Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Domestic causes of war
Brief history of Iraq
Brief history of Iraq
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 abrupt end of decade long dominating regime in three weeks had created a political vacuum, that is evident in shifting coalitions and divisions among religious groups, ethnic groups, regional groups and even classes (Barnett et al. 2003, 25). US did not realize, moreover, the depth of the hostility between Kurds and Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites, and the members of different tribes and local religious groups. Furthermore, to deal with destruction in Iraq new plan was decided by the US. The plan was to pull out all troops and hand over the responsi... ... middle of paper ... ...oops withdraw from Iraq at end of 2011.(Krik et al. 2014). Complaints came to the US that Maliki was become secretarial because he replaced Sunni commanders with Shia loyalists(Krik et al. 2014). This showed Maliki was not concern about having an effective military. Obama was forced to have a legal immunity, but he stilled claimed victory by inviting Maliki to US (Krik et al. 2014). Once US left Iraq, Maliki become a Shia dominated ruling authority. He killed his Sunni Vice President, Tarqi-al Hashimi, which showed that Maliki was using his power for his own interest. A Sunni group, Islamic State in Iraq and Syria joined by former Ba-athists and other Sunni insurgents captured Fallujah, Ramadi and Mosul, hence ISIS was moving in Iraq (Krik et al. 2014). Unfortunately, Maliki was no match for ISIS since Syrian War encouraged violence and ISIS has taken part of Iraq.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein decided to declare massive aggression on the countries bordering Iraq. The most affected country was Kuwait. Due to the nature of their ties with the United States, Iraq had a well organized and equipped army that was capable of causing massive instability in Kuwait. The United States could not let this happen because of the importance of Kuwait to the US. Kuwait and the US were heavily involved in the oil business with Kuwait being one of the biggest oil suppliers in the world to the US. The aggression by Saddam Hussein to Kuwait was also a major threat to other Arab nations in the region that had formed trade ties with the US. The involvement of the US in this aggression became the first major predicament that President Bush faced regarding foreign policies and relations. The US could not allow Saddam to take over the Arab nations as that would pose a major threat to the supply of oil to the US. In addition, Iraq would have control over 20% of the world’s major oil supplies in the world. As a result President Bush responded to the Iraq despot’s power play with Kuwait to mobilize a global coalition with Arab nations in “Operation Desert Storm” that repelled Saddam Hussein’s aggression in 1991 (Crab and Mulcahy 255).
It’s pretty much impossible to know America’s decision about Saddam Hussein, if you don’t understand American policy in the Middle East-- from supporting him in power after the Islamist revolution in Iran, leaving him in power after the Gulf War, to removing him from power after the September 11 attacks, and, most crucially, replacing him in power with an experiment in Arab democracy. Militant Islam has been at war with the U.S. for twenty five years, it wasn’t until after Al Qaeda hit America’s heart, that the U.S. decided to wake up and take action. Therefore one of the main reasons for the war on Iraq was to strike terrorism and all involved at the roots. Bush’s initial strategy of invading and a change of regime essentially became a complete removal of regime. According to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen was comparatively easy taking into account that now they have to install a democratic and pluralistic form of Government after the people ...
Sixty-three percent of Iraq’s population is Shia Muslim, thirty-three percent is Sunni Muslim (Lunde, 2002). For the past five centuries the minority, Sunni Muslims, have held political power in Iraq. It was not until recently that the majority, the Shia Muslims, was able to experience political power. The tensions between Sunni and Shia in Iraq are not due to religious differences formed after Muhammad’s death 1,382 years ago and are not inevitable, as proven by the relationships between Sunni and Shia in other countries and in the past (Shuster, 2011). The state of unrest surrounding the Sunni and Shia Muslims of Iraq is due to politics, power, and privilege, caused by the change of attitude in Islamic leaders in government and the discrimination of the Shia by the Sunni minority. This has been partly due to the fact that early in their history Shias were not the majority and therefore lost political power. This unbalance and the differences between the two sects are most unstable and evident during times of political unrest (Hunter, n.d).
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.
The Gulf War was much more than a fight to liberate Kuwait. It was the first non-conventional war; in which new, fairly new, or even experimental weapons were used. The Gulf War displayed much new technology that you will learn lots about in this paper. This paper may sound very technical, but that is what it is about, the new weapon technology vs. the conventional types of weapons used in previous wars. This paper is about the advancement of weapon technology, and how the military changed the tactics used before.
