Was the Iraq War Handled Effectively - Coursework Example

Was The Iraq War Handled Effectively? al Affiliation) Introduction The paper aims to answer the question whether the Iraq War was handled effectively. In order to comprehensively do so, a number of issues have been discussed so that a clearer picture of the Iraq War can be identified and highlighted. The research is broadly divided into two main parts. The first part is concerned with the reasons that mandated the U.S to invade Iraq, while the other core part deals with evidence of the mismanagement and inefficiencies of the Iraq War. Held et al argues that the reasons for the U.S invasion of Iraq are instrumental in identifying the historical background of the War and enabling the reader understand why the U.S government, under the Bush administration, decided to Invade Iraq and in so doing, the reader is able to understand how it all began and the eventual mistakes that were committed by the government during its occupation. The section discusses in detail a number of factors which include-the U.S’ intention of toppling the Sadaam regime and his Baathist regime from power, the U.S’ intention of promoting and fostering democracy in the Middle East by using Iraq as an example, curtailing terrorist activities in Iraq, preventing human rights violation in Iraq, as a reactionary response to the growing threat of global terrorism (9/11 attack) and looking for weapons of mass destruction (Held, 2011). By identifying these reasons, it is easier to match the outcomes of the war with the initial intentions of the war. If the intentions of the war match with the outcomes, then the War was handled effectively, but is there is a mismatch between the two variables, then clearly there was mismanagement caused by some inefficiencies. In addition, by identifying the reasons, it is easier to identify whether there were any inherent inefficiencies in the initial stages of the war, such as planning, and which ultimately means that the war was mismanaged from the beginning. For instance, the reason alluding to the U.S government’s intention of curtailing the production of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq appears to be far-fetched or even just out rightly false, as no concrete information is found, meaning that the intentions of the U.S for invading Iraq may have been influenced by other factors. The second part of the research pertains to evidence of inefficiencies resulting from the Iraq War. They are broadly categorized as, the emergence and growth of ISIL/ISIS, inefficiencies of the Shia led Maliki government after the U.S invasion of Iraq, and human rights violation by U.S military forces on innocent civilians. The research aims to discuss in detail how the growth of ISIL, as a deadly terrorist organization, is largely due to the U.S invasion and mismanagement of the Iraq War, and how the U.S government has failed on almost every step to curb ISIS, an organization that was virtually non-existent before the war. This research is very important since it provides an in depth analysis of the Iraq War and how some outcomes could have been prevented with better planning. The research can be used as a cautionary tale to governments that enter wars without a detailed plan for post war operation and occupation. In addition, the research paper can be used as a source of information to scholars and potential researchers. Reasons for U.S Invasion of Iraq According to Cordesman et al., one of the major aims of the Iraq War, led by the U.S and its allies, was in order to topple the dictatorial leadership of Sadaam Hussein due to his government’s support (Baathist party) of radicalized groups in the Middle East, by providing the groups with intelligence and ammunition and a safe haven for training. Furthermore, Sadaam Hussein wanted to create a party that would unify all the Arabs in the Middle East against western influence and power, with its prime target being the U.S. Even though Iraq was not directly involved in the 9/11 attacks on American soil, the implications of Iraq providing a safe haven for potential terrorists was a factor that could not be ignored, especially considering the fact that there had already been reports of the presence of weapons of mass destruction (Cordesman, 2008). Cordesman et al., argues that Islamic radicalism is not only a regional issue but a global phenomenon, evidenced by the prevalence of terrorist attacks on every continent of the world and further fuelling the need to curtail the activities of Saddam Hussein and his Baathist Party before terrorist groups such as the Al Qaeda could become more powerful. The global nature of terrorism and the sophistication of the warfare tactics and logistical management employed by Al-Qaeda mandated the U.S and its allies to act. The terrorist groups had adopted a dogmatic view of world relations, where the West and other non- Muslim countries were considered as inferior and even subpar to the Islam inhabited nations, while the Islamic nations found mostly in the Middle East and North Africa were considered superior (Cordesman, 2008). Jones is of the opinion that terrorist organizations such as the Al Qaeda adopted a mentality of “us vs them”, meaning that there was no middle ground in the wave of terrorism and Islamic radicalism in the form of an Islamic holy war or Jihad. Such sentiments could not be ignored, since radical Islamic groups were intent on killing innocent civilians for the sake of propagating a radical version