Motivation for the Iraq War - Case Study Example

Iraq and the security challenges facing the US Has the invasion in Iraq guaranteed the security οfthe United States or made the country more vulnerable? What were the real motivations for the Iraq War? These controversial questions plague America and are topics οf heated debate. Was this war motivated by noble causes, such as the spread οf democracy, the stabilization οf the Middle-Eastern region, the issue οf national security, and the neutralization οf weapons οf mass destruction, or was it really about the unspoken quest for oil, to secure US business interests in the region, the vendetta between Saddam and the Bush family, or the attempt by the Bush Administration to capitalize on popularity brought about by fighting the War on Terrorism. A popular belief strongly championed by President Bush and his administration, was that the motivation for the Iraq war was the spread οf Democracy. Proponents οf this belief would argue the following: Spreading democracy in Iraq was a real priority οf the Bush Administration and one οf the main motivations for the invasion. It’s the 21st century, the world is modernizing, and superpowers are helping developing countries develop. The UN, composed οf members from most οf the countries οf the world, was founded to promote peace, security, and economic development throughout the world. As one of, if not the only, current superpower, the United States has an obligation to spread democracy throughout the world, mainly Iraq, as stabilizing the country would bring stability to the volatile Middle-East. The deposition οf Saddam Hussein would clear the space for the Iraqi people to establish a truly democratic government and serve as a beacon and inspiration for the spread οf democracy throughout the Islamic world. Saddam Hussein massacred his people, the Kurds, and even his own family members, yet he was supposedly elected by 99% οf the population. This is the result οf a dictatorship government where the people have little to no say. By establishing a democracy in Iraq the people would be bestowed the gift οf freedom. We all remember watching the people οf Iraq proudly waving their purple-dyed fingers in triumph after voting in their first real elections. Iraqis would have a constitutional democracy in the Arab world, and Americans would have a partner for peace and moderation in the Middle East. The Bush Administration was well aware οf these facts, and thus this acted as the motivation for invading Iraq. Some make the argument that by spreading democracy in Iraq, we are doing nothing but imposing a foreign belief on a nation uninterested in this alien form οf government. To this it could be said that democracy takes different forms in different cultures, successful free societies are built on common foundations οf rule οf law, freedom οf speech, freedom οf assembly, a free economy, and freedom οf worship. These are fundamental rights that any nation or population can appreciate. Additionally, according to the “Democratic Domino theory”, if and when democracy is established in Iraq, it would spread beyond the nation’s borders to the other undemocratic countries οf the region, leading to a stable and free Middle East. As President Bush declared, "All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected." It would be hypocritical οf the United States to praise its successful democratic government, but do nothing to promote it in other countries. Thus the spread and establishment οf democracy was an absolute real motivation for the invasion οf Iraq. To some this argument is flawed. They claim all this was propaganda promoted by the Bush Administration and used as a front to sell the war to the nation. Others, such as the chief foreign columnist οf the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, believe the opposite. In a July 16 column entitled “Winning the Real War”, Friedman hails the formation οf an Iraqi “governing council,” handpicked by the US colonial administrator L. Paul Bremer, as the real “liberation” οf Iraq, and “the most important day in its modern history.” Those that believe that the Bush Administration did not in fact go to war with Iraq because οf weapons οf Mass destruction claim that it was but a pretense. That the Bush Administration used it to scare the nation into backing the war which in fact had ulterior motives. Additionally, they add that even if Saddam did possess these so called weapons οf mass destruction, they argue that he lacked the capabilities to attack the United States with them. Further proοf that this wasn’t a real motive for the war is that the United States acted as a renegade, ignoring the UN’s decision to wait for inspectors to finish inspecting Iraq, and went to war. Why would the United States rush into such a serious war so rashly when evidence strongly suggests that Saddam lacked the capacity to attack the U.S.? The reason is because weapons οf mass destruction was a pretense used by the Bush Administration to sell the war, and if the U.S. would have waited a few extra months for the inspectors to finish, the Administration would have lost momentum generated for the war. This position has been strongly credited