The War in Iraq has sparked an abundance of criticism since its start in March of 2003. Now, four year later, the criticism has only intensified. The fact of the matter is that upon invasion of Iraq four years ago, the reasons were justifiable based on the evidence at hand. Our American troops, some 3,386 of our armed service members have given their lives for a cause that they felt was just, according to an Associated Press count that was conducted on Friday, May 11, 2007 (Associated Press, 2007). The devastating number is a cruel reminder as to how dangerous a war can be in general, but even more so when guerrilla warfare is present. In general, the majority of surveys conducted nationwide, showed that the public feel that the war has gone on a much greater period of time than anticipated, and now want the American troops to come home. The question at hand is how to withdraw the troops, safely, without leaving the country of Iraq with devastating effects. Officials may speculate amongst themselves and debate the matter in full intensity, but no answer has ever been reached.
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.
Through his hard work, clear vision of the operational environment, and constant reevaluation of the election process, the elections were held on May 5th, 2003. This resulted in 24 council members and a governor being voted into office. While General Petraeus coincides this is just an interim fix to a bigger problem, it is a step in the right direction for Mosul. There is criticism that the reason this didn’t work elsewhere in Iraq is that the Iraqi government did not support the process. Additionally, General Petraeus enacted policy without the approval of the President, and this would make things difficult (Knowlton, Jr. 2008). Without the approval of the President, he could not garner support from the US to take this to a larger level within
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.
Iraq’s history is one of both prosperity and violence, and dates back to the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia. While dominated by a variety of civilizations, the region enjoyed a relatively stable society. Since the birth of Islam, the religion has been the dominant cultural belief of the region, and has made its way into the laws and ruling of the region. (InDepth Info, 2010)
Saddam Hussein was a suppressive leader who struck fear into the world’s people. His destructive ways radiated as he attempted to eliminate the Kurdish population, nationalize Iraqi oil, and keep his regime in power. Yet, his strict rule helped start and maintain peace between the people of his country despite the many different religions living in the area. He protected his country against a theocratic form of government and for a period of time, Hussein was an ally of the United States. He led a westernized nation in a fundamentalist region of the world. His regime was able to halt al-Qaeda expansion into Iraq, provide civil rights for women, and prevent religious killings over mixed marriages. Although Hussein was a brutal dictator, he was able to unite his country and create a westernized nation during his regime despite the country's Islamic location.
...most distressed by outcome of a war, could exercise only inadequate control on the issue of armed action against Iraq. Most of the regional actors discarded the U.S. policy towards Iraq with varying intensity as they feared insecurity after Iraq’s disintegration (Reuters, 2003) whereas; Jordan decided not to endanger its rewarding ties with Washington. Another key actor at this level is the Baathi party in Iraq which was based on tribal division, domestic oppression and economic enticement. Under Baathi regime military, bureaucracy and security services was divided into several competing institutions which reinforced Hussein’s dictatorship in Iraq. In the post war Iraq, the USA in collaboration with the Iraq National Congress and the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution started to make Iraq a democracy that is similar to the American political culture and values.
Iraq’s destabilization became prominent after American intervention removed Saddam Hussein from power. Since Hussein’s termination, the region of Iraq has been unable to piece together a government strong enough to maintain control over civilian behavior, social infrastructure, or the co-related increase in the influence of sectarian militias and terrorist groups in the region. Regardless of what was gained or lost by removing Hussein from power, the greater problems with the U.S.’s intervention arose from the proceedings of our continued occupation. Through removing many of the government functions that had existed under Hussein in a massive purge of individuals who had once associated themselves with Hussein’s Ba’athist party (a process
The United States went to war with Iraq with a goal to eliminate terrorism. The United States declared war on Iraq after the terrorist events of 9/11. On September 11, 2001 the Al- Qaeda extremist group led by Osama bin Laden led a series of events that caused over thousands of innocent citizens to die. On this day United States vowed to fight terrorism, citizens were furious and seeked justice for the acts.
Iraq was finally given independence in 1932, but under the rule of a foreign power, the Hashemites, a Saudi-Arabian ruling family. The Iraqi people were not fond of the Hashemite rule, and several uprisings, revolts, and revolutions finally succeeded in the overthrow of of the Hashemite Dynasty in 1958. Various political parties fought for control of Iraq. After ten years of the political parties fighting, a Arab Nationalist (and Socialist) party came to power. This party, known as the Ba'ath Party remained in power by eliminating any possible opposition. One of the most well known Ba'ath leader, Saddam Hussein became the President of Iraq from 1979 until 2003. During a territorial dispute, Iraq invaded Iran and caused an eight year long war that caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and ended with no satisfying result to either side. The United States backed Sadd...