of Islam across the globe. Therefore, in order to counter such strong and violent ideals, world governments had to unite and curtail its spread before it swept the world into a violent frenzy. The Al Qaeda organization had already proclaimed war on America and every nation that supported its ways (capitalism and democracy), which in short meant a very big percentage of the entire world was at risk of being attacked, evidenced by the attacks on East Africa in the late 1990s, that killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Therefore, the U.S was justified in its attempt to invade Afghanistan and Iraq in a bid to counter the activities of the Baathist Party and Sadaam before the eruption of World War III, which would have had far more detrimental and disastrous consequences to the entire world (Jones, 2012). According to Held et al., the U.S government is seen as a crusader of democracy and a protector of human rights violation in the globe, evidenced by its campaigns against dictatorial regimes that violate basic human rights against its people and its subsequent support for countries that uphold and foster democracy and the protection of basic human rights among its citizens. Its stand on democracy is one other reason that contributed to the Iraq invasion of 2003 by the Bush administration. Before the invasion, there were reports of human rights violations perpetrated by the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein. Instances such as the assassinations and illegal detentions of resisters of the regime, political prisoners, coupled with the lack of free and fair democratic elections in Iraq, contributed to the decision by the Bush administration to invade Iraq (Held, 2011). The administration attempted to topple the authoritative government of Saddam Hussein through force and in its place, attempted to help rebuild and direct the nation into a democratic state, where the basic rights of its civilian would be upheld in accordance with the International Human Rights laws. In addition, some of the policies adopted by Saddam Hussein, such as promoting the activities of radical Islamic movements in the region were endangering the lives of its citizens and the entire world. In short, terrorism was going to be a deterrent to the efforts of the U.S government and its allies of promoting world peace, through joint efforts of ensuring that countries in the Middle East adopted a version of democracy, and by ensuring that the rights of its civilians were protected in a democratic constitution. Mason states that the warring Islamic groups, supported by the Baathist Party and Sadaam Hussein were responsible for human rights atrocities, especially against those who were against the rule and legitimacy of the Sadaam administration. The war between the Islamic militants and opposers of the regime led to the commission of human rights atrocities and as a crusader of human rights, the U.S government aimed to aid the victims of these violations. At the time, the regime was comprised of the majority Sunni population, who were in favor of the formation of an Islamic State in the Middle East, which was against the influence of the West and especially the U.S and its allies (Britain and France) (Mason, 2010). However, the other majority group, Shia, but slightly lesser in number, were opposed to the Baathist Party and in turn, were oppressed by the majority led party of Sadaam Hussein, who at times used the Islamic radical factions he offered safe haven and support, to oppress the Shia into submission, a clear violation of human rights in accordance with United Nations Human Rights Commission provisions.. The conflict between the Shia and the Sunni had existed for decades of years since Iraq became an independent state. The U.S identified the atrocities committed against the Shia minority and in its plan to invade and ‘liberate’ Iraq from an authoritarian regime, identified the Shia as a possible ally in its attempt to foster democracy in Iraq and possibly spread its influence to the rest of the Middle East. Evidence of Inefficiency of Iraq War Emergence and Growth of ISIS/ISIL The biggest evidence of the inefficient way with which the Iraq War was handled is the emergence of ISIS/L. In terms of how the group recruited members, the 2003 U.S invasion of Iraq aftermath was crucial to the techniques employed by the vast militant radical groups. The atrocities committed by the U.S militant forces, especially in reference to the bombing and shelling of innocent civilians and public institutions, was responsible for swaying many multitudes into joining the cause aimed at retaliating against the U.S and its allied forces. In particular, the adoption of the sectarian policy by the initial military forces on the ground in Iraq swayed many sections of the Sunni population into joining the militant groups, which eventually merged into a radical military organization that would become a bigger threat to world and regional peace than the one posed by the Osama Bin Laden-led Al Qaeda. According to Mason, initial public opinion in Iraq and even among the Sunni following the invasion was the expectation of radical changes, possibly for the better. Furthermore, the U.S invaded Iraq with sentiments of wanting to provide the Iraqis with a better future than was the case during the reign of Saddam Hussein and a good percentage expected to see changes as soon as the U.S toppled Saddam Hussein from power and facilitated the execution of free and fair elections, where