War_on_Iraq

June 18, 2009 Professor Iraq War and American foreign policy On September 11, 2001 the United States of America was a victim of the worst terrorist attacks in its history. This attack was caused by a group of terrorist who flew planes and caused them to crash into the World Trade Center in New York City, another plane was crashed in Pennsylvania and a third attack was made at the Pentagon in Washington DC. No one really imagined the magnitude that these events would have on our lives today and the magnitude that they have had since this incident occurred. The attacks affected our economy, considering the almost $3 trillion dollars or more that will be spend on the war when all is said and done, as reported by the Washington Post in an article published March 2008. They also affected our international relations, domestic policies and the large scale of the already existing Anti-American sentiment and what would come from this. What at first seemed to be an overwhelming support to Americans from the rest of the world, because of the compassion due to all the lives that where lost in these incidents of September 11, even maybe the possibility that America the great country as seen to the rest of the world, was not as indestructible as it was seemed before these attacks. All these conceptions faded and it turned against us really fast as did many of our allies. A decision that the Bush administration made to go to war with Iraq was the main reason for all this change. The Bush administration attempted to link Saddam Hussein with Al-Qaeda’s leader Osama Bin-Laden, and the accusations that there were possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq turned all the support from the rest of the world into the largest disapproval of the American policies that we hadn’t seen since the Vietnam and Korean War. Not to mention acting against the United Nations, who specifically had requested that an inspection be done in Iraq to search for said weapons of mass destruction before any military action be taken against Saddam Hussein and his regime. It’s easy to blame and many do blame the Bush administration solely for all that happened before, during, and is still happening and will continue to happen after the United States declared war in Iraq. This war has cost us many lives, resources and taxpayers money but this is not all it was an insult to the American people and to the entire world. I believe that the responsibility of us going to war with Iraq was a joint effort that yes, the Bush administration played a very large role in the decision, but that there were other hands and many interest involved in this decision and the process that took place. The deviation of the war on terrorism, to the War on Iraq was one of the frauds that the administration made and that I do believe the Bush administration was responsible for that, but the public did consent us going to war with Iraq when it was happening, we did rally around the flag as this effect is known and allow the country to go to war and supported the president’s decision, maybe because we were hurt from all the American blood that was shed during the September 11 attacks and wanted someone to pay, not realizing the amount of blood that will be shed because of this war. Keeping in mind that the real responsible party for the attacks is still missing, we went to war with the wrong people. Congress is responsible for allowing the president become more powerful since the Truman administration many presidents have acted and made decisions without congressional approval. The economist proclaimed shortly after September 11 that “the United States is witnessing the most dramatic expansion in presidential power for a generation. (Wittkopf, McCormick pg. 144). Congress had the power to stop us from going to war as given by the constitution, but decided to allow this to happen and let the country go to war. Was this just a trend or even worst is this becoming the norm' President Truman encouraged this process early in the Cold War by first promising to obtain congressional approval for any use of U.S. Troops as part of a UN operation but then ignoring Congress when he sent American troops to Korea in June 1950. President George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton continued that tradition in the immediate post Cold-War years. “Instead of seeking authority from Congress (to prosecute war against Saddam Hussein) Bush created a multinational alliance and encouraged the United Nations Security Council to authorize the use of military force.” (Wittkopf, McCormick pg. 145). Yet, many of the members of congress voted to go to war with Iraq, which did not really pose a threat to the United Stated as we were lead to believe. The intelligence community is also responsible for allowing that the information that was provided by them to the Bush administration be split for the purpose that only the information in support of a specific policy be selected like it was in this issue, which makes me think that this decision was already made and the evidence was only used to justify what the government already had in mind. Even though that specific piece of information was not showing the outcome that was at all truthful like the case of the connection with Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin-Laden. Or the never found weapons of mass destruction. Last, but not least the public was also responsible for going to war with Iraq because we were ignorant, yes you and me the average American we are also responsible for supporting the war. The public has supported the war on Iraq more than Korea and Vietnam and like these two other wars as the number of casualties raised the approval for the war decline. The only thing remarkable about the current was in Iraq is how precipitously American public support has dropped off. Casualty for casualty, support has declined far more quickly than it did during either the Korean War or the Vietnam War. (Wittkopf and McCormick, pg. 115). I do believe that the public was taken for a fool, no question about that but only the public is to blame for that, and of course the media played a very large role in this, most people get the news from the media like CNN and they believe whatever is said in television without any further research. We were vulnerable after the attacks happened, and this helped and made it easier for the media and the government to confuse us to believe that Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein was connected to Al-Qaeda, but aren’t we supposed to be smarter than that' We have to be able to do our own research and not just point fingers at the first person that comes out on television, but instead we rallied around the flag and went on to support what we thought was correct. It is believed that President Bush and Vice President Cheney used words that would trigger the soar feelings that were in the hearts of the American public, I give no credit to that, because like I said before we are supposed to be smarter than that. They are politicians and that’s what politicians do, they will use whatever resource they have available to get the outcome they want. Another issue here is the fact that it seems as though this war was already a preexisting conflict, which I highly believe. It was a preexisting conflict because why else would we have the administration cherry picked the information provided to them by the intelligence agency. It seems that it was an inheritance that the government of former president George H.W. Bush left to his son also former president George W. Bush, because we were already in conflict with Saddam Hussein since the Gulf War during the 1st Bush, when Iraqi