected turned to be very strong and possessed some weapons of mass destructions. The aim of Saddam Hussein was to finish the administration of George Bush and the entire United States. This called for immediate efforts to get rid of Hussein as well as call for preventive war to prevent Iraq from terrorising United States together with the other victorious nations like United Kingdom. Niebuhr, one of the Gurus argues that democracy is a way of finding effective solutions to complicated problems and its main focus is much on the constrains of liberation and also adds that the Americans need to fully understand its status so as to fully appreciate their past position. Bibliography Reinhold N., & Bacevich A. J., 2003, The irony of American history. University of Chicago, Chicago Christopher A. & Preble, Cato, 2004, Exiting Iraq: why the U.S. must end the military occupation and renew the war against Al Qaeda. McGraw Hill, Melbourne Sydney. Cordesman, H. 2003, The Iraq War: strategy, tactics, and military lessons: The Iraq War: Strategy, Tactics, and Military Lessons, Volume, Part 2. Greenwood Publishing Group, Oxford. Tessaleno C. & Kondratieff D., 2006, Waves, warfare and world security, Volume 5. IOS Press, Sheffield. Alexander G., & Ernest A. H., 2006, Leading to the 2003 Iraq war: the global media debate. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Anderson, C. & Nachtwey, J., 2003, War: USA, Afghanistan, Iraq design. Method of Operation LTD., U.K. Crawford, T., 2005, The Political and Military, Retrieved 17th November, 2010 from Irwin A. & Gungwu, W., 2003, The Iraq War and its consequences: thoughts of Nobel Peace Laureates and Eminent Scholars, World Scientific, New York. Gardner, H., 2007, American Global Strategy and the 'War on Terrorism'. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Aldershot. Karoubi Mohammad T., 2004, Just or unjust war: International law and unilateral use of armed force by states at the turn of the 20th century, Ashgate Publishing, Ltd., Aldershot. Read More