Was War in Iraq a Necessary Necessity or an Act of Violence - Literature review Example

Abstract When President Bush announced the attack on Iraq, there was initially a high level of support form the public. However, with the apparent failure of American military strategy in Iraq, there has been a decline in the levels of confidence that the public now feels in regard to the war effort. There has been a steady decline in public support for the war and a great part of the American public is now in support of pulling out US troops as early as it can safely be accomplished. Public Opinion on the war in Iraq Teixeira (2007) provides the results of a Gallup poll that has been conducted over the years since the Iraq war started, which has asked the same question, “In view of the developments since we first sent out troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq or not?” As compared to the year 2003, where an overwhelming 75% of the members of the public felt that a mistake had not been made and only 23% were of the view that there had been a mistake, the situation has changed considerably in 2007, where 59% of the public feel that a mistake has been made and the original 75% of people who felt a mistake had not been made had dwindled to 39%. Every year, the number of people supporting the war effort has dwindled, while those not in support has steadily increased, with 64% believing that the costs of the war have far exceeded the benefits. Politicians and Government officials cannot afford to ignore the implications of public opinion in formulating their policies and in particular, cannot afford to ignore unfavorable public opinion that may exist against any Government policy. According to Sobel and Shiraev (2003:283), “…there is substantial correspondence between policy and public opinion. Moreover, policymakers also tend not to act against an overwhelming public consensus.” However, other experts are of the view that in democratic societies, public opinion does not have a significant influence on foreign policy. This is because leaders are allowed a greater degree of freedom by the people since they need to function with secrecy in the international arena and there is an understanding that foreign policy making needs to be treated differently from domestic issues. The Iraq war: On March 19, 2003, President Bush announced war on Iraq, with troops advancing into Baghdad in April and Saddam’s statute being toppled on April 9, 2003 (www.thinkprogress.org). The justification that was provided for the war was the potent threat posed by purported arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein was accumulating. Public support for the war was high, due to the perceived threat of imminent attack, especially after the 9/11 incident. Another stated objective fo the Iraq invasion was to remove Saddam Hussein the dictator and to restore democracy in Iraq so that the Iraqi people could govern themselves and live as free citizens within their own country, relived from the oppressive rule of Saddam, the dictator. At the time the army triumphantly entered Baghdad, the war was not expected to last long and the troops were expected to back in their home country very soon. Expected expenses for the reconstruction of Iraq were projected at $1.7 billion, with $700 million in humanitarian aid. This was expected to be the taxpayer’s net contribution towards supporting the war effort in Iraq. Faced with the prospect of a quick, decisive victory and the removal of a dictator, coupled with the noble aim of restoration of democracy, the American public rallied behind its president However, it was later revealed that no weapons of mass destruction existed to the scale that had been envisaged by the American Government based on intelligence reports. British staunch support for the war effort also relied upon these intelligence reports; however it was later established that the reports could have been misleading and doctored to project an imminent threat that did not actually exist. The former Chief Un weapons inspector Hans Blix openly declared that the war in Iraq was illegal because it had been resorted to on the basis of a patently false intelligence report, which therefore made the invasion of a sovereign country an undemocratic and illegal move. This view was later corroborated by the UN Secretary general, Kofi Annan, on September 16, 2004, when he declared that the war on Iraq was in violation of the U.N. Charter and was therefore illegal and should never have been executed.(ww.thinkprogress.com). As a result of these developments, public confidence in the underlying provisions of American policy and the justification provided for the war was undermined and the polls began to show the declining confidence of the American public in its support for the Iraq war effort. Saddam Hussein was captured on December 13, 2003, achieving one of the goals of the war effort, which was to topple the ruling dictator of Iraq (www.thinkprogress.com). However, while the elimination of the cruel rule of the torturer was touted to be the mission of the war, the incidents that followed involving the torture of Iraqi prisoners by American troops at Abu Gharaib prison shocked the world and further eroded the American image in the eyes of the world, causing public opinion favoring the war to further plummet in its support. Unfavorable perceptions of the American war initiative in Iraq have been strongest in Western Europe, with the United Kingdom being one of the few countries to offer its unconditional support in the war effort. Public opinion in these countries has swayed in favor of or against the war effort depending upon whether or not their countries were also providing support to the American troops.