The Iraq War, also known as the Second Persian Gulf War, spanned from 2003 to 2011 and is one of the longest, largest, and most costly uses of the United States armed forces since the Vietnam War (Lieberfeld, 2005). A shallow perception of the war would discern that its origins are rather conventional, however, upon thorough analysis aspects of the invasion decision are relatively unprecedented. In particular, the extensive military involvement in an Arab or Muslim country (Lieberfeld, 2005). Despite this, the pre-emptive threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in conjunction with the wake of destruction left by the 2001 terrorist attacks remain fundamental to the justification of the war. Albeit, there appears to be a specifically profound incongruity between the rationalizations purported by the Bush administration – which later was exposed as deceptive and hollow – and the actual motives and causes (Hinnebusch, 2007).
Considering this, it is not conducive to supporting solely the traditional theoretical paradigms of realism and liberalism – which focus on “why particular decisions resulting in specific courses of actions are made” (Aydin, 2016). Constructivism, however, offers an alternative framework centering around “how threat perceptions…are socially constructed” (Aydin, 2016). It is not a theory per se, but an approach to social inquiry that assesses international decisions from a normative rather than rationalist perspective.
Constructivism suggests that material forces (i.e. weapons, oils, resources, etc) must be understood through the social concepts that define their meaning for human life (Hurd 2008, 301). In the context of the Iraq war, an explanation grounded in constructivism would contend that analysis exclusively at the systematic level is invalid. Thus, upon true construction, the threat of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ being held by the Iraqi government is not justificatory for the invasion. Instead, ‘non-material’ factors and socially constructed interests can be explored when interpreting what constitutes an enemy and, moreover, the reasoning behind the Iraq War.
The general premise behind constructivism is able to be comprehended by critically analyzing an unassuming observation made by Alexander Wendt – a pioneer of the constructivist approach. Wendt denotes that “500 British nuclear weapons are less threatening to the United States than 5 North Korean nuclear weapons” (Wendt 1995, 73). Within this astute observation lies nuances of constructivism’s distinguishing features, including its founding insights: the social construction of interests, criticism of materialism, the relationship between agents and structures, and its multi-dimensional rationale of anarchy (Hurd 2008, 298). Considering this, it can be recognized that North Korea is simply a placeholder; it is one name placed on the United States overarching criteria of an ‘enemy’. Subsequently, the constructs of Wendt’s observation demand an understanding of the archetypal hierarchy between the concept of friend and enemy. In this case, the ‘enemy’ is Iraq.
In order to gain insight into the causal relationship between the invasion of Iraq and the social construction of interest, a crucial question must be asked: how does a state conclude others as enemies? Constructivism, then, is a particularly applicable theoretical approach as it emphasizes the social and relational construction of what states are and, importantly, what they want (Hurd 2008, 299). A constructivist application negates the neorealist commitment to materialism where socially mediated beliefs are not autonomous forces. This approach is preferred as a purely materialistic perspective offers an insufficient explanation of what constitutes an enemy.
Constructivism suggests that material forces (i.e. weapons, oils, resources, etc) must be understood through the social concepts that define their meaning for human life (Hurd 2008, 301). In the context of the Iraq war, an explanation grounded in constructivism would contend that analysis exclusively at the systematic level is invalid. Thus, upon true construction, the threat of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ being held by the Iraqi government is not justificatory for the invasion. Instead, ‘non-material’ factors and socially constructed interests can be explored when interpreting what constitutes an enemy and, moreover, the reasoning behind the Iraq War.
The construction of state interests is “shaped by pre-existing dominant ideas and their relationship to experienced events” (Legro 2005, 4). Furthermore, actors acquire “identities” – role-specific understandings and expectations about self – “by participating in…collective meanings” (Wendt 1992, 397). State interests are consequential to these identities. As such, interests culminate in the ways in which an actor is influenced by their interactions with others and with their social environment (Hurd 2008, 303). This includes the drive for social recognition and prestige, the effects of social norms on interests and on behaviors, and, importantly, the desire to create norms that legitimize one’s behavior (Wendt 1999, ch.5; Hurd 2007).
Considering that the Iraq War began in 2003, it is evident that the tragic events of the 2001 terrorist attacks were still at the forefront of the strategic mindset. As such, a constructivist account would elucidate the notion that the U.S. went to war in Iraq because the dominant strategic cultural norm – seeking geopolitical stability through multilateral deterrence – was rendered obsolete by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 (Lauterbach 2011, 1). Thus, democratic change in Iraq is viewed by the presiding administration as commanding an international norm of hegemonic control utilizing unilateral preventative war. Consequently, the concept of proving the viability of this normative shift catalyzed the Iraq War. This is further elucidated by a larger-scale strategic vision promoting hegemonic democracy through force (Lauterbach 2011, 1). Though this endeavor appears to have failed, the administrative tactics were reliant on the enemy archetype in justifying the Iraq invasion, subsequently explicating a link between constructivist ideals and the U.S. decision.
Although constructivism provides vital insight, there are, as with any theoretical paradigm, limitations. The continuous evolution of norms through socio-political development creates a unique, but nevertheless unstable platform of reasoning. Thus, there is the potential for over-complication of events in place of a simplified version – provided generally by the classical realist approach. The constructivist approach does not imply a specific unit of analysis (Hurd 2008, 306). Thus, the process of social construction cannot be examined solely on forces or actors within any of the “levels of analysis conventionally used in international relations theory (Waltz 1959). Despite this disallowing the debate over which level is most pragmatic for a given conundrum, the emphasis on specific actors allows realism a more straightforward approach (Hurd 2008, 306).