after the invasion, when in fact no weapons οf mass destruction were discovered. Another supposed motivation for the Iraq War is the issue οf national security. Many believe, as the Bush Administration has championed, that there was a threat to national security from “terrorism”. It was believed that by invading and stabilizing Iraq, the threat to national security would be alleviated. Many connections were also drawn between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. What the President was alluding to in this excerpt is that if we don’t fight terrorism abroad, it will find its way to our homeland. Those who have faith and support the Bush Administration believe the War was motivated by noble causes, such as the spread οf democracy, the stabilization οf the Middle-Eastern region, and the neutralization οf weapons οf mass destruction. But then there are those with cynical points οf view that believe the war was motivated by less noble causes, such as the unspoken quest for oil, the vendetta between Saddam and the Bush family, and or the attempt by the Bush Administration to capitalize on popularity brought about by fighting the War on Terrorism. The unspoken quest for oil: Much controversy surrounds this issue—in my opinion more than any other. It would be terribly selfish and devious οf the Bush Administration to have entered a war, costing thousands οf lives and billions οf dollars, to secure oil fields in Iraq. As convenient as it would be to dismiss this allegation, strong evidence suggesting that this was in fact a real motivation for the war forces us to take it seriously. It is well known that the Bush family has close ties with the Saudi Royal family, ostensibly because οf their vast possession οf oil. Pictures οf President Bush passionately embracing Saudi Royalty are well circulated, and it is obvious why. Additionally, the Bush family has large amounts οf money invested into oil companies and refineries, namely in Texas. So it is quite conceivable that President Bush has a personal stake in seeing to it that the flow οf oil from Iraq to the US goes unimpeded. Thus many hold the belief that the Bush Administration put up several fronts to invade Iraq when in fact it was all a cover-up to secure Iraqi oil. Some go so far as to claim that oil was only part οf a larger picture in regards to the motivations for the war with Iraq. These people claim that it was all about big business, and that obtaining Iraqi oil was but a small part οf these business interests. There is another less popular, but nonetheless viable supposed motivation for the Iraq War—the vendetta between Saddam and the Bush family. During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number οf reasons—in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons οf mass destruction—about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad. He was referring to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate his father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after U.S.-led forces chased Iraqi troops out οf Kuwait in the first Gulf War. This argument gains credibility when considering the fact that President Bush himself noted that he wanted to go after Saddam because he believed him to be connected to an assassination attempt on his father. So although this was never an official motivation for the war, many speculate it held some weight in the President’s decision to invade Iraq. Some say that the war in Iraq was nothing other than an attempt by the Bush Administration to capitalize on popularity brought about by fighting the War on Terrorism. President Bush’s approval ratings after 9/11 were close to 90%. Due to the fact that the nation liked the way he handled the incident and his fighting οf terrorism. In light οf this, many believe that one οf the motivations for the Iraq War was the Bush Administration’s seeking οf popularity. What were the motivations for the Iraq War? There is no definitive answer to this heated question. Some speculate that the war was motivated by noble causes, such as the spread οf democracy, the stabilization οf the Middle-Eastern region, the issue οf national security, and the neutralization οf weapons οf mass destruction, while others hold strong to the belief that it was it really about the unspoken quest for oil, to secure US business interests in the region, the vendetta between Saddam and the Bush family, or the attempt by the Bush Administration to capitalize on popularity brought about by fighting the War on Terrorism. I personally feel it is not any one οf these things, but rather an amalgamation οf every one οf them. I believe to a certain extent the Bush Administration wanted to spread democracy, to stabilize the Middle East, to improve national security, and to neutralize any Weapons οf Mass Destruction Saddam might have, as well as to secure Iraqi oil fields and US business interests in the region, to capitalize on popularity brought about by fighting the war, in addition to the personal vendetta the President had with Saddam. Every one οf these played a role in the War with Iraq; the only question is to what extent. Despite the full support from 35 countries around the globe, the US-led invasion οf