(pew report). Saddam Hussein was put on trial and was given the sentence of execution. However, his trial raised several issues of substantive issues of justice, which have further eroded the support to the war effort in many of the countries of the world. Jus cogens symbolizes principles of international law that are considered to be so fundamental that no nation can ignore them. When the principles of jus cogens are applied, Saddam Hussein’s crimes should have been properly tried before an international forum, such as the ICC, due to the nature of the crimes. In a briefing Paper prepared by the Human Rights Watch, the question of fair trial issues surrounding the Iraqi Special Tribunal were raised. (Human Rights Briefing Paper, 2005). One of the important points raised by Human Rights Watch was in reference to the composition of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (SICT) with were members close to the occupying force and therefore, their impartiality could be suspect. Moreover, as also pointed out in the Report, the process of appointment of the experts was not transparent and did not take into account the attitudes of ordinary Iraqi citizens. Lastly, a significant part of the documentation associated with the crimes that were purported to have been committed were taken away by a variety of sources, thereby leaving the tribunal Court with a paucity of documentary evidence to conduct the trial. Leila Sadat (2005) also points out that tribunal members were chosen under U.S. occupation and were all of Kurdish or Shiite nationality, thereby undermining the fairness meted out to Saddam. DiStefano(2006) states that the standard of proof that was applied in the Saddam Hussein trial was not the proving of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but merely whether the tribunal is ‘satisfied’ that the charges are proved. This raises human rights issues, which have only succeeded in further undermining the legitimacy of the U.S. effort in Iraq, since the violation of human rights of any individual would be unacceptable when practiced by a democratic country. There has bene a strong unfavorable perception generated against the United States in Muslim countries, especially among those who feel that the trial of Saddam Huseein was not fair and those who feel that the United States plan to remain permanently in the region. (www.pipa.org) It was only in August 27, 2004 that President Bush acknowledged that he might have miscalculated what the conditions were likely to be in postwar Iraq. (www.thinkprogress.com). Moreover, the projected move to establish democracy in Iraq did not prove to be as simple to execute in practice as had been visualized while entering into the war effort. This has undermined the public confidence in the viability of the US military objectives in the region and contributed to deteriorating support for the war. Additionally, there have also been accusations that the war in Iraq was entered into in a hurry on the basis of a false, engineered intelligence report because the underlying causes were the exploitation of oil resources in the region. The Vice President Cheney’s company Halliburton has especially been implicated because most of the contracts pertaining to oil have been awarded to this Company. This has further contributed to the undermining of public confidence in the war effort, which was purported to have been entered into for a noble cause in the face of accusations of oil greed as being the motivating factor. Analysis of changes in public opinion: Darley (2007) points out that many of the political reporters and anti war politicians are asserting that the war in Iraq has been lost because the American people have turned against it. Public polling results also appear to demonstrate an anti war sentiment among the people. However, as Darley (2007) clarifies, the reason for the dwindling support for the war at present may not be so much due to public disapproval of the war as much as disapproval of the manner in which the war has been waged. This view is also supported in a report prepared by the C. Pew foundation (2003), which states that public opinion in other countries in regard to the war report is strongly related to the perceptions about how the United States and its allies have conducted the war and are managing its aftermath. The Pew report (2003) also points out that there are differences in public perceptions before and after the war. Since the stated objective of the war was the restoration of democracy and addressing the needs of a long oppressed Iraqi people, there is a great deal of focus being placed on whether the post war