The realist approach provides a de facto explanation that, regardless of its rigidity, sets the stage for other paradigms to build. This is highlighted throughout constructivism, particularly in the approach to an anarchical system whereby “anarchy is what the states make of it” and anarchy of “…friends differs from one of the enemies” (Wendt 1995, 78). It should be noted, however, that although realist and constructivist theories differ, there are specific aspects that complement each other and allow the evolution of socio-political academia. Therefore, when taken in congruence, the theories provide a deeper insight into explaining the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The ability to move beyond rationalist perspectives is explicated through a constructivist approach to the Iraq War. Thus, the main triggers are able to be explored objectively and thoroughly, analyzing the identity of the states and how they influence strategic cultural norms. Subsequently, the origins of the Iraq War were analyzed in a complex manner, allowing insight into the U.S. threat response system, both retrospectively and prospectively.
The 1980–1988 Iran – Iraq War affected huge costs as each side sustained hundreds of casualties. Furthermore, there was an atmosphere of eco-destruction devastation surrounded by war. The weapons that continued the eight-year war continue both countries even today. One of the deepest chapters of the war was Iraq’s use of chemical weapons by both sides. The Chemical Weapons (CW) created a variety of dangerous examples that continue to resonate. The use of the CW by Iraq and Iran allegedly demonstrated that Third World Weapons Massacre (WMD) broadcasters could potentially engage critical strategic military and tactical politics in conflicts using such equipment. Initially reluctant by the international community to condemn and punish Iraq for its chemical attacks. From Iraqi counter-spies, the use of the CW prompted most Saddam Hussein and key Iraqi military officials to continue Iraq’s WMD programs and pursue aggressive security policies – a development that would have been part of the Gulf War and continuation of the 1990–91 during the course; it developed in its own right is of deep international concern. While the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) was being negotiated during the mid-1980s, the 1925Geneva Protocol stood as an international document governing the use of CW in war.
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AGAINST CHEMICAL WEAPONS
The First World War included the most widespread use of the CW in the twentieth century. After the war, momentum-based in the international community created a legitimacy to address the troubling issue of biological weapons (BW), to the extent of the CW and the Toa. Sensitizing an opportunity to deal with the problem after the war, in 1922, major powers led by the United States called Europe to discuss the issue. By 1925, a protocol was implemented in Geneva that prohibited the use of chemical and ‘bacteriological’ weapons in war.
The protocol was open for signature in June 1925 and entered into force in February 1928. In the United States, ratification of the protocol by the Senate was strong for nearly 20 years, in April 1975 the United States ratified the protocol. Iran ratified the protocol in July 1929. , While Iraq by September 1931.Ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1925, standing as the controlling authority over the CW before the Iran-Iraq War. The 1975 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) was truly influential in restricting the use, research, activities, production, and stockpiling of biological weapons pre-widely and its language did not address the principle of chemicals outside of toxins, which are inorganic compounds. Discussions did not reach a critical point in the Iran – Iraq war when a warrant regarding the use of Kemi-Colors on the issue of Iraq’s use of CW was received internationally enough to be of concern.In March 1984, less than a month after the first UUS. Condemning the CW’s use of Iraq, President Ronald Reagan called on Vice President George Bushto to repeal the treaty in the United Nations Convention (CW) to form a formal treaty against the treaty to shape a treaty CW10. However, the CWC was only open (January 1993) after the end of the Iran-Iraq War. The CWC entered April 1997, almost 10 years after the Iran-Iraq War ended.
Developments from 1982 to 1984
From 1982 to 1984, the situation on the battlefield was useless, if not desperate. During this period, the conflict came to a war situation. However, Iraq proved mastery in building defensive strongpoints, while flooding in low-lying areas affected mechanized units to upgrade areas, with both sides using too little of the armor to effectively use Abil-It. Shown. Instead of maneuvers, both sides dug tanks and used artillery pieces more of them. Within four weeks between February and March 1984, Iraqis reportedly killed Iranians while losing 9,000 of their troops. On the political front, Tehran had strengthened its position by the Islamic government, and Ayatol-Lah appeared inflexible under Khomeini’s leadership. With a demonstration again to end the war soon. Iranianisation issued its demands for a cease-fire: complete Iraqi withdrawal from all Iranian territories, full war indemnity, and expelled 100,000 previ-ely Iraq withdrawal Shiites. Surprisingly, Baghdad has been viewed as unacceptable. This time, Iraq’s chemical capabilities did not give Iraq a strategic and tactical advantage, which its miley-tarry planners might have initially thought. Its stock of agents was limited, agents varied, delivery systems were inefficient, and Milli-Tarry had misconceptions of operation.
In 1983 employment, the Iraqis used moose-traded gas against an Iranian force that occupied a hilltop position. Unrecognized with gas characteristics — It failed At – Keil. Mustard gas is heavier than air and seeks the lowest elevation. The Iraqis resented that when they attempted to counter-attack the mountain, they met and were shocked at their weapons. When Iraq used chemical agents, adverse air, and weather conditions, it expressed its inability to deliver the agent to the target. , Hindering the effectiveness of at-tax. By November 1983, Iraq was a massive mustard agent against Iranian troops in northeast Iraq, causing hundreds of chemical casualties.
As 1984 progressed, Iraqis became more adept at acknowledging their chemical capabilities: one of the most dramatic examples was Khyber I in February 1984, in which this Iranian cut the Basra-Baghdad road through the Havijah swamp Tried. In a notable example of a battle-field contradiction, the Iraqis isolated the internal elements of the attacking force, nearly cutting it off remodel land. When the Iraqis retaliated, they confronted the Iranians, who had no ammunition, which had not eaten for several days.