forces invaded Kuwait, the US troops made up two-thirds of the complete army in the field, this tells us how involved and willing we were to take military action against Iraq than. The ability of the United States to mount the Desert Storm operation was a direct result of a military posture that had evolved over the previous 40 years, having its origins in the early 1940’s but being boosted by the Cold War confrontation, primarily to control the regions oil reserve. (Ritchie and Rogers, pg. 7-8). That makes us believe that the connection between Al-Qaeda, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein was no more that the interest for the countries oil which comes from two administration. I am saying that our only interest in Iraq was the oil, but it’s a very big part of why we have been paying so much attention to Iraq for a very long time. There are many other dictatorships in the world and we don’t go and promote democracy in these other countries with less resources. What does that make us think' Could it be that oil makes the world go round. In the State of the Union Address, president Bush was very clear in pointing out that Iraq was a pre-empting threat to the U.S. This was not very popular and many believe to be unlikely that we will take any military action, however this was already in the president’s agenda and the question was how exactly was the connection to be made between the attacks, the Taliban regime, Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government lead by Saddam Hussein. But that would be left to the intelligence agency, the Secretary of defense and the Bush administration to take care of the connection. Was this just a trend as mentioned by Ritchie and Rogers, was it simply inevitable after September 11, that we would go to war with Iraq. I do believe that we were already predispose to go to war with Iraq. The books mentions some examples of why this war was believed to be predispose: First, towards the end of the Clinton administration, over the period 1998-2000, Congressional leaders, future members of the Bush administration, and the Clinton’s administration conservative critics all insisted that the existing policy of containment of Iraq was failing, and that regime changes was the only realistic solution to the Saddam Hussein regime and it’s ambition to develop and deploy weapons of mass destruction. Second, following the presidential elections of November 2000, but before the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration had already begun to review Iraq policy as a priority. Given the calls from senior of the administration and supporters in Congress and think-tank for regime change, the administration was likely to adopt a far more aggressive and confrontational policy towards Iraq. This would include at the very least, full implementation of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, and even extend to more forceful action. Third, shortly after September 11 attacks, regime change in Iraq became a strategic priority to the administration, following the destruction of Al-Qaeda infrastructure in Afghanistan and the elimination of its Taliban host. Moreover, this lead on to the construction of a post 9/11 security paradigm that placed Iraq at the center of the global war on terror. This rapidly evolved into the prominent view in key parts of the administration that Iraq had extensive weapons of mass destruction programs and concrete relationship with Al-Qaeda. Experience had shown that it could not otherwise be contained and pre-emptive attack aimed at regime termination was now the necessary polic Finally, the administration’s determination to confront Saddam Hussein regime was enhanced by strong support in Congress and by the near certainty that the regime would not offer responses sufficient to avert war. The subject was already there we were just ready to make it happen. We needed to control Iraq and finish the Saddam Hussein regime, what better than to connect him with America’s number one enemy, the most hated man, in order to get the approval we needed. Now we decided to go to war, and we win within two months but that’s when the real war begins. We threw some missiles, bomb a few buildings and got rid of the Iraqi leaders and the job is done the war is over or at least that’s what the government though, but the calculations were wrong and that was not the case it actually seems that this is when the real war begins. We have lost more lives in the aftermath of the war in Iraq then we did during the September 11 attacks, so we ask ourselves was all this really worth it. We are unprepared and have no idea of the dangers that would come from this war. Our troops do not have the intelligence and preparation to succeed in this land, we don’t know the territory the language and our soldiers are not left in place long enough to become familiar with any of their surroundings and when they do they are sent back home. The average soldier is deployed to Iraq for a period of 18 months approximately, once the soldier becomes familiar with what’s going on they are sent back to the U.S. and they bring new soldiers who will start from scratch. Even worst we have no support in the world, we decided to go in and invade the country using what we know how to use best our hard power, our military force and this cost us many of our allies. Now Iraq, which is a country we said we would bring democracy to, has a civil war and the two major groups the Sunni and Shi’a factions are destroying each other and the American soldiers. Terrorist groups that were kept away before because of the Saddam Hussein regime have now invaded the country. One country cannot impose its views on another. America cannot impose democracy on a country like Iraq who is not ready to be democratic. Democracy is a state of mind and the country has to be ready to accept this. In conclusion, we went into a war under false pretences, who to blame is not the problem here, the problem we face now is how do we get out of this mess without more sons, daughters, husbands, wives, brothers and sisters getting killed in this war without a real reason. The Bush administration was responsible for part of the problem there is no doubt about that, even though they are not the only ones to blame, but luckily there two terms are over and we need to move forward. We now have ahead of us is the decision of what we need to do now, what comes next, leaving all the blames behind and come up with real solutions. How can we bring the respect of the world back to America, diminish the Anti-America sentiment that has been haunting us for years, and stop fighting wars that do not belong to us. We need to learn how to use our resources, start using our soft powers which will help us get far specially at this day and age. We need to come up with strategies to get our allies back. Solve the problems that we are facing at home and go back to the basics of check and balances, leaving each branch in government do what they are supposed to be doing and following our constitution as it was intended. This way the president only has the powers it should have, and respects the other branches of government and vise versa. This story doesn’t have an ending we will see what happens and hope for the best. References: 1) Ritchie, Nick and Paul Rogers. The Political Road to War with Iraq Bush, 9/11 and the Drive to Overthrow Saddam. Contemporary security studies. London: Routledge, 2007. 2) Wittkoprf, Eugene and James M. McCormick. The Domestic Sources of American Foreign Policy. Insights and Evidence. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 5th Edition. 3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html