reconstruction effort is in fact achieving these goals. Among the Americans, there is a general perception that the US troops are taking into account the needs of the Iraqi people; however this favorable perception is not shared elsewhere in the world, not even in countries such as the UK and Australia that have extended support to the United States in the war effort. Muslims the world over are of the view that the United States is not addressing the needs of the Muslim people during its reconstruction effort, while members of the Muslim public are also disappointed at the poor showing of the Iraqi forces against the invasion of the US and allied troops. The manner in which polling is done may also not be conducive towards garnering an accurate feedback from the public. Darley (2007) points out that most polling tests do not provide the facility of expressing approval of the policy objectives of the war while simultaneously allowing a respondent to express disapproval at the way the war is being handled. There is only an either/or option, therefore those respondents who may wish to express support for the war objectives while registering their disapproval of the manner of operation do not have an opportunity to do so. Similar results are duplicated in an ABC News/Washington Post poll which has asked the same question on whether the war in Iraq is worth fighting or not, the percentages have dwindled from an initially high level of support of 70% to just 34% who believe that the war was worth fighting while over 60% believe the costs have outweighed the benefits. As pointed out by Malone (2007), the recent proposal by President Bush to deploy 21,000 additional troops in Iraq in order to provide support for the Iraqis to break the current existing cycles of violence, so that the war can be ended, is not meeting with much support from members of the public and 70% do not support the additional deployment. He points out the views expressed by Christopher Gelphi, an expert on war, who states that the American public would perhaps be willing to support the deployment of additional troops if they believed that the military strategy in the war has been successful or that it has a chance to succeed. However, the past few years in Iraq have not demonstrated the success of American policy and most people are of the view that the military strategy being employed is not successful. Most of the American public wants to pull out of the war in Iraq. While people do realize that an immediate pull out may not be feasible in the present atmosphere of violence that prevails in the region, nevertheless members of the public are anxious that the troops should be pulled out sooner than later, preferably within a year and there is declining support for continuing the war, with the eroding support likely to continue.(Malone 2007). Darley (2007) points out that the war in Iraq is not comparable to the war in Vietnam, since the policy on the Vietnam found large scale disapproval in terms of public opinion, while in the case of the Iraq war, most people supported the war but their support has dwindled due to unhappiness with the manner in which the war is being handles and because the policies have not been effective. He expresses the view that the overwhelmingly negative media reports may not necessarily be an indication that public support is dwindling, since those opinions expressed in news reports are those of pundits and experts and not those of the general public. Darley (2007) is of the view that public opinion could swing either way and that it is not an overwhelmingly insurmountable problem to restore public confidence in the war effort. Since 2005, there have been an increased number of calls for pulling out US troops from the Iraqi region, however the scale and violence of the ethnic and religious conflicts have made it impossible. One of the reasons Darley (2007) has cited for dwindling support for the war, while support was strong and widespread at the commencement of the war is that no full scale involvement has been sought from the members of the public for the war. In an attempt to insulate the public from the sacrifices associated with a full scale war have in fact backfired, such that the dynamics of civil society have not changed much and not much has been demanded from the public in terms of support for the war, apart from annoying searches at airports. He also points out the financial implications that have resulted out of the effort of the Government to fight the war on a piece meal basis has been that the defense budgets have not been streamlined to focus on winning the war and neither have domestic budgets been trimmed, nor was industry mobilized to deliver necessary services and neither were the land forces expanded; all of which meant that the war in Iraq has turned out to be a much more long drawn out and expensive process than it would have been had the public been asked to make the necessary investment upfront. On the contrary, the current situation that exists is that the public is now faced with skyrocketing costs that they will now have to shoulder as future debts. The worry about assumption of future debt is therefore one of the