Developments from 1984 to 1986
The battle between Iran and Iraq continued from 1984 to 1986 through almost the same fashion as in the previous two years: one side would launch a large offensive; the latter would tilt downward, while the other side would gather its army and will initiate retaliation. The CW continued to play an integral part in the Iraqi strategy between 1984 and 1986, and during this time Iraq expanded and refined its methods for the use of the CW. According to Intelli-Gaines reports, the preferred method of delivery for CW attacks included 250- or 500-kilogram bombs. An Iraqi MiG-23 pilot stated that during the suttakat, the bombs were released from a haphazard pattern to a haphazard pattern between three and four thousand meters. Because of the war, Pro Iridade, Iraqi pilots began flying on low-altitude inverters to ensure greater accuracy concerning the chemical. CAL agent drives bombing; they were hesitant to do this in the early stages of the war. When using helicopter to deliver chemical agents, Iraq would employ the use of two or three helicopters in attacking bunches. These helicopters dashed bombs configured into 220-liter connectors, which kept in contact with the ground. These factors led to the expanded use of Iraq. Iraq used the CW to indicate readiness to defend its territory in every region, as well as to carry out significant attacks on Iran.
Developments from 1987 to 1988
In the period from 1986 use of CW was residual, Iraq intensified the pace and scope of its chemical attacks. The lawsuit against Iraq of violations of the Geneva Protocol did not revolve around differences of interpretation or compliance. By this time, it was well established that Iraq had indeed violated the protocol and violated evidence confirming that it was inconsistent, if not widely known. The problem for internationalism now focuses on making decisions about punishing Iraq. During the last two years of conflict, Iran avoided its use, to ease the concerns neither of some countries, and neither used Iraq nor, according to some reports. But this time, Iranian forces were better protected and helpless to operate in a chemical environment, and then reports that the Iranian military also countered chemical attacks captured from Iraqi Chemical stores or indigenously produced agent stockpiles
On 18 July 1988, Iran accepted the terms of Resolution 598 and accepted the UN-sponsored ceasefire. Iraqi officials indicated accepting the terms of Iran’s proposal, it would continue uninterrupted as Iran would not agree to en-guise indirect negotiations regarding a ceasefire agreement with Iraq. On 14 July, the then Vice President Bush and Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati addressed the Security Council. Velayati raids in the US against the American uprising in the Gulf, shooting Iranian civilian Airbus in the U.S. Vincennes, and the Security Council’s refusal to deal impartially with ‘acts of aggression already committed’, Bush responded that the key issue before the Council was Iran’s refusal to comply with the terms of Resolution 598. A special appeal in the use of the CW prohibits forums.
On August 8, 1988, Secretary-General Perez de Cuellar announced that the ceasefire agreement would go into effect on August 20, yet the CW had the Security Council to deal with the issue. On 26 August, it passed another 620 resolution, expressing intense concern over the continued use of the CW by Iraq and allegedly by Iran. The resolution stipulated that ‘determined in its efforts to end all chemical weapons use,’ ‘undoubtedly’ condemned the use of the CWW between Iran and Iraq, and further accelerated investigations by al-legends Privacy for-Tarry-General encouraged. Any UN Member State concerning the possible use of chemical or biological weapons. There is also the language that the council will, when appropriate, consider ‘appropriate and effective’ measures of future use of the CW by any nation.
Role of the UN Security Council in Iran-Iraq war
A major reason for Iran’s long-running war with Iraq was the unilateralism taken by the UN Security Council and most countries of that war. This unconventional and supportive approach continued in various ways and was quite evident in the politically motivated positions taken by those countries in international bodies such as the United Nations and the Security Council. In its decisions and adopted resolutions, the Security Council has never dealt with war in a balanced manner and has never held them on internationally recognized borders after Iraqi forces occupied thousands of square kilometers of land in Iran. The council never used Iraq as the beginning of war and invaders.
On September 28, 1980, six days after the start of Iraq’s war against Iran, the Security Council adopted its first relevant resolution (479). It described and requested the invasion of Iran by Iraq as a ‘situation’ between only two neighboring countries. Both sides to avoid the use of force. Thus, the Security Council remained largely indifferent to Iran’s aggressive aggression. Furthermore, the Security Council did not call for a cease-fire and did not request Iraq to withdraw its forces from Iran’s land to the international front. On the other hand, the invasion by Iraq was not recognized as a breach of peace and an act of invasion and was not condemned.
The Council could at least consider Iran’s invasion of Iraq as a threat to peace or breach of the peace or as an act of aggression on the strength of Article 39-50 of the Charter of the United Nations Chapter VII. The double standards enforced by the Security Council in the face of an act of aggression indicated the Council’s political orientation and partiality in dealing with important matters of world politics to guarantee the interests of the powerful members of the Council and any more than the thing was intended. The dependence of the Security Council on Article 24 in the First Persian Gulf War was clear evidence of the weakness of the Security Council and its solution. Article 24 only explained the duties and powers of the Council, although there was no dispute over the ability or inability of the Council to look into the ongoing armed conflict between the two countries. However, the Council decided to defend its competence only on the strength of Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations.
During the eight years of Iran’s war with Iraq, only 10 resolutions were adopted by the Security Council. All except Resolution 598 described the war between Iran and Iraq as a ‘situation’, not about the Iran-Iraq war, which would be very important from the standpoint of international law and the UN Charter. Of course, Iran’s diplomacy was not powerful enough during the entire war and Iranian officials, who were distrustful of international organizations, did not care much for legal and diplomatic solutions. Therefore, they moved to a policy of isolation and negligence for international bodies which was a very weak and wrong policy and greatly reduced the position of our country internationally.