the people would be able to elect a leader who was their choice (Mason, 2010). A portion of the current members of ISIL were optimistic regarding the opportunities that would be presented by a new democratic regime. However, the U.S government’s actions, such as the detainment of radical militant group members and in some instances civilians (peaceful) opposed to the invasion of the U.S, in Guantanamo Bay, was responsible for the radicalization of a large percentage of the current members of ISIL and consequently the rise and development of ISIL/ISIS. A good example is that of Abu Bakr al- Baghdadi, who is a leader in the ISIL/ISIS movement and who is quoted as attributing his 5 year detention by U.S forces, as the main factor in his radicalization against the U.S and the West in general. According to a UNHCR Report, the violence adopted by the U.S and its allies military forces that lead to the death of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, pushed drones of civilian masses into joining ISIL and other radical Islamic groups. In addition, members that were already in militant groups were further radicalized by the death of their family members and friends, and a perceived illegal intrusion by the West, which was a threat to their traditional ways of life and religion (Islam). Those who were affiliated to the Baathist Party also joined such groups due to their diminished political and economic capacity, courtesy of the war, and were swayed to continue advocating for the establishment of a unified Islamic State which would retaliate against the U.S and its allies’ invasion (UNHCR Report, 2014). Currently, ISIL has been classified as the biggest terrorist group in the globe and is single handedly responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians across the globe, countless violations of human rights and destruction of private property. Mind you, this was a group that was non-existent before the U.S led Iraq invasion more than a decade ago. In addition, the deficiencies of the U.S trained Iraq/Kurdish forces against the encroachment of ISIL, highlights further how the Iraq War was vastly mishandled. ISIL was able to overpower the Kurdish forces in Iraq and even stockpile American made weapons that have since been used to commit the crimes against humanity, as they occupy parts of Iraq and Syria. Jones argues that the occurrence of such events, in particular the overpowering of the Kurdish forces by using American made weapons, which had been stockpiled for use by the newly formed forced of Iraq, is not only an indication of a very high degree of incompetence, but disgraceful to the American ideologies of promoting democracy and peace. In this instance, the U.S invasion was directly and indirectly responsible for the emergence and growth of ISIL into the deadliest Islamic terrorist organization in the world, whose size continues to grow, evidenced by its boldness in televising the beheadings of innocent nationals across the world, even including Americans (Jones, 2012). Inefficiencies of the Maliki Government Another indicator of the inefficiencies of the Iraq War pertain to the failed government of Nouri al-Maliki, who was instituted by the American government due to his supposed malleability and inclination towards western powers (U.S.A and its allies). As indicated before, the U.S’ attempt to intervene in the affairs of the Baathist led Iraqi government was primarily to ouster Sadaam Hussein, who was providing Islamic radical groups with ammunition, intelligence and transportation routes, and in his place institute a more democratic government. However, the only way to accomplish that was to support a Shia led government, since the Shias were generally not as radicalized as the Sunnis who supported the Baathist Party and its attempts of trying to unify the Gulf under an Islamic State, whose main aim was to fight against western influences by adopting a Jihadist kind of Islam. In its support for the new Shia prime minister, the U.S government wanted to ensure that a democratic system of government would be in place after it evacuated from Iraq. However, the shortcomings of the government of Maliki are one of the main factors responsible for the failed state of Iraq, and are a strong indicator of the mismanagement of the Iraq War on the part of the U.S and its allies. Instead of creating a government of national unity by also embracing Sunni politicians, who were previously in power, his government marginalized and alienated the Sunni in its decisions, by adopting a dictatorial system of government in an attempt to retaliate against the Sunni for their past oppressive acts and violation of human rights. The ascent of Maliki’s political power to become the prime minister of Iraq symbolizes how the power structure in Iraq was destabilized. According to Wehrey, the U.S’ decision to choose a leader from minority group to become the prime minister of a country where the Shias and Sunnis had been conflicting for many years, was an ill-advised maneuver. Instead of adopting a more integrative government, Maliki decided to avenge for the past mistakes perpetrated by the Baathist Party. During Saddam’s reign, the Sunnis were the majority in power but even then, Saddam’s government tried to include the Shias, since he recognized the advantages to be gained by incorporating every group into the workings of the government for the sake of national peace and integrity. However, the U.S invasion ensured that all the political power