Iraq ensued without the formal approval οf the United Nations. In light οf the United States actions, speculation about the possible damage to the authority and credibility οf the UN has canvassed many political debates in wake οf President George W. Bush announcement that war on Iraq had commenced on March 20th 2003. Frances announcement that she was to use her veto to block any UN resolution authorizing war against Iraq created serious diplomatic feuds between nations. Moreover, Frances use οf her veto prevented the United Nations from officially consenting to the war on Iraq. Indeed, for the United States and her coalition to wage a war against Iraq without the blessing οf the UN, there must surely raise a whole host οf issues concerning the credibility οf the United Nations and its future proficiency as an organization for the maintenance οf international peace and security. I propose that my dissertation shall take precedence with these areas οf concern that now face the UN in an ever unstable international environment. My fundamental ontology is to explore the consequences οf the US decision to go to war without the approval οf the UN upon the credibility οf the UN, which may have been impaired post March 20th 2003. I believe that a comprehensive analysis οf the realist tradition shall provide the most effective and useful way οf carrying out this thesis. After all, the events οf the last ten months or so would seem to categorically support the realism school οf thought in its assessment οf state behavior within the international system. In their account οf the conflictual nature οf international politics, realists give high priority to the centrality οf the nation-state in their considerations, acknowledging it as the supreme political authority in the world’. A statement by the Secretary οf State (US) Colin Powell reinforced the fundamental thinking οf realists by stating that the United States will listen carefully to the UN weapons inspectors, but reserves the right to act in its own national interest. According to Kransner there is no higher authority that can constrain or channel the behavior οf states’. However, I wish to take issue with this neo-realist thought as it could be claimed that the US and her coalition were initially refrained and harnessed in their quest for invading Iraq. One could argue that the sheer volume οf anti-war protests around the world coupled with the coalition ideally craving for UN approval, would have appeared to have delayed the US-led invasion. Indeed, failure to receive the consent to use military action against Iraq from the UN could have potentially thrown the coalitions democratic governments into jeopardy. This was depicted in Britain by the increase οf public opinion doubting the validity οf the governments reasons for war. I would thus like to examine the extent to which the UN may have channeled the behavior οf the US and the events that led up to war by engaging in normative debates. Normative theory is concerned with the moral and ethical dimensions οf international affairs’. This will therefore form the appropriate approach for exploring how the UN may have brought moral and ethical obligations to the United States attention - ultimately delaying the invasion οf Iraq. In wake οf the 2003 Iraq war has the UN been unaffected by the hostility and can the organization continue to maintain its status as a world authority and proponent οf international peace, or does the fate οf the institution lay with dealing with relatively mundane international matters such as economic/social development and human right issues. Worse still could the UN follow in the footsteps οf The League οf Nations? Indeed, the UN post Iraq has been thrown into a period οf turmoil and now faces a critical time. Through a comprehensive analysis οf key textual debates (surrounding realism and normative issues) and newspaper reports I intent to embrace the following research themes and questions, which shall provide a platform for helping to aid this fascinating and important UN crisis which I feel should necessarily be addressed. To examine the possibilities that in wake οf a war which was not approved by the UN, the actions taken by the US may have seriously weakened and damaged the reputation/credibility οf the UN. Has the events οf the last 10 months or so altered the perception οf the UN as a proficient organization which is looked upon by the international community to solve global conflicts. Did the United States actions ultimately undermine the UNs authority? If yes, does this support the claim that the United Nations has only limited powers when faced with a determined, self-interested powerful state? Did the UN help to constrain or to channel the behavior οf the US? If yes, how and to what extent? In short, has the United States failure to adhere to the UN destabilized the credibility οf the UN and jeopardized the centrality οf the UN (as a peace seeking organization) to the future οf global conflict resolution? Or is it possible for President Chiracs vision οf the UN to be achieved in wake οf the coalitions unapproved actions. We have a joint view οf the future οf the world. We want a multipolar world...Our conception naturally excludes unilateral approaches and that is why we want the UN to be the legal framework for peace and democracy. Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Maude, March 11, 1917, on the occasion οf the Anglo-Indian Army οf the Tigris entering Baghdad. "Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators." Adolf Hitler, February 27, 1933, on the occasion οf the Third Reichs invasion οf Austria. Both Maude and Hitler vainly fancied they could free other nations and help them develop and progress by crushing them militarily and then governing them politically. President George Bush and Prime Ministers Tony Blair and John Howard in their current invasion οf Iraq are the twenty-first century equivalent οf these misguided liberators. They are poor students οf history, destined to repeat its mistakes rather than learn from it. Their justification for the invasion οf Iraq was to limit terrorism and to remove weapons οf mass destruction. Their stated intention now is to install a democratic "Iraqi" government in Baghdad to replace the dictatorship οf Saddam Hussain. Such a regime, to quote The Sydney Morning Heralds Adele Horin, would likely be "peopled by American generals and Iraqi crooks like Ahmad Chalabi". The real victims οf the Coalition οf the Willing offensive are the innocent peoples οf Iraq, suffering the brutal brunt οf the latest, smartest, warmongering technology available to mankind. However, there are other casualties: the United Nations, now struggling more than ever to retain its relevance and dignity, and ultimately the global institution οf democracy itself. The U.S. is intent, especially since the demise οf Communist Russia, on extending its control to create, for the first time in history, a truly worldwide empire. Unlike Caesars Rome or Alexanders Greece, the American Empire has the real potential to dominate the entire world culturally, financially, politically and militarily. It is, after all, in Americas interests to do so; but that may not translate necessarily into similar interests to the rest οf the worlds nations. Iraq is the first sacrificial victim to be offered on the altar οf U.S. lead global rule. Many are οf the opinion that this war against Iraq is likely to lead to the proliferation οf both terrorism and weapons οf mass destruction. While media attention has been focused almost exclusively on events unfolding in real time in Iraq, North Korea has been launching rockets over neighboring Japan and threatening stability in the region. The U.S. administrations spin doctors dissuade us from thinking this is serious and bid us to concentrate instead on helping it secure for itself its own base in the Middle East, complete with a vital supply οf oil and other natural resources. North Korea is neither demonized nor attacked for a very simple reason: it has a deterrent. It has massed artillery aimed at Seoul, and if the United States attacks it, it can wipe out a large part οf South Korea. According to Chomsky, the U.S. is sending an indirect message to the world: develop weapons οf mass destruction or some other credible deterrent or suffer our retribution. Pundits are currently assessing the possible magnitude οf this newfound democratic American push for liberating oppressed nations. Will it extend to Iran and Syria, for example? They share borders with Iraq and the US has plenty οf bones to pick with each οf their regimes too. Does the invasion smack οf overtones οf a latter-day version οf Western Christian missionary zeal? Perhaps Bush, Blair, Howard and the Coalition generals see themselves as modern versions οf French General Henri Gouraud, who entered Damascus in July 1920, kicked Salahuddins tomb, and exclaimed, "Awake Saladin, we have returned. My presence here consecrates the victory οf the Cross over the Crescent." Theres no doubt that their presence in Baghdad has changed the world, but will it really be for the better? Its ironic that the land οf Iraq, the cradle οf civilization and democracy, is now the target and potential springboard for American-lead aggression throughout the Middle East. The neighbors must be asking, "Whos next?" Works Cited "President Discusses the Future οf Iraq." Whitehouse.Gov. 9 Dec. 2006 . Miller, Greg. "Democracy in Iraq Doubtful." Los Angeles Times. 14 Mar. 2003. 9 Dec. 2006 . Vann, Bill. "The Times’ Thomas Friedman on Iraq: Spreading “Democracy” with Missiles and Lies." World Socialist Web Site. 22 July 2003. 9 Dec. 2006 . 2003 State οf Union Address-(Course Pack) Pincus, Walter, and Dana Milbank. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed." WashingtonPost. 17 June 2004. 9 Dec. 2006 . Priest, Dana. "Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground." WashingtonPost. 14 Jan. 2005. 9 Dec. 2006 . Dominguez, J. "War on Iraq." Biblia. 9 Dec. 2006 . Habsburg, John. "Proof-War On Iraq Is For Oil." TheDebate.Org. 9 Dec. 2006 . Lobe, Jim. "So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bushs Dad?" Global Policy Forum. 19 Oct. 2004. 9 Dec. 2006 . Wong, Nancy. "President Bushs Ratings Fall Sharply." CommonDreams Newscenter. 19 Feb. 2003. 9 Dec. 2006 . "Bush, George W." Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. 9 Dec. 2006 . Read More