The invasion on Iraq by the United States in 2003 has become the biggest, lengthiest, and most expensive use of armed force since the Vietnam War. It is the first major post-Cold War U.S. military action taken unilaterally, without an international coalition, and the first U.S. experience as an occupying power in a Middle Eastern country. Although the invasion decision was distinctive (U.S. military connection in an Arab or Muslim country), the argument here is that the Iraqi invasion deals with motives related to natural security, power, and resources. Both realism and neo-conservatism claim to capture the motives behind the war, but only through a comprehensive comparison of the two can a synthesis be achieved.
On March 20th, 2003, the United States military invaded Iraq with the ground campaign lasting almost three months. According to then-President of the United States, George W. Bush, and then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, stated reasons for the invasion included the disarmament of “Iraq, especially with respect to weapons of mass destruction; the ending of Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism; and the liberation of the Iraqi people” (White House Archives). On May 1, the end of major combat operations was declared, ending the invasion period and beginning the military occupation period. However, was this war really needed to put an end to Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq—a regime that, at that time, had been considered a threat to the United States, as the neo-conservatives claim? Moreover, did Iraq really possess weapons of mass destruction, or was control of Iraq's oil the reason for the United States to invade it, as realists may posit?
Often termed the “pessimistic view” of international politics...
... middle of paper ...
...ospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_road_to_aqaba>.
Lieberfeld, Daniel. "THEORIES OF CONFLICT AND THE IRAQ WAR." International
Journal of Peace Studies 10.2 (2005): 1-20. Print.
Lowbeer-Lewis, Nathaniel. "A Neo World? NEOCONSERVATISM, INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS AND THE IRAQ WAR." Diplomat & International Canada 2009: 72-75.Diplomat & International Canada. 2009. Web. 4 Dec. 2010. .
"President Discusses Beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom." White House Archives. 22
Mar. 2003. Web. 04 Dec. 2010. whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html>. Walt, Stephen. “International Relations: One World, Many Theories.” Foreign Policy. Spring
1998: pg. 29-45.
Waltz, Kenneth. “The Anarchic Structure of World Politics” International Politics. New York:
Pearson, 2009. 37-58.
On March 18, 2003 the United States invaded Iraq. (The Washington Post) The War with Iraq is a very divisive issue around the world. Turn on any news show and you will see a daily debate on the pros and cons of going to war. Because of the situations that have occurred between the United States and Iraq, very different views and perceptions have developed. Much debate on the justification of the United States for being in Iraq, let alone overthrowing its “government”, has been presented from both sides – the Hawks and the Doves.
Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.
The Iraq war, also known as the second Gulf War, is a five-year, ongoing military campaign which started on March 20, 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S. troops. One of the most controversial events in the history of the western world, the war has caused an unimaginable number of deaths, and spending of ridiculous amounts of money. The reason for invasion war Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, which eventually was disproved by weapons inspectors. Many people question George W. Bush’s decision to engage a war in Iraq, but there might be greater reason why the decision was made. The ideas of George W. Bush might have been sculpted by one of the greatest works of all time, "The Prince."
“Why We Fight” is a 2005 documentary, directed by Eugene Jarecki, inquiring the dumbfounded intent of the United States’ recent intrusion and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It compiles archival footage and incorporates it with recent interviews, many conducted for the film, but, the film has not revealed anything that hasn’t been exposed to the mass consumption. There is also sufficient contemporary footage as well within this documentary: (1) congressmen making the case for military allocation; (2) the principal actors in the Bush administration quarreling for the obligation of intervening in Iraq; and (3) the 2003 incursion and subsequent occupation. This movie also portrays four Americans whose lives have been directly altered due to the Iraq War. None of
One of the main reasons for the attacks on Iraq was to disarm them of any weapons of mass destruction that they have. This makes sense to prevent future terrorist attacks, but no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq. 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). Also, Saddam wanted to stay in power - using weapons of mass destruction would mean a sure end to his power. 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.