Resolution 514 refers only to the need for the withdrawal of forces on internationally recognized borders when most Iraqi troops were driven out of occupied lands and Iranian forces had already reached international borders in the southern parts of the country. Iran’s military power was the main factor that led to the meeting of the Security Council which culminated in the adoption of that resolution.
Resolution 598 was the most important resolution adopted by the Security Council in the entire Iraq war with Iran. It was approved on July 21, 1987, in which, for the first time, the Security Council exercised conflict and hostility and regretted the breakout and the continuation of the war between the two countries. It was in that resolution that for the first time, the war between Iraq and Iran was described as a breach of peace and, therefore, liable to the contents of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, specifically its Articles 39 and 40. However, the Security Council, as the most powerful international organ and responsible for the protection of international peace and security, did not declare which country breached the peace and did not introduce the violator. This was one of the main weaknesses of that resolution. The council also avoided indicating whether a breach of the peace had begun since the beginning of the war or around the time when Resolution 598 was adopted. Resolution 598 remained silent on how the war began and invaded, thus trying to infer that if Iraq was responsible for the start of the war, Iran was certainly responsible for its continuation. Meanwhile, Iran had resorted to its unqualified right to legitimate defense in line with Article 51 of the UN Charter and was the party to start and continue the Iraq war. According to Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations, in the case of an act of aggression, the Security Council should first make sure of aggression and then take steps according to Articles 41 and 42 of the Charter. Naturally, not recognizing Iraq as an offensive by the Security Council and not condemning the country was a violation of Article 39 of the Charter.
Recognizing Responsibility of Iraq in War with Iran
On 9 December 1991, three weeks before the end of his term, Javier Perez de Cuellar, former Secretary-General of the United Nations, presented one of the most important reports prepared in the UN Security Council. His ability to produce that report was based on paragraph 6 of Resolution 598, adopted by the Security Council on July 20, 1987. Paragraph 5 of their report explicitly declared that the years-long war between Iran and Iraq had begun through violations of international law. He said that the violation of international law involved responsibility for the start of the conflict, which was the main subject of Article 6 of Resolution 598. De Cuellar stated that the principle of international law that prohibited the use and disrespect of force for the territorial integrity of a member. The state, which is subject to Article 6, has been violated. During that war, he noted, there were several cases of violations of various principles of international humanitarian law.
Para 6 of his report noted that Iraq’s response to his letter dated August 14, 1991, did not contain any necessary information and, therefore, relied on previous interpretations provided by the Iraqi government. He said those explanations lacked convincing the international community. De Cuellar referred to the attack against Iran on 22 September 1980 as the most prominent incident, which showed a violation of international law specified in paragraph 5 of his report. He said that aggression cannot be justified against Iran based on international law or any principle or rule of ethics.
In part 7, the former UN Secretary-General acknowledged that even before the start of the war, Iraq had encroached on Iran’s territory. He said that such an encroachment could not justify Iraq’s aggression of Iraq, which led to the annexation of Iran’s territory with Iraq.
The importance of the Security Council’s recognition of Saddam Hussein as an aggressor in the war with Iran was generated by a message that was embedded in that recognition for the entire world. This message stems from the role of the United Nations in promoting the rule of law. 12 years after Iran’s invasion of Iraq, the Secretary-General announced a fact that the Security Council should have announced immediately after Iran’s invasion of Iraq. Based on Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council is the main body responsible for protecting international peace and security. If the Council had recognized and declared Iraq as an aggressor at the beginning of the war, it would not have lasted eight years, claiming the lives of nearly half a million people and causing billions of dollars in damage. On the other hand, Iraq did not dare to invade its small southern neighbor a few years later and rescue the entire region from a severe international crisis.
The Iraq war has brought much destruction to the world. Properties and cities have been destroyed in every instance that a bullet or bomb is fired. However, probably the biggest casualty of death in society, specifically the American and Iraqi society. War has destroyed the concept of life and living especially among Iraqis. Americans for their part have experienced a change in their outlook on life and death. Much of their ideologies on death are the products of what they hear and see in the news. The new serve as their eyes and ears in the field of war. Thus, such news greatly influences their culture that pervades American society, most especially their view on death.
Medias’ effect on war news
Media is the primary source of information for the American viewing public. It is through news agencies, shows, and channels that the public is made aware of the occurrences in the war. Through the use of cinematographic techniques, an attempt is made to reduce the horror associated with the Iraq war. However, at the same time, media outlets tend to take advantage of the events of the war, whether good or bad, to entice their viewers and keep them watching and monitoring the war. Indeed the war is a major event not just for Iraqis but for Americans as well. Each year, thousands of American soldiers are sent out to the streets and fields of Iraq supposedly to protect the American nation from terrorism and its enemies. Sadly, many of these American heroes end up not coming back home to reap the fruits of their labor. As such, the war on Iraq has greatly changed and brought into light the concept of death. Now Americans are more conscious of death not just of themselves but of their loved ones as well. Somehow, watching the news allows them to be with their loved ones, the American soldiers, as they do battle on the fields of the Middle East. How the Iraq war has been presented by the news is the use of cinematographic techniques to reduce the horror of war to a consumable and entertaining phenomenon. The focus of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or Fox News is on the real and graphic animation of US military technology, the three-dimensional image of the battlefields.
The phenomenon of death
It is a fact that the most prominent and evident aspect of the war is the phenomenon of death. Such phenomenon as depicted in the various information disseminated through different forms of media has the strong potential to arouse the emotions of people. This is because with the war exists a very excruciating fact that with the war comes the horror of demise. Furthermore, the war brings about the painful realization that death is indeed extremely powerful at the same time it is full of the anguish of finite existence and the threat of destruction.
