Iraq is not stable enough to risk the United States withdrawing their troops, security is too weak and it will show in the near future. It is evident that Iraq cannot hold a steady government that can support the people and maintain a state of armistice throughout these hard times that the country is going through. This statement is clear seeing that there have been about one hundred and sixty three insurgent attacks daily since May of 2007.
The United States is currently controlling the country due to Iraq housing terrorist groups that withhold weapons of mass destruction. Like Al Qaeda for example, their leader, Osama Bin Laden has been on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s “Most Wanted” list since the year of 2003. Ever since March 19th of 2003 many people have died because of this evil, ruthless man. That is why the United States Defense Department has kept our troops stable in Iraq to prevent some outrageous outbreak of violence.
David Patraeus is a General in the United States Army and has written several reports on the war in Iraq and the progress the United States has made. He states that are still enormous difficulties that Iraq has to deal with. A lot of that may come from the many terror groups that inhabit the country. General Patraeus also says, “the addition of troops will enable the growth of Iraqi security”. (Patraeus 12) He, and many of the other brave men serving in the military completely understand that they have made substantial progress but know for a fact that the situation is still fragile and very reversible. Why would we pull our troops out of something that could be reversed? Would that not be a waste of taxpayer time and money? The General was actually asked why the troops are still in the country, he replied that the only way to secure the population of Iraq is by living with them. The last thing he noted is that he noticed that as force levels grew, the security situation improved. The better the security, the more likeliness that the soldiers can come home sooner.
The United States has again stumbled into an overseas quagmire from which there is no easy exit. History seems to be repeating itself when again, we are led by a group of men who launch wars without exit strategies and fail to understand the nature of their enemy. In Vietnam the United States became involved because they felt the need to stop the spread of communism throughout the rest of Asia and attempt to prevent the "domino effect." The belief is that if Vietnam fell, so then would Cambodia, Laos, etc. Vietnam was the longest U.S. war with its never ending deaths, escalating destruction of Vietnam and Cambodia, and growing danger of splitting the American people (Carter 28). In Vietnam the Americans were told that U.S. was there because the South Vietnamese asked us to save them from the communist threat. But what the soldiers experienced did not add up to what the American people were being told (Thura 9). Americans have been told that the United States is going to war against Iraq in order to remove Saddam Hussein, eliminate him from power, abolish Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and prevent Baghdad from aiding terrorist groups. (Anderson 5). In Iraq the soldiers are anxious with no evidence of weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein no longer in power the reason why U.S. is still fighting in Iraq when the war was declared over a year ago is questionable (Moore 19).
...cleanly ending the war was the wrong way to approach the end of war because there were so many open ends with the Iraqis that could possibly lead to conflict in the future; however since the war was expensive, costing 620 billion dollars, and because three hundred ninety American soldiers had already died. After tying up loose ends with handling the Iraqi army and their leader Hussein, General Schwarzkopf, who played a major role and served as a key leader to the American army during Operation Desert Shield and Storm, made his way to where Saddam Hussein was so he could witness his surrender, however Hussein’s actions to follow this event required President Bush to put in place “no-fly zones” to protect the Kurds in Northern Iraq and the Shiites in the South. Eventually Operation Desert Storm, the biggest military operation since Vietnam, came to a successful end.
The course of the Iraq War has been shaped immensely by the geography of the region for nearly 40 years. The movement of Iraq forces throughout the region, for better or worse, has had many effects on the way in which the way has gone. For instance, these forces often threatened certain resources needed by many countries and regions. The result of this was often war or conflict, concluding in a devastating amount of casualties. This also left Iraq with debt as well as very low resources such as food and water. The basis of the whole entire war has been on certain aspects of the geography, which has had a result of creating many small wars throughout this whole ordeal as well as many other consequential occurrences.