reasons that Darley (2007) cites for declining support for the war, with another being the faulty Government policy of not mobilizing the public in support of the war effort. According to Zelnick (2006/7), the United States may have entered the war on an erroneous basis that Saddam Hussein was in the process of pulling together an offensive utilizing Weapons of Mass destruction. While overestimating Hussein’s military powers and potential, it may have simultaneously underestimated the degree of resilience and staying power of formers members of the Baathist Party and its loyalists and their access to weapons and levels of support received from the jihadis for Saddam Hussein’s party. Another reason that Zelnick (2006/7) cites for the failure of the war effort in Iraq so far is the failure of the American Government to anticipate that a society that had been divided and oppressed for a long time by an authoritarian ruler would be likely to burst out into a spate of ethnic and religious conflicts as soon as the oppressive presence of the leader was removed. The find belief of the American Government that the Iraqis would automatically unite as one people to favor the establishment of democracy on their land may have also been a rather naïve assumption to make about a nation that has been subject to oppression and repression to prevent ethnic outbursts. Lastly, Zelnick (2006/7) also corroborates the views of Darley (2007) on the inadequate mobilization of funds and support form the public during the initial war effort. The number of troops required to occupy a nation of 25 million people may have been underestimated and the initial deployment may not been substantial enough, as a result of which the war has stretched out into a prolonged and long drawn out war effort with American troops becoming embroiled in the internal problems faced within Iraq due to the religious and ethnic conflicts and the continuing influence of the Baathist party. Due to some of the above reasons and the overall perception of the American public that the war strategy in Iraq is not working which is the underlying cause of the declining levels of support for the war in Iraq. Moreover, with the approaching elections, campaigning by candidates and increasing focus on Iraq has also placed a greater pressure on the incumbent Government to demonstrate visible progress on the ground. The failure to demonstrate such visible success on the ground due to the constant ethnic and religious conflicts continuing in Iraq which could blow up into a full scale civil war, is the primary reason for declining support from the public. The effectiveness of American troops in Iraq is further undermined by the anti American attitude that exists in most Muslim states. The prevailing belief among Muslim countries, as revealed in a recent survey is also that of US policy; since most people in these countries believe that the goal of U.S. policy is the undermining of Islam, which is also a reason for the resistance of the people to the initiatives of the American Government.(www.pipa.org). The declining support as revealed by opinion polls may also be partly caused by the decline in support for American policy in other parts of the world. While there was strong world support through the United Nations in supporting the initiative of the American States acting through the Security Council to impose sanctions on Iraq, this has not been the case when war was declared. As a result of the unilateral action taken by the United States in setting out on the war in Iraq, despite strong opposition from several member states, there has been a declining of public confidence in the United Nations as well. The majority of the public in several countries now believes that the war in Iraq has conclusively proved that the United Nations is not so important any more.(Pew study). In the United States as well, 32% of the public believed that the United Nations was not important before the war but after the start of the war, 60% of the public is of the view that the importance of the United Nations has diminished. This perception among the nations of the world has produced an unfavorable backlash on the perception of American policy and American initiatives worldwide, through the unilateral action of the United States in Iraq against the UN mandate. Many Americans are unhappy with the growing unfavorable perception of American policy due to the war in Iraq and this could form a significant part of the reason why they are in favor of ending it as soon as possible to achieve a pull out of U.S. troops within a year. Conclusions: From the foregoing, it is clear that there has been a sharp drop in public approval for the war effort. While President Bush’s offensive in 2003 was supported by a majority of the American public, the level of support has steadily dropped since. With the emerging US Presidential election and the start of campaigning by the candidates, the Iraq war has become an important campaign issue, thereby making the question of declining public support significant. The war has been a long drawn out one, although the occupation of Iraq itself did not cover more than a couple of months. The process of