In as much as death is commonly associated with painful emotions, there are certain cases when such reactions can differ. The reactions of people to the thought of death depend on how death is represented through the various forms of media and communication. For instance, when a person is told of the death of another person in a very casual manner, the person might not take it seriously and may take the occurrence for granted. However, when the same person receives a call from someone that is crying over the death of another individual, it can be expected that grief, shock, and utter sadness will dominate the said individual’s emotions.
Furthermore, as explained by Rahimi (2003): “Ritualized action, like rites of commemoration or funeral ceremonies, have traditionally represented death in ways in which emotions are coordinated, sentiments are shaped, and, although not entirely beyond one’s ability of empathy, attitudes towards individual death are sustained in stabilizing manner.”
Emotions and beliefs commonly vary and depend on the cultural context and situation. However, the representations of death are usually dictated by hidden and subtle collective experiences. According to Rahimi (2003), this can be called and considered as the process of social death. Rahimi further explained social death by saying:
“In broad terms, by social death we mean how individuals experience a transformation of the biological process of death, as a process of birth, maturing, aging, and dying. Death appears to be no longer a matter of individual extinction, but a collective renewal, a social regeneration, and a communal creative power. In other words, death, in its collective representation, is no longer a matter of annihilation, but rather regeneration, a form of renewal that ultimately affirms belief in immortality.”
What this means is that the concept of the notion of death is no longer purely biological. People no longer consider death as the final stage in the biological process of life. Instead, death becomes a rallying point of society. It begins to serve as a reminder that things must change. Whatever it is that causes much death must be altered, reformed, or completely discarded.
The death of a large number of people serves as an eye-opener to the reality that certain things must be changed. For instance, in the Philippines, the death of Benigno Aquino in 1983 served as the rallying point for Filipinos to stand up against the Marcos dictatorship and enforce a change back to the democratic way of governance. Another example is the thousands of deaths caused by Hurricane Katrina. The overflowing number of dead people and the multitude of homeless citizens of New Orleans was used as a battle cry to implement change in the manner by which the government handles emergencies and disasters. Lastly, the thousands of deaths caused by the tsunami in 2004 that swept through various parts of Asia was used to call for change in caring for the environment. Simply put, collective death becomes the focal point of calls to change or reform a reality, primarily to avoid death to happen again. This death is social.
Social death. Meaning
In the case of the US-led war in Iraq, the television media has become a vital and extremely valuable tool to inform people about death, particularly social death. The various scenes and events that are shown on television each share in the promulgation of social death in society. Every time the concept of death is shown on television, people react and their concept of death is somehow altered. For instance, the mere sight of soldiers holding weapons that can cause death can bring about emotions that are related to death. Reports regarding the deaths among Iraqis, whether rebels or government soldiers, show the harsh effect of the war in the country, primarily because of the deaths that the war has caused. Every picture and every story that depicts the concept of death including stories about civilian deaths, wounded soldiers, unidentified corpses, suicide bombings, and simple pictures of bleeding people affect how people view death in society. The influence of media on the conception and representation of death in today’s culture is quite vast that any news channel, whether local or international, that reports on the incidents of the Iraq war greatly alter the concept of death turning it from mere biological foundations to social death. (Field and Walter). As Ramahi (2003) explains:
“Whether considering the Al-Jazerah news channel, where images of both civilian and military causalities and fatalities are displayed on the screen, or the near-silent reports about the human costs of the US-led war on Fox cable news, the diverse programs use contrasting ways to put on view the various representations of death by targeting the particular viewers that they aim to entertain.”
The conception of death
Studying the cultural and social opinions and sentiments of people are bound to provide vital and valuable information. However, to truly understand how death is understood and accepted in society, one must consider the various cultural aspects that influence the conception of death. At the forefront of such analysis is a study of how media depicts death about war and how such representation affects the mindset of Americans.
In the various American channels that cover the Iraq war, it is quite evident that particular focus is given on certain attitudes and sentiments with regards to death within the realms of the Iraq war. As earlier mentioned, there is an effort on the part of media entities to lessen the horror associated with the war to a more consumable and entertaining phenomenon through the use of cinematographic techniques. For instance, media news channels such as CNN, MSNBC, ABC, or Fox News, use the real and graphic animation of US military technology, the three-dimensional image of the battlefields as the focal point of their coverage. Also, such channels utilize various military officials to comment on the events unfolding in the war. These images are combined with, “An extensive flow of information about the high-tech use of weaponry, and in particular, its precision discursively frames their effectiveness and power by bracketing out their destructive force and their function to cause the loss of human life.” (Ramahi, 2003) The focus on high-tech weaponry is somehow used to show viewers that there is little damage and loss to human life. More importantly, it tries to make the viewing public understand that the military exerts much effort to avoid any casualties, particularly civilians. What such depiction covers up is the damage that such weapons and the war can cause most especially the loss of human life. “Smart bombs” are often credited as the weapon of choice of the military. Very rare it is shown that such “Smart Bombs” do also err and cannot guarantee completely zero or no casualty. In a way, reporters who join the soldiers on the field as they engage the enemies to invoke sheer emotion and pride in the viewers by making them feel as if they are alongside the people who are willing to lay down their lives for the American people and the nation. Also, such images help lessen the fear and horror that commonly comes with the thought of war. “The television screen itself becomes a medium that unites the audiences with the coalition soldiers attacking the faceless “enemy” in the battlefield without feeling fear for the loss of life caused by fighting.”