was at the hands of the minority Shia, which led to extreme sectarianism between the Shias and Sunnis. In addition, the government of Maliki did not try to include the Sunnis in the structure of government, leading to a situation where many Sunnis boycotted the first parliamentary elections, held after the invasion of Iraq (Wehrey, 2010). In turn, a big percentage of the marginalized Sunnis joined the extremist radical group, ISIL. With regards to the inefficiencies and adverse consequence of the administration of Maliki, the strategy adopted by the U.S government failed to critically analyze the deep rooted hatred and animosity present between the Sunnis and Shias. If the U.S and its allied forces had done so, it would have realized that using divide and conquer tactics would not have led to a favorable outcome, especially considering the fact that the Shias were the minority. The most plausible strategy would have been fostering and ensuring national unity among every government structure. Since one of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was in order to ensure the emergence of a democratic state, the U.S would have helped develop institutions that would ensure power was distributed equally if not proportionately among all the stakeholders. In fact, the failings of the administration of Maliki are not due to the personal failings of Maliki, but rather institutional failings which were present during the Saddam Hussein reign and which were exasperated by the U.S invasion of Iraq, and its subsequent destruction of any present political and government structures prior to invasion. The decade old occupation of the U.S and its allies failed to develop any democratic institutions, which in turn created a situation where majority sectors of the population monopolized power at the expense of the others. Weeks argues that the cyclical dictatorial tendencies exhibited by the Maliki regime point to the mismanagement of the Iraq War, since one of the main aims of the war was to ensure that after toppling Sadaam Hussein, Iraq would be a democratic society with far better institutions. The public was led to believe that Saddam Hussein was the main barrier to a peaceful and more prosperous Iraq. However, more than ten years after Sadaam Hussein was toppled from power and executed, Iraq is in a worse state than it was before the invasion (Weeks, 2010). The current state of affairs in Iraq points to the administrative shortcomings of the U.S and its allies and the role they played in the invasion of Iraq. Currently, many institutions are not functional while the remaining social, economic and political institutions, though functional, have been depleted in terms of capacity, evidenced by the rampant insecurity in Iraq courtesy of ISIL. Consequently, a majority of the civilian population in Iraq have become more distrustful of the West, even for those that initially supported the invasion, due to the unfulfilled promise of a democratic and freer Iraq. Human Rights Violation According to Amnesty International. Human Rights Concerns, one of the major failings of the Iraq War was how the U.S government handled its occupation of Iraq and mostly with regards to the treatment of the civilian population. There are very many reports from both Iraqi civilians and military personnel claiming that the U.S combat forces and their allies shelled and bombed civilian residents resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent women and children, which can be classified as a war crime. One of the worst cases of human rights violation is the slaying of 17 Iraqi civilians in Fallujah in April 2003, an act committed by American combat soldiers (Amnesty International. Human Rights Concerns, 2015). In addition, the illegal detention of Iraqi militants and other suspected civilians purported of aiding and abating the activities of the radicalized Islamic militia in Iraq, have been cited as contravening the international laws pertaining to the rules of engagement in war. In particular, the illegal detention of suspected terrorists in Guantanamo Bay is quoted as being one of the worst practices that the U.S government has engaged in, especially if you consider the torture techniques employed on suspected terrorists in a bid to coerce them into disclosing vital information. According to Held et al., the Bush administration, which was responsible for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, is accused of committing grave violations of global laws and war crimes during its invasion and stay at Iraq. The administration is accused of rape, torture and murder charges with respect to the Abu Ghraib prison, where it routinely ignored international laws that regulate military occupation. These violations were perpetrated at the economic, social and political level, aimed at sabotaging and scaring the Iraqi nationals into submitting to the authority of the U.S government. As a crusader of democracy and world peace, the U.S engagement policies in Iraq contravened everything that the U.S government is supposed to stand for. Mind you, the violations committed by the Bush administration were systematic, alluding to the fact that the policies adopted by the administration were intentionally aimed at disregarding international laws of engagement and the general welfare of civilians during war. The way the war was handled in Iraq alluded to the fact that the Bush administration did not aim to facilitate democracy in Iraq, but rather it wanted to entrench an environment of lawlessness that would spiral into full chaos (Held, 2011). Wehrey argues that according to a national security strategy planned in 2002, before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it stipulated that military force in Iraq was the only viable option and disregarded any international laws prescribing the appropriate rules of engagement on foreign land. The strategy was marred with controversy on the onset of its development, pointing to the fact that the Iraq War was going to be mismanaged, even though the U.S was going to capture Saddam Hussein, since the U.S was only concerned with military engagement and had no appropriate plan for how it would handle its occupation of Iraq. No concrete plans had been made past the plans involving toppling the government of Saddam Hussein. The strategy lacked a concise guideline on how to deal with civilians, which consequently lead to the massive loss of civilian lives. In addition, analysts suggest that the Bush administration pursued the haphazard plan with the core goal of toppling the Sadaam regime at all costs, financial and even civilian lives, as long as the end goal was met. The lack of a post war strategic plan is significantly responsible for the mismanagement of the War (Wehrey, 2010). According to Weeks, to further highlight the mismanagement of the war, the initial plan of invasion was meant to last for a short period, as the U.S government facilitated a quick succession of power back to the Iraqis and preferably to the Shias. This is true considering the fact that Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in less than three weeks after the U.S invaded Iraq. However, the U.S stayed in Iraq for more than ten years, clearly an indicator of ineffective management (Weeks, 2010). The first indicator of the upcoming series of miscalculated moves by the U.S government that ultimately led to the mismanagement of the Iraq War, has to be the Coalition of Provincial Authority’s action of disbanding institutions in Iraq during the first wave of occupation, under the directive of Paul Bremer. By doing so, the U.S government disbanded the Iraqi army and abolished the Baathification law, a move the U.S would later come to regret with respect to the current inefficiencies of the U.S trained Kurdish forces in dealing with ISIS. By disbanding the army for example, the U.S crippled Iraq and its ability to defend itself after the U.S forces evacuated from Iraq. Conclusion The research aimed to identify whether the Iraq War was handled effectively by seeking to match the reasons for the invasion of Iraq by the U.S government and its allies, with the outcomes from the invasion, and it is quite clear that the Iraq War has handled ineffectively. The research analyzed the rise of radical Islamic terrorism in Iraq and in other parts of the Middle East, the atrocities committed by the Saddam regime and its effects on the Shia minority, and the need for global co-operation in the fight against terrorism since it is no longer a regional issue but a world-wide phenomenon, in order to understand the core reasons for the invasion. The research also discussed the institutional failings of Iraq in terms of political and social structures and which the U.S is responsible for depleting their capacities, evidenced by its choice of supporting an authoritarian Shia led government under Prime Minister Maliki. Lastly, the violation of human rights by the U.S and its allied forces, coupled by some of its administrative decisions like the abolishment of the Iraqi army and its effect on institutional failings in Iraq and rise of ISIS/ISIL. It is very clear that the U.S failed administratively and fundamentally in containing the war and accomplishing the intentions/reasons for going to war, because the region is now rampant with cases of human rights violations, the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and the rise of a terrorist organization that is bigger than Al Qaeda, and whose growth can be linked to the mismanagement of the war. Also, the country is raved by institutional failings (no democracy) which have left the country in a worse off state than during the Sadaam regime, thus diluting the initial reasons for invading Iraq. More than a decade after the initial invasion, the country has no proper army or capable government. Clearly, the Iraq War was not handled effectively. Reference List Amnesty International. Human Rights Concerns. Amnesty International, 2015. 29 April 2015. Cordesman, Anthony H, and Emma R. Davies. (2008). Iraqs Insurgency and the Road to Civil Conflict. Westport, Conn: Praeger Security International. Print. Held, David and Coates, Kristian U. (2011). Wars of Decline: Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Retrieved April 29, 2015, from http://opendemocracy.net/david-held-kristian-coates-ulrichsen/wars-of-decline-afghanistan-iraq-and-libya.htm Jones, Toby. (2012) America, Oil, and War in the Middle East. Journal of American History. (1): 208-218. Mason, P. (2010). The Iraq War. Mankato, Minn.: Arcturus Pub. UNHCR. Report Documents Litany Of Human Rights Violations In Iraq, Including Possible War Crimes And Crimes Against Humanity. UNHCR, 18 July 2014. Web. 29 April 2015. Weeks, A. (2010). The choice of war the Iraq War and the just war tradition. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger Security International. Wehrey, F. (2010). The Iraq effect the Middle East after the Iraq War. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Read More