reconstruction of the country has been a difficult issue due to the failure of the Government and intelligence to adequately study and predict the possible consequences that would result after the dictator was overthrown. While the war strategy was undoubtedly executed fast and achieved the desired targets of overthrowing the Iraqi strongholds and securing the territory in the hands of the occupying force, it has been the handling of the post war efforts that have been the bane of the American Government. The direct cause for the eroding of public confidence in the war effort is the lack of confidence of the people on the potential for success of the American military strategy in Iraq. The fact that no weapons of mass destruction were discovered and that the contents of the intelligence report were suspect, with a condemnation from Hans Blix and Kofi Anna, declaring the Iraq war illegal, has further damaged the credibility of the Bush administration, together with the allegations that the war was entered into to capture oil resources. The opinion of the world has also played a role in shaping public opinion in the United States. The initial support extended by the American public has been undermined by their discovery that the military strategy of their Government in Iraq does not appear to be working. The unilateral move of the United States to enter into Iraq despite the existence of a UN charter in contravention has further eroded support for the war. Since there has been a high level of opposition from other European countries and resistance by Muslim nations to the war, public opinion in those countries has swung sharply against the United States and the escalating Anti-American sentiment all over the world has been a cause of concern for the American public, further undermining its confidence in the war effort. The lack of success in pulling out US troops after what was touted as a fast and quick war and the inefficient mobilization of resources towards the war effort has ultimately made the war more expensive and a great drain on the tax payer. As a result, the American public is also beginning to perceive this war in terms of the future drain on the tax payer dollar and the enormous debt that it saddles the country with. However, there is undoubtedly some degree of admiration that still exists for the capture of Saddam Hussein, although the elements of prejudice and partiality that have existed at the trial have been an issue among Muslim nations, who view the trial as an unfair one whose results were instigated by the occupying force. The underlying motivation for the war – i.e, the establishment of democracy has become suspect through incidents such as the allegedly manipulated trial and the horrific torture of Iraqi prisoners by American troops at Abu Gharaib. All of these reasons have contributed to the growing disillusionment of the American public with the war in general. This is the reason why President Bush’s proposal to deploy an additional 21,000 troops to finish up the job in Iraq is being met with little enthusiasm from the members of the public. The overwhelming sentiment that now exists is to pull out the troops as soon as it is possible to do without causing a civil war in the country due to the ethnic and religious conflicts that still prevail in the region. References: * A timeline of the Iraq War. [online] Retrieved August 6, 2007 from: http://thinkprogress.org/iraq-timeline * Darley, William M, 2007. “Winning back Public Support.” Marine Corps Gazette, 91(5): 68-74 * DiStefano, Giovanni, 2006.”Another side of the Saddam Hussein trial” The Jurist [online] available at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/11/another-side-of-saddam-hussein-trial.php * Holsti, Ole, 1992. “Public opinion and U.S. foreign policy decision making” IN Deese, David A (edn) “The New Politics of American Foreign Policy” New York, St. Martin’s Press at pp 190-215 * Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, 2005. “The former Iraqi Government on trial.” Available online at: http://hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/iraq1005/iraq1005.pdf * Malone, Jim, 2007. “Bush faces challenge in changing public opinion on Iraq” Voice of America, [online] Retrieved August 5, 2007 from: http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-01/2007-01-11-voa63.cfm?CFID=109686080&CFTOKEN=54504464 * “Muslims believe U.S. seeks to undermine Islam” [online] retrieved August 5, 2007 from: http://www.pipa.org/ * “C. Pew research center for people and the Press, ‘Views of a changing world’, 2003 Journal of Palestine Studies, 33(1): 168-172 * Sadat, Leila, 2005. “Experts debate the issues:The Dujail trial.” [online] available at: http://www.law.case.edu/saddamtrial/entry.asp?entry_id=14 * Sobel, Richard and Shiraev, Erc, 2003. “International Public Opinion and the Bosnia Crisis.” New York: Lexington Books. * Teixeira, Rex, 2007. “Public Opinion snapshot: Changing opinions on Iraq.” Center for American Progress, [online] Retrieved August 5, 2007 from: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/changing_opinion_iraq.html * Zelnick, Robert, 2006/7 “Iraq: Last Chance” Policy Review, 140(3): 3-24 Read More