Depiction of enemy forces
Another important consideration when analyzing the war in Iraq and its effect on how death is depicted and viewed in the American culture is the depiction of enemy forces as objects of conquests primarily through their death. According to Ramahi (2003), “Social death is about reversing the biological process of death into something transcendental, something permanent. But that relates only to a member of one’s community; in the case of others from an invading or invaded community, matters change.” What this means is that when one considers the sentiments of the invaders with regards to the death of their enemy, death is taken for granted. For instance, when Iraqi forces are killed by their American counterparts, the number of deaths remains to be just that, numbers. Such numbers simply are injected in reports and serve as mere statistical data that highlight achievement and accomplishment reports of American forces. Little is said with regards to the “enemy forces” or the Iraqi forces brought to death. There is no report about how and where they were killed, and certainly no show of their bodies. Iraqi soldiers, for the most part, remain faceless, nameless, placeless, and, therefore, unknown to the audiences. Ramahi (2003) explains such occurrence by saying:
“This can be partly explained due to a strict pattern of self-censorship in the US media against showing dead bodies. Although the practice of self-censorship requires a separate study altogether, for the most part, this deliberate technique in representing the annihilated faceless “enemy” requires the basic assumption about the polluting effect it may have on the audiences.”
What Ramahi means by pollution is that showing dead enemies can somehow endanger the perception of the American people as one living collective body. Since Americans are supposed to be supportive of the war effort in Iraq, showing a dead Iraqi’s body may alter his view on life which is supposedly devoid of degeneration and annihilation, even if that involves an outsider’s death.
Changes in reports of the Iraq war
It must be noted though that, the reports with regards to the events of the Iraq war have somehow changed in recent times. At the beginning of the war, much of the reporting focused on the high-tech weaponry utilized by American forces and the various triumphs it has made in the war. As earlier mentioned such depiction invoked the pride of the Americans and made them feel patriotic and proud to be from America. However, media news reports have slightly altered in terms of what they focus on. Nowadays, as the war drags along, the focus has somehow shifted on the loss of life that America is facing as it continues in the war. Many new reports provide details regarding the rising causalities on the side of Americans and their allies. At the same time, news reports are now more open to showing the number of Iraqi civilians who fall victim to the war. (Grier, 2004) The reasons behind such a shift may be well beyond the coverage of this essay. However, the effect of such a change of media focal point on the cultural view of the death of the Americans is still very much a part of this essay. Discussing such change will allow us to understand how various forms of reporting in media shape the mindset of Americans in terms of the death and its relation to the War in Iraq. Due to the constant onset of news regarding the increasing number of deaths on the American side and the probability that America may be losing, Americans now see the Iraq war in a different light. More importantly, they see death in the Iraq war from a different perspective now. At this point, death in the Iraq War is viewed as a signal that the Iraq war must be put to an end. (Mayes, 2003) Furthermore, the number of deaths of American soldiers serves as a constant reminder to the American people that the war in Iraq is not doing the country any good. The war may be putting the country to shame as Americans are losing more than they are gaining. The loss of American life in the war is utilized as proof that American forces should leave Iraq. Americans are now beginning to believe that the war will bring the country to a losing end by losing more money, and more importantly more lives.
It is important to remember that, in this regard, despite the change in the focal point, the media still shows death as more than an end to biological life. Death through the depiction discussed supersedes mere loss of life. It remains to be social death in that the collective representations still serve as the foundation to a great cause of purpose. The only difference is that the purpose has changed. If in the beginning, death, particularly among the ranks of the enemy brought about pride in the Americans, now that media shows the increasing number of deaths among American soldiers, people now see the war as a catastrophe. People now realize that the death of the American soldiers is not worth it and therefore, an end to the Iraq war must be sought.
Summary
The points stated above can find historical foundation and roots for there seemingly exists a deep tendency in Western societies not to consider biological foundations of life in reality. What this means is that Westerners tend to disregard the fact that life is biologically rooted in that life is brought on by birth or conception and life comes to an end with death. According to Philippe Aries (1974), the French and English people of today’s modern society lack the emotional response commonly associated with death due to the onset of modern science and medicine. However, people still express sympathy for children no matter what country, race, or religious belief they belong to. Even though Americans are used to observe Iraqi and American interactions on screen, the viewing of violently killed children still arouses a desperate desire to end a war. News reports, showing the dead bodies of little children are oriented on a specific auditorium. It thrills and scares. It makes people open their eyes and understand the war is taking place. Grown-up specially taught and mature soldiers are not the only ones to be killed out there. Innocent children are being set to death without blame. It is outlined after a war children’s death rate increased from two to three points.
Also, Americans are to face the dreadful truth of their loved ones going to war. Mass media reveals the fact of money-making from war, deriving benefit from soldiers’ death. No wonder this aspect of death may strike people as just a completely wrong thing to do.
There are cases of US detainee deaths in Iraq which is also shown to an average American viewer. Usually, it arouses fury and indignation as the detainees should have been under medical treatment, but were not provided with one. Since the proper medical care was not provided, the thought of death as an unfair dead-end occurs in Americans’ minds.
As modern medicine and science developed, medical practices took over from religion as a response mechanism to death. People turn to the medical sciences for an outlet of grievance. Since death has moved from within the confines of one’s own home to the hospital, people have learned to control and lessen their emotions concerning death and dying. (Kselman, 1987).
In America, death is no longer felt at home. It no longer has representation in the daily lives of the people whose loved ones die. Death is seemingly an incident in the hospital. It no longer serves as the identifier by which one associates the home with the time of birth their demise in the natural process of life.