The relations between the U.S and the Middle East are strained at best. The troops deployed in the area face constant threat of attack by a militant group. These broken relations between the U.S and the Middle East started over 50 years ago, with the Iran Hostage Crisis. Root causes of the crisis were many. One was U.S greed over oil in Iran. The second, the coup in Iran organized and funded by the CIA. The U.S dependence on foreign oil is another cause of the problems. Lastly, should the U.S stop moving into other countries sovereign lands and trying to “Prevent the evil of communism”, the nation would not have so many problems around the world. This worry was even shown in Iran (Kinzer, 10). While often blamed on radicals, the strained relations between the U.S and the Middle East are a direct result of a poor US foreign policy.
American troops are being sent overseas to maintain peace in a nation involved in a civil war. Whether the peace troops should or should not be sent overseas, they are being sent overseas. I do not believe that it is the responsibility of American troops to make peace in a country that is at Civil war. A civil war is a war fought within a nation between that nations people. By sending peace troops to East Timor the United States is now becoming involved in this nations war. This could cause the United States to go to war.
September 11, 2001 is a date in American history that will not be forgotten by American citizens. After the assault on both the Twin Towers in Manhattan, and the
Humanitarian intervention after the post-cold war has been one of the main discussions in the International Relation theories. The term intervention generally brings a negative connotation as it defines as the coercive interference by the outside parties to a sovereign state that belongs in the community. The humanitarian intervention carried out by international institutions and individual sovereign states has often been related to the usage of military force. Therefore, it is often perceived intervention as a means of ways to stop sovereign states committing human rights abuse to its people. This essay will focus on the key concepts of allowing for humanitarian intervention mainly in moral and justice in international society. This essay will also contribute some arguments against humanitarian intervention from different aspects of theories in International Relation Theory.
...sh, because they no longer have a government, but whenever the U.S. tries to rebuild their government, the Iraqis always refuse. If we would leave immediately then that would let the Iraqis rebuild their own government the way they want it. Many people believe that the U.S. should create a fund for Iraq in order to help them get back on track. They could use the money to rebuild or reconstruct their country, their government, and anything else that the U.S. helped to destroy (Bennis 6).
In this paper, I intend to analyze Iraq war of 2003 from Realist and Marxist/ Critical perspectives. I intend to draw a conclusion as to which theoretical framework, in my opinion, is more suitable and provides for a rational understanding of the Iraq War. While drawing comparative analysis of two competing approaches, I do not intend to dismiss one theory in entirety in favour of another. However, I do intend to weigh on a golden balance, lacunas of both theories in order to conclude as to which theory in the end provides or intends to provide a watertight analysis of the Iraq war.
By attacking Iraq, the United States has shown that they are no better than the villain Saddam Hussein. The assaults on Iraq were criminal and wicked acts while they were also unjust and unnecessary.
1. Arabic-Media.com (Arabic Media) Site 1997-2011, http://arabic-media.com/iraq_history.htm 2. CRS Report for Congress, 17 February, 1998, http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/crs/98-129.pdf
Prior to General Petraeus arriving in Mosul, Army Special Forces and Kurdish Peshmerga were engaged in fierce fighting in the city. An unstable government and the military occupation of the city were contributing factors for the civil unrest (Lunberg, 2006). To compound this situation, there was no emphasis put on the reestablishment of the Iraqi Government or the rebuilding of the city. Additionally, the main
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.
What does the United States have to gain from a war with Iraq? Supporters of a war with Iraq say it will help prevent the risk of an attack by a weapons of mass destruction developed by Iraq. Critics of a military action that say nothing will be gained, and the U.S. just wants to obtain the oil that Iraq controls. They claim that casualties will be too costly for America to afford. Nonetheless, America should act while others will not for fear of disturbing global peace. Iraq poses a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States and the security of countries around the world.
At the end of World War I, the British Empire took control of the land, and imposed a monarchy on the region. However, in 1932 the British mandate came to an end, and the Iraqi people came in control of their newly independent country. Led by a series of kings, the country remained sufficiently stable and thrived off of discovered oil in the country. However, due to increased political oppression, a group known as “Free Officers” overthrew the monarchy and instituted a republic government on the land. (Iraq Foreign Policy, Brittanica, 2010)