Gardner provided an in depth account of the American involvement and foreign policy as it relates to post World War II Middle Eastern relations. I thoroughly enjoyed the comparisons to previous occupations of Middle Eastern countries by Russia and England that had previously gone poorly, and the perspective provided by Gardner that tied in directly to our class, involving the Arab Israeli war. Everything discussed on the war by Gardner was backed up by our discussions in class, therefore I believe he is certainly qualified to write about Middle Eastern politics and foreign relations. The American influence in the Middle East was not all negative witch is refreshing based on current relations with countries in the Middle East and the public perception on our involvement. Even with the positives discussed in this book I hope we can take the advice of Gardner and take care of our own relations before we try to “help others” I do not believe we are currently in a position to do so therefore we no longer have the luxury to stay. In closing remarks Gardner discusses the game of chess between super powers or as they are discussed in the text “the Three Kings” for domination of the world. I view this as an irresponsible habit that needs to end immediately, this can only result in a negative way, as history has shown unnecessary involvement in foreign affairs results in a
The war in Iraq is over now. Looking back on a huge controversy makes one side seem clearly more “correct” than the other. Yet in the beginning there were two sides to the controversy about the war in Iraq. There was the terror brought upon by the 9/11 attacks, people that the government wished to punish or kill like Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden, and a country which was in “need” of US help both politically and financially. At the time of the Terrorist attacks, people were afraid of what else the terrorists were planning or could do and so George Bush sent troops in to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). In hindsight the war on Iraq was a bad idea. The situation was handled poorly, far too much money was spent, and there were far too many casualties to say that the war was a good idea to enter into. To continue war efforts and gain support, lies were spread about finding actual weapons. Later in the war it was revealed that there were never any WMDs. So beyond the decision that was seemingly wrong after a decade of fighting to enter a way with Iraq, the US government lied to prolong the war and continue to waste resources.
In 2003 the United States of America launched an invasion of Iraq. This country committed no acts of aggression towards the US, and was no threat to the national security. There were claims that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, which was false. The big lie that got us in is a faction of our government claimed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction also known as nuclear weapons, turns out that was not true. I’m not arguing Saddam was a good guy I’m saying the only way to solve these problems is diplomacy and avoid war at all cost unless it’s the last resort or defensive. This war was a big mistake in a lot of people’s minds. The loss of 4, 486 American military personnel (Goodman), and over half a million Iraqi civilians (Al-Rubaye and National Geographic), is not a fair tradeoff for what the region is like today. This war was supposed to bring peace to the region, not ruin the region. The war also allowed ISIS to expand to what it is today. All this cost 1.7 trillion taxpayer dollars, which is completely insane for the result of the war. The United States must think about the consequence of toppling governments across the world and trying to tell them how to run their governments. The real questions are: Is the United States safer from occupying these countries, or does it give them a reason to attack us? And: Is it a good idea to impose the western way of life on the Middle Eastern
The First Persian Gulf War between 1990 and 1991 was the most militarily efficient campaign in US history where comparatively few lives were lost. This war accomplished many goals, including that it secured the economic advantages for the “Western World”.
Kellner, Douglas. “Preemptive strikes and the war on Iraq: a critique of Bush administration’s unilateralism and militarism.” New Political Science 26.3 (2004): 417-440.Print.
Karsh, E. (1990). Geopolitical Determinism: The Origins of the Iran-Iraq War. Middle East Journal, 44(2), 256-268.
Woods, Kevin M., Stout Mark E. 2010. “Saddam’s Perceptions and Misperceptions: The Case of ‘Desert Storm’.” The Journal of Strategic Studies (February): 5-41.
The Iraq War was a protracted armed conflict that began with the 2003 invasion of Iraq by a US-led coalition. The US wanted to destroy Saddam Hussein’s regime and bring democracy. To addition to that, US and its allies believed that Iraq had secret stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons, hence Iraq was a threat to the world (Axford 2010). In March 2003, US air bombed Baghdad and Saddam escaped Iraq. The invasion disarmed the government of Saddam Hussein. President Bush in March 2003 gave a premature speech, that tyrant of Iraq has fallen and US has freed its people. President Bush flew into Iraq to show the world that the war is over, even though nothing was accomplished (Kirk et al. 2014). Iraq was facing 13 years of scantions, therefore regime diverted its resources to flexible networks of patronage that kept it in power (Dodge 2007, 88). Iraq faced widespread of lawlessness and after the violent regime changed US could not control the situation. Iraqi civilians were looting, attacking ministries building and this resulted into a series of event (Kirk et al. 2014) . From a military perspective the regime was taken down, but they made no commitment to rebuild or secure the country.
The piece provided the motivation to invade Iraq citing the possession of WMD, the support to terrorism by the regime, the threats the regime has become to its neighbors and the tyrannical nature of the Saddam Hussein regime (Feith, 2008). Additionally, the US president then outlined the clear motivation for invading Iraq which he state as; destroying Iraq WMD, to end Saddam sponsorship of international terrorism and freedom to the Iraqi people (Cramer and Thrall, 2011. p 1). This indicated that America declared motivation to invade Iraq can be hinged on three pronounced reasons as declared by the president in a televised address to the American people. Based on the foregoing, we shall examine the three major declared reasons for Invading Iraq as indicated by the US president (George W.
The United States has steadily expanded its military presence in the Middle East. In ordering deployments, American officials have demonstrated the United States intentions: the US will not permit a hostile state to acquire the ability to obstruct the free flow of oil from the Gulf to major markets in the West.