Why did the United States invade Iraq - Term Paper Example

?INTRODUCTION International criminal law protects “peace, security and the well being of the world” as the fundamental values of the international community. These concepts have a very broad scope and encompass not only the absence of military conflict between states but also the conditions within a state. Therefore if a state functions within its own territories in a way that causes massive violations of these essential principles like manufacturing weapons of mass destructions or carrying out activities like genocide, then it is indeed a potential threat to the world community. The maxim “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” is very relevant here. The world has become a small global village wherein we are so interconnected that the act of one will affect another directly or indirectly. Actions of each and every state are now a matter of concern and should be closely scrutinized to prevent an era of disharmony leading to a situation like that of world wars. In the decades following the horrors of World War II and the genocide of European Jews, the world community was shocked and UN spurred by these terrible crimes demonstrated the renewed political will of bringing together the nations to combat any such threat to world peace and welfare in future. It has now become a general principle accepted both in law and practice that imperialism and foreign invasion were antithetical to the right of self-determination, which was understood to be the basis of the post-World War II worldwide order. In the light of above mentioned principles of international law and its protected principles, an attempt has been made here to study the reason and legality of US’s attack on Iraq on various ground. This short war has drawn the attention of the humankind everywhere and has been the subject of substantial argument. Some people have criticized it vehemently and some have supported it. However the question “Why did the United States invade Iraq” still remains unanswered. In this paper an endeavor has been made to study matter in the light of historical events, circumstances prevailed during that time, various reports published and arguments advanced justifying such an attack by USA. This war draws significance more so because USA’s justification in favour of its action was very diluted and superficial. We are still in a speculation mode regarding why exactly USA invaded Iraq; whether the motive was to actually disarm them of any weapons of mass destruction or was it because Bush administration eyed the oil wells of Iraq. In the era where the international values are “peace, security and the well being of the world”, it is not at all acceptable that a country wage war on another country for selfish ulterior motives, under the garb of protecting the noble principles of international law. Thus there is no denying the fact that there is an utmost urgency to probe into the reasons of such invasions. The USA’s invasion was criticized as illegal war legalized by misusing the international principles. If this is true then we are facing a very imminent threat posed by the developed countries to developing countries and this war will act as a bad international precedent for the same. Hence the actual reason behind the invasion of Iraq is a million dollar question. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE USA and its allies attacked Iraq under the pretext that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction and it was likely that he would pass along those arms to al Qaeda. However the validity of such a ground was later found to be highly diluted. Experts thereafter postulated that we cannot all together rule out the possibility that this war was the outcome of enigmatic psychology of bush, particularly with respect to his relationship with his father along with the irresistible temptation of getting a strong hold over the prized Mesopotamian oil fields. Possibly he sought to "finish the job" that his father had begun in 1991 or may be to avenge Hussein who was alleged to have made attempts to assassination Bush I in Kuwait after the war. The Persian Gulf War or the Gulf War, (August 2, 1990 – February 28, 1991) was a war waged against Iraq, by U.N authorized coalition force from thirty-four nations led by the United States to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi troops. This military intervention by US was the direct result of the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. The former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has referred it as the Mother of All Battles. In 1990, Iraq, under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, accused Kuwait of stealing Iraqi petroleum through slant drilling. However critics hold that the reason behind such a move was Iraq’s inability to pay off its debts and and Kuwaiti overproduction of petroleum which kept revenues down for Iraq. The invasion started on August 2, 1990. The state of Kuwait was annexed and Hussein announced in a few days that it was the 19th province of Iraq. Kuwait was under Iraqi conquest for around seven months before being liberated. The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq was severely condemned by the international community and the members of UN Security Council brought immediate economic sanctions against Iraq and U.S. President Bush I deployed American forces to Saudi Arabia, and urged other countries to send their own forces to the scene. An array of nations joined the Coalition. WHY USA INVADED IRAQ IN 2003 The USA and its allies officially considered Iraq to be a impending threat. They alleged that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and were concerned that he might probably pass the same to al Qaeda. U.S. Secretary of State, Colin Powell came before the United Nations Security Council and laid out a case against Iraq. The argument is all about whether such a case genuinely existed or it was a mere show. Powell argued that Iraq had already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years. Therefore Iraq had to face the penalties for having flouted numerous Security Council resolutions. He also relied on the fact that the council had earlier passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous vote, the purpose which was to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. Powell noted: "Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately."He further pointed out that if Iraq happened to contain such weapons, then Al-Qaeda could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring them and Iraq might hand it over. Terrorist’s organizations will then use them without any compunction against the innocent people of the world. Powell in his speech said "Given Saddam Hussein's history of aggression, given what we know of his grandiose plans, given what we know of his terrorist associations, and given his determination to exact revenge on those who oppose him, should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and the place and in the manner of his choosing at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?". The chamber listened carefully and was put in a major dilemma by Powell’s proposition. The suggestion that such weapons of mass destruction might fall in the hands of terrorist did the trick, especially when the effects of “9/11” was still in the air. This was the major plea taken by US and its allies to invade Iraq. However the matter is much more complicated than what it looks. If Iraq was attacked to prevent future terrorist attacks then it is a good enough reason and we would not be researching on the same. On a closer look, we will find that this reason was phony. USA could not produce any evidence proving existence of any such weapons or to at least show that such an imminent threat actually exists. Iraq did use weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, but not since then (Corn 45). Virtually all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were destroyed or otherwise made unusable in the 1990's (Massing 2). Moreover Saddam wanted nothing more than to stay in power. He knew it perfectly well that using weapons of mass destruction would mean a sure end to his power. Saddam Hussein has never threatened to attack the United States or to use weapons of mass destruction offensively (Farley 29). Iraq has been weak and under control since the Gulf War and has not troubled its neighbors (Gerassi 2). Therefore we can very safely conclude that America’s fears were founded on imagination. Also there is no credible indication linking Iraq or Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda accepted the responsibility of 9/11 attacks and Iraq is nowhere in the picture. Al Qaeda has taken over 3000 lives on U.S. soil, while Saddam Hussein has taken none (Boron 5). So if USA was potentially waging a war against terrorism then it should have focused on containing Laden and Al Qaeda and shouldn’t have given any thought to Iraq. This preoccupation in Iraq distracted it from the efforts to dismantle Al Qaeda and bring Bin Laden to justice. It’s the Al Qaeda and Bin Laden which was and still remains to be the greatest threat to the United States and not Saddam. Thus US once again speculated such a connection. This calls into question whether or not invading Iraq was justified because the Bush administration should have known that weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were effectively contained. Furthermore, an attack against Iraq was not only morally and ethically wrong but also totally against the international law principles. It is not acceptable in a civilized world for one country to attack another when neither it nor its allies have been attacked. The Bush administration pushed a very noble theme to justify their attack when their initial excuse of disarmament failed. The Bush Administration warranted the attack on the grounds that they are actually helping Iraq and liberating Iraq from the tyranny of Hussein. What makes us doubt US’s this version of noble policy is the fact that this idea of “selfless service” came into existence after the invasion, after it became clear that the original reasons have lost the stance. Liberating Iraqi people became the most forceful argument after the war while all along it was nowhere mentioned as the purpose of war. We do agree that Iraqi people lived in a reign of tyranny and brutality, but this does not justify the war. Had this been the driving factor for US and its allies then they could have resorted to the other means provided for conducting such liberation under international law. No one in the Administration worried about liberating the Iraqi people before August, 2002 (Massing 39). Similarly, from a "geopolitical" standpoint, an attack against Iraq made no sense and had serious negative consequences. "France, Germany, China, and virtually all Arab and/or Muslim countries friendly to the United States have forcefully voiced their opposition to a U.S. attack on Iraq" (Farley 29). The US could have easily disarmed Hussein and eradicated any such threat with the help of these countries without having to lose so much. Not only US spent a huge amount of money but also lost many soldiers. Innocent Iraqi civilians too suffered badly because of this war. Therefore we have discussed that “welfare of world community or Iraqi people” was not what Bush aimed for. So why was the war fought? What was the ulterior motive behind it? We will now discuss the most important and sought after theory which is believed to be the real reason behind the war. Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the World. So nonetheless Bush did have very expensive and powerful interests laid there. To control the world's oil has been a leading principle of US foreign policies since the Second World War, and Iraq is particularly significant in this respect (Boron 1). Therefore given both Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's long-standing ties to the oil commerce we cannot overrule the possibility that the administration might have been acting on behalf of the oil industry. This theory becomes all the more relevant after the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's asserted in his memoir that "The Iraq war is largely about oil ". This theory also seems plausible because Saddam always eyed the oil wells and often threatened to blast them off to get his way. The US and allies have huge interests invested in these oil fields and ran the risk of losing too much over this underlying battle for black gold. This war was the desperate attempt on the part of US to take virtual control over the Iraqi oil fields, knowing that such a control will make it the world’s most powerful nation. This war was US’s demonstration to the rest of the world, it's ability to quickly and effectively conquer and control an oil-rich nation in the heart of the energy-rich Middle East/Gulf region any time it wishes. It was perhaps sending a message to the lesser powers that challenging the U.S. could well prove counter-productive to long-term interests. The very same vision inspired formation of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997.It was this project that began calling for "regime change" in Iraq in 1998 and nine days after the 9/11 attack on New York and the Pentagon, publicly warned that any "war on terror" that excluded Hussein's elimination would necessarily be incomplete. It seems clear that Iraq had long been targeted by this group, which became empowered first by Bush's election and then super-charged by 9/11, as the easiest and most available step toward achieving a "Pax Americana" that would not only establish the U.S. once and for all as the dominant power in the region, but whose geo-strategic implications for aspiring "peer competitors" would be global in scope. Indeed, getting rid of Hussein and occupying Iraq would not only tighten Israel's hold on Arab territories, but would also threaten the survival of the Arab and Islamic worlds' most formidable weapon - OPEC - by flooding the world market with Iraqi oil and forcing the commodity's price down. CONCLUSION Therefore we see that US actually invaded Iraq on the basis of what it could have done had there been weapons of mass destructions with it and if it had connections with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. The whole reason is flooded by uncertainties and figments of imagination. There is absolutely no evidence to even show that such a possibility imminently exists. It is unbelievable that a country like US would spend millions to wage a war over a possibly possible reason. So only justification which is though not spoken aloud but is implicit is “control over oil fields”. An attack on a country that has not done anything is not at all justified. It is a matter of shame that US attacked Iraq only to control the oil wells and become more powerful. It seems this war is a perfect example of “how power corrupts” and how powerful countries can use their power over the lesser rules to gain more power or if they merely feel threatened by them. If this remains the situation then that day is not far away when the entire world would be at war with one country or another. Iraq was not a threat to US and US knew this perfectly well. Therefore US had no reason to attack them merely on speculation or as a part of power game plan. References 1) http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=41643 2) http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp 3) http://www.bookrags.com/essay-2006/4/13/2326/76048 4) http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/ 5) Corn, David. "A Failure to Find Iraq's Weapons Calls into Question the Justification for War." Iraq Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. Greenhaven Press, 2004. 44-50. 6) Farley, John E. "An American Attack on Iraq is Not Justified." Iraq Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. Greenhaven Press, 2004. 27-31. 7) Gerassi, John. "The Time Has Come to Say It Out Loud." 17 June 2003: 1-5. CQ Researcher. Landman Library, Glenside, Pa. 14 November 2005 8) 8.Massing, Michael. "Liberating Iraq's People Does Not Justify War." Iraq Opposing Viewpoints. Ed. William Dudley. Greenhaven Press, 2004. 36-44. Read More