The United States and Iraq - Essay Example

Should the United s have invaded IRAQ? It is ten years since the inversion of Iraq and still there is no debate on the aspects of war except the relevant law in a nation dedicated to the rule of law. War on Iraq was launched on March, 2003 with a strike at the location where Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi President and his top lieutenants were believed to be meeting. This was after President Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum of 24 hours to leave the country or face the full military conflict. In 2002, when the United Nation Security Council adopted resolution 1441 giving Iraq final opportunity to comply with the disarmament obligations or face full consequences, the U.S. military buildup was intensified at the Persian Gulf. During this time, President Bush, other top U.S. officials and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were continually indicating that Iraq were not willing to offer full corporation with U.N. weapons inspectors, even when top world leaders from France, Germany and Russia called for more time for the exercise. Bush Administration intensified its allegation of the Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as evil nations in his State of Union address in 2002. The vice president Cheney also accused Saddam Hussein of seeking weapons of mass destruction as an avenue of dominating Middle East and to threat the U.S. oil supplies. The allegations fueled speculations of the likability of the U.S. to act unilaterally against Iraq. The United States invasion of IRAQ was not justified because there is no evidence that IRAQ has Weapons of Mass Destruction, complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and or al –Qaeda connection. The root of conflict between U.S. and Iraq is the firm position of the U.S. especially under Bush Administration that Saddam must be toppled since he cannot be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction. It seemed that the United State Administration had no case against the Iraq over the allegations as they could not proof that the Iraqi government in deed had the weapons of mass destruction and or whether the Iraqi had plans to use the weapons against the United States. Journalists, scholars and ideologues are yet to come up with a satisfactory explanation behind the invasion of Iraq. Explanations from oil, imperialism, militarism, Israel and free markets have been offered, some of which are mutually exclusive, and all seems to enlighten more than they satisfy the human need for simplification. The reality behind the war may seem complex but is decidedly explicable. Iraq had multiple causes of war, thus one do not have top subscribe to an inscrutable force without agents to accept that the phenomenon was complicated. Key factors of the invasion were not driven by the same motives nor did the decisions reached simultaneously. The war was prosecuted by President Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, but it was conceived by the neoconservatives. It is clear that the September 11, 2001 attack was the catalyst, which was triggered by the neoconservatives. The neoconservatives’ interest s of toppling Iraq preceded that of the U.S. Moreover, change of regime has been official policy of the U.S. since 1998 and even for a longer time. However, this can be understood to be diplomatic pressure, convert action and economic strangulation, and not for the reason of threat of nuclear weapons (Roe 11). The foreign policy study groups, the Vulcans, headed by Condoleezza Rice argued that the military power of Iraq had weakened and thus United States can live with a nuclear Iraq. The change of the mood can be partly explained by the September 11. However, this does not make the war inevitable since there was the need to manipulate the public opinion as well as the bureaucratic hurdles to overcome. Iraq was only required to put on the agenda as an imminent threat to justify the pre-emptive war. This is why the allegations of Iraq’s ties to Al-Qaeda and its possession of weapons of mass destruction were necessary. Together, the allegations would constitute a threat that would make further threat to search for more evidence inevitable. The possibility is that Mr. Bush had decided to invade Iraq without the encouragement of the neoconservatives. But it appeared that without their help, the war would have overcome the resistance of the intelligence and diplomatic establishment, and that of the hesitant military. The neoconservatives had no available advantages to any faction in their social cohesion, ideological coherence and with the resources and institutional support from the wider Israel lobby (Cramer 16). The neoconservative had its ideologies rooted in revisionist Zionism, giving Israel a high priority. For them, the war was desirable since it was aimed at fragmenting the powerful Arab state leaving the real nemesis of Israel, Iran more vulnerable. Invading Iraq would also leave Palestinians more isolated and amenable to compromise. In fact, the road to Jerusalem for the neoconservatives was through the Iraq (Plappert 13). Reasons for invading Iraq has always remained weak and rested on a number of different pillars. The significant one is the theoretical threat of terrorism based on Saddam’s secret biological and chemical weaponry, nuclear design and hostility to United States (Cramer 12). No such weapons of mass destruction were found even after the raid and inspection. So what happened then? Other rationales such as ending the tyranny and restore democracy took center stage. Why is this possible when the whole effort for nation-building turned to be a mess? As anyone who makes decision would tell that is usually a bad approach to run anything, let alone war. On one level, the whole reason would be an assertion of raw power linked up with the trappings of global strategies (D'Anieri 18). The arguments about the United States self interests do not seem to add up, even the most cynical ones. Consequences of the war: Looking back to the first days of occupation of Iraq, the invading forces, apart from seeking to create a democratic foundation, consciously sought to seek a complete collapse of the Iraqi state and its civil society. The massacres that followed the entry of the US troops in Baghdad are one such example of the results of US invasion to Iraq. Casualty figures reported at the time shows that more Iraqis were killed during the Armored Regiment’s rampage into the Iraqi capital (Shehabaldin 14). The US forces incited looting, arson, murder and general anarchy in the capital, which resulted into hundreds of deaths and caused damage to Iraqi’s cultural and historical heritage. The United States and its war allies might have succeeded in bringing to an end the Saddam regime, but what the Iraqi have instead is the civil war between the Sunni and the Shia surging in Baghdad again. This is because the Sunni Arab minority which purged itself of al-Qaeda believes it has proven its loyalty to the Iraqi state, but they see no equivalent progress in terms of political power and economic development. Although this might be dismissed as a local matter, it is of global strategic importance. For this reason, Iran, Shia-dominated theocracy has become the main force of Iraq. The Shia allies of Iran control the landscape producing much of Iraq’s oil. Iran achieved all these without a fight. At first, the invasion of Iraq was a brilliant military operation, but it quickly turned sour into a wildly bloody occupation that drove those who welcomed the US and her allies into the extremists groups back into their sectarian bunkers. For instance, four hundred thousand professional Iraqi armed forces were sacked by Paul Bremmer, a move of spectacular idiocy. In addition, efforts to stabilize the country are undermined by handing contracts of reconstruction of Iraq to American companies after a decade of sanctions, war and air strikes. The Islamic protest against the invasion has resulted to hatred among the home-grown Islamists in US and Britain. This has been met with an extension of powers of the state to arrest and detain suspects without trial as part of war on terror. The invasion has contributed to an intrusion into private lives as well as being used as a justification to extrajudicial killings by the America and Britain. Arguments are that prosecuting war on Iraq was democratic abuse by elected leaders. Conclusion The United States should not have invaded Iraq at all. On the contrary, the American people have accepted a succession of transparent lies : Weapons of Mass Destruction ,complicity in the 9/11 attacks, and al-Qaeda connection .The Bush administration did not tell the American the truth, did not tell the congress the truth ,and did not tell themselves the truth. The public opinion of the United States of the invasion of Iraq has significantly changed since the years preceding the incursion (Gallup 5). For various reasons, it appears that the public perspective on the decision of the US government to initiate offensive war is increasingly negative because of the unexpected consequences of the invasion and the revelation that the US authorities provided false information. The main allegations of the US were that Iraq was a threat and that they were not to be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. US government accused Iraq of having weapons of mass destruction and they said so when they did not find any. US politicians admitted that no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, hence making the war unpopular. The truth is that US knew from the start that Iraq had no weapons for mass destruction. So why did US Administration under president Bush continued to lie without any evidence? It seems that US were more worried about Iraq alleged biological and chemical plants when Iran was allegedly making nu clear bombs. It is the same government who covered up what really happened on September 11. For instance, after the attack, the US government quickly blamed the act on al-Qaeda, which Osama Bin Laden quickly denied. What followed was that the government quickly made up fake videos and audios to convince the people that bin Laden was in deed responsible for the attacks. On the same account, bush also accused Saddam of involvement on the attacks, which he later denied. In reconsideration, it appears that Iraq had long been seen by the US, which was empowered by the election of Mr. Bush and then catalyzed by the September 11 incidence, as the most available step towards achieving Pax Americana that would not only establish United State as a dominant power in the region but one whose geo-strategic implication would be a global in scope. Americans should know that the 9/11 terror attacks were extremely rare events that no one thought could happen. The attacks were done at a time when no prior precedent had been established. Although, the impact of the attack changed the landscape of American homeland security compared to other times in the history of America, the public still need to be aware of what really happened. The reality is that the American Administration under President Bush failed to be proactive in preventing terrorism attack, but instead looked for ways of rationalize it. The United States is at war with the transitional terrorist movement, which has been fueled by radical ideologies, oppression and murder. The first National Strategy for combating terror, which was published in February 2003, recognizes specifically that America is at war and that their first and solemn obligation is to protect and defend the homeland, as well as the American people. The strategy also recognized the war is a different kind. The American administration is clear that the paradigm of combating terrorism involves application of all elements of power and influence, which include military power and use of law enforcement activities to extend its defenses. The strategy aimed at disrupting the operations of the terrorists and deprives their enemies of what they require for survival and operations. Without any doubt, Iraq was treated like an enemy. Inversion of Iraq was invading the territory of an enemy to incorporate their increased understanding of an enemy. American citizen should know that invasion of Iraq was one big mistake since it was aimed at confronting the radical ideology that inspire others to join or support terror movement. Iraq, being a longtime enemy to United States, was chosen as an avenue to put into practice the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. Work Cited Cramer, Jane K, and A T. Thrall. Why Did the US Invade Iraq? London: Routledge, 2011. Print. D'Anieri, Paul J. International Relations: Power and Purpose in Global Affairs. Boston, MA: Wadsworth/Cengage Learning, 2011. Print. Gallup, George, and George Gallup. The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 2003. Lanham, MD: SR Books, 2004. Print. Plappert, Sebastian. Why Did the USA Invade Iraq?: An Answer with References to the Political, Economic and Ideological Interests/purpose of the Us, Ignoring the Reasons Stated by the Bush Administration and the Blair Government. Mu?nchen: GRIN Verlag GmbH, 2010. Internet resource. Smith, Philip. Why War? The Cultural Logic of Iraq, the Gulf War, and Suez. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Internet resource. Shehabaldin, Ahmed, and William M. J. Laughlin. "Economic Sanctions against Iraq: Human and Economic Costs." The International Journal of Human Rights. 3.4 (2000): 1-18. Print. Roe, Paul. "Actor, Audience(s) and Emergency Measures: Securitization and the Uk's Decision to Invade Iraq." Security Dialogue. 39.6 (2008): 615-635. Print. Read More