In this light, one can see that the Iraq war brings about new emotional attitudes as displayed and featured on television. The war is primarily about conquest. Thus, it is expected that the fear and denial of the fragility of one’s life is replaced by the philosophy of triumph and success brought on by the sacrifice of military soldiers which in turn, translates to victory over death or the end of one’s life. When a soldier dies, it is not the death associate with the demise of life in the hospital. Instead, it happens on the battlefield where one’s existence is endangered voluntarily due to the many risks that the soldier faces in battle. As such, the war can dramatically define the collective experience of death not just as simply annihilation or an end to the natural process of life but instead, the media coverage of the war can represent it as an event that can postpone the said process. Moreover, how the media reports on deaths on the battlefield, by calling the “heroes of the nation,” allows people to accept the dead soldiers back into reality.
Basically, through cinematographic techniques, the media helps to shape the American view of death in the war as a passage unto immortality. Soldiers and fighters who die in the war are elevated to the status not merely of heroes, but of immortals who see not death in the eyes of the public. The coverage of the media aids in transforming the horror of death into an event that requires celebration for the collective body, in this case, the American nation. Death is conquered when the rebirth of the deceased occurs in death rites displayed on the television. But, more importantly, regeneration is brought about by reports on “sacrifice” that occurs at the battlefields and is reproduced through the television screen.
References
Aries, P. (1974). Western Attitudes to Death. London.
Field, D. & Walter, T. (2003). “Death and the media.” Mortality, Virtual Themed Issue. Web.
Gibson, M. (2001). Death Scenes: ethics of the face and cinematic death. Mortality, 6, 306 – 320.
Grandstrand, G. (1986) Redefining Death. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Five years down the line since the U.S staged the war against Iraq, many people have different opinions about the war. However, looking at the reasons for the war, the preparations and the results, it can be said that the war against Iraq was a big mistake. This is because it was based on untruthful information given by George Bush and his administration by claiming that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destructions, and Saddam Hussein had extended ties with terrorist groups (Gwynne, 2008).
The war was based on fabrication given by George Bush and intelligence agency troops (Gwynne, 2008). For instance, they claimed that Iraq had developed extensive weapons of mass destruction, including an advanced nuclear weapons programme and large stockpiles of anthrax, sarin and VX gas. Critics continue to state that the U.S. claimed Saddam Hussein had close ties with the terrorists group Al Qaeda including Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas of Achille Lauro fame (Gwynne, 2008).
According to the National Journal, President Bush and his administration received two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to the president as justifications of their reasons for attacking and toppling Saddam Hussein (Milan & Noam, 2002).
According to Murray Waas of the National Journal, the first report delivered to Bush in 2002 discussed that Saddam’s procurement of high-strength aluminium tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon (Gwynne, 2008). The Energy and the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and research claimed that the tubes were intended for conventional weapons. However, when the US troops entered Iraq’s after the fall of Saddam’s regime, they found out that Iraq’s nuclear programme had been dormant for more than a decade, and that the aluminium tubes had been used for artillery shells (Gwynne, 2008).
In the months leading to war, Bush, Cheney and cabinet members repeatedly asserted that Saddam was likely to use chemical or biological weapons against the U.S., or to provide such weapons to Al Qaeda or other terrorists groups. Due to this, the Bush administration used the potential threat as a major rationale in making the case to go to war (Milan & Noam, 2002).
Opponents claim that the war was unworthy to the people of the U.S. This is because it has lead to the death of thousands of the U.S soldiers, Iraq soldiers and the civilians, damaged the peace and stability throughout the region and the whole world (Milan & Noam, 2002). Iraq is a sovereign country and U.S as a foreign country had no rights to intervene the internal affairs of Iraq including terrorism and other non-international affairs (Milan & Noam, 2002).
Some opponents have argued since there were no weapons of mass destruction found that after the attack on Iraq, it was Bush’s administration rationale to gain control over Iraq natural resources, primarily, petroleum. Critics say that the war did not help to reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction proliferation, and the real reason for the U.S attack was to take control over the Iraq oil fields of which at the time, U.S links with South Arabia were seen to be at risk of collapsing (Gwynne, 2008).
The US Army commanders have complained that the Department of Defense did not deploy enough U.S troops to the war in the initial stages (Gwynne, 2008). The U.S troops that were asked by Iraqi to maintain order in Baghdad have said that they did not have enough men to keep order. They also did not have enough safety preparations, and this is according to veterans and lawmakers from both parties and the General Accounting Office who have claimed that the military was not equipped even at present to give adequate protection to the people against biological and chemical warfare (Gwynne, 2008).
They also asserted that the Field training for Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons (NBC) was not being conducted well and it was not robust as it was only being conducted for only two to four hours a year and involved simulation of worst case scenarios (Gwynne, 2008).
According to First Read E-mail posted by Domenico Montaro, U.S presidential hopeful Barrack Obama has claimed that President Bush’s announcements of U.S troop’s redeployment in Iraq will not bring about reconciliation between the country’s leaders. The Illinois senator told reporters that Bush’s plan was like giving a new name for the same mistake. The U.S did not understand the historic conflict that exists between the Shiite and Sumi to be able to stop the sectarian war as the religious differences among Iraqis make the conflict very difficult to understand (Milan & Noam, 2002).
It can be argued that the war was a mistake, and what has already been done cannot be undone, the only decisions the Americans have to do is to come up with a solution, and move on. This can be done by deciding on who, and on which Iraq policy to support during the forthcoming election. I support the Deutch in the New York Times of 7th September 2005 which advocated for a fixed timetable of withdrawal of the troops and turning over the (Iraq) country to the Iraqis. The U.S department of justice needs a new law defining exactly what constitutes a terrorist act. The may be difficult since it could depend on politicians who use violent means to achieve political ambitions.
References
Milan Rai and Noam Chomsky (2002). War Plan Iraq: Ten Reasons Against War with Iraq.
Gwynne Dyer (2008). After Iraq: Anarchy and Renewal in the Middle East. St Martins Pr.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have necessitated the separation of families as military troops are deployed to the two regions. Marines and soldiers are the main troops that have been representing the land force in the two wars. This has put a demand on the military families to support their kin when they are in these wars. However, the effects of the wars have been felt by the nationals of the warring regions as well as the families of the troops fighting in the war.
Thesis statement
The deployment of military troops to Iraq and Afghanistan to fight has resulted in unprecedented stress on both the troops and their families.
Thesis
During the time that Iraq has been at war, there have been about 513,000 soldiers on active duty deployed to serve in the region. Among these, there are about 197,000 who have been deployed to this region on more than one occasion. 53,000 have served three or more times. The war has no doubt had adverse effects on the military families because of the lengthy and repeated deployments. There is a need to sustain the number of troops at high levels in the Iraq war. The consequence is increased apprehension over the mental health of the deployed soldiers. This has been noted and expressed by the army leaders. The ratio of those who show signs of depression, anxiety, and soaring stress levels is high. The state is compounded by high rates of suicide. The strain on troops means that if such an emergency were to erupt elsewhere in the world, missions would be successful but operations would no doubt be slower, more expensive in terms of lives and equipment, and take a longer time (Ocala Star and Bennington Banner 2008).
The Ocala Star also reports that besides, mental strain, there is also a high divorce rate among the soldiers and marines. Reports show an estimate of 10,200 failed marriages for the fiscal year ending on September 30. The increased demand that is placed on the troops and their families is a challenge to intimate relationships. The divorce rate does not even take into account the marriages that are not working though still in existence. This means that spouses are under the obligation to take care of their families without the support of their partners in the war.
Among the resolutions suggested is that by President Bush who felt that the number of troops who should remain in Iraq in the summer be reduced to about 140,000 (Bennington Banner 2008). However, this would be difficult since the troops would have greater responsibility and therefore the stress would be overwhelming. Military programs have been established to help couples choose their partners wisely. This is not so effective though as one would not guarantee strong marriage even with a wise choice of partners. The factors that are linked to strain are far removed from the choice of partners.
Conclusion
The need to reestablish peace is of utmost importance in the lives of the force. It is therefore important that they serve their countries and humanity. Though marine families are continually in support of the soldiers, the tribulations they suffer should be looked into so that their lives are comfortable. Repeated and long deployments should for instance be reconsidered as it is especially this that puts the most strain on families because of long separations. Otherwise, families will continue to suffer the effects of wars whenever there is a need for the deployment of their soldiers.
The quality of life for military families can be improved albeit in a small way if services and programs aimed at helping the families are funded. Such programs could include health care, schools, and training. The move by marines to offer workshops that teach couples on conflict management, better communication, and problem-solving is also a good venture.
References
“Army worried by rising stress of return tours.” Ocala Star-Banner, Web.
“Divorce rate up in Army Corps.” Bennington Banner, Bennington, Vt. 2008. Web.
Most Americans now agree with what the rest of the world has known all along, that the invasion of Iraq was not in the best interest of western-Arab relations and was unquestionably illegal as defined by the International Court of Justice and the UN, the two most preeminent legal bodies on the globe. The flawed justification that led to America entering a war with Ira has since been proven to be untrue. The result has been calamitous. Because of the occupation of Iraq, the international terrorist organization Al Qaeda has grown in number, increased attacks worldwide and has infiltrated the borders of Iraq. More importantly, more than 4000 U.S. soldiers and an untold thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens have been killed.
Cause for War
The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003 was initiated and largely conducted by the United States in response to what it claimed was an attack on its soil by various agents operating from within these countries. These actions have been defended by the Bush administration as not only legal but morally necessary to protect U.S. citizens. Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden hoped the U.S. would timidly withdraw from the Middle East, but he appears to have been aware that an aggressive U.S. response to 9/11 was entirely possible. In that case, he had a Plan: Al-Qaeda hoped to draw the U.S. into a debilitating guerrilla war in Afghanistan and do to the U.S. military what they had earlier done to the Soviets. The U.S. cleverly outfoxed Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, using air power and local Afghan allies (the Northern Alliance) to destroy the Taliban without many American boots on the ground. However, the Bush administration then went on to invade Iraq for reasons still unclear, where Americans faced the kind of wearing guerrilla war they had avoided in Afghanistan (O’Brien, 2005).
At best, the information provided to Bush was faulty and at worst, his justification for war was based purely on fabrications. The alleged link between the terrorist group Al Qaeda and Iraq was referenced before the war and became the primary excuse of the Bush administration following the lack of weapons evidence. Contrary to these assertions of terrorist ties, then Secretary of State Powell stated in January of 2004, “I have not seen a smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the (terrorist) connection” (“Iraq After Saddam”, 2004).
Effect of War
The citizens of Iraq are suffering because of U.S. involvement in their country not only during this war but have been since the early ‘90’s. The U.S. backed embargo of Iraq in the ‘90’s was intended to persuade Saddam Hussein into conforming with international law but only acted to starve hundreds of thousands of children. Those many thousand Iraqi’s opposed to Hussein’s regime following the first gulf war believed President H.W. Bush’s promise that the U.S. would support a civil uprising but were slaughtered when that promise went unfulfilled. By all estimations, withdrawing from Iraq now would cause these beleaguered people even greater harm than has already been perpetrated by the U.S. over the past 15 years. The current war has claimed about a half-million civilian lives. (“No Safe Way”, 2007).
Conclusion
Cause
Bush chose to follow the advice of jaded, self serving legal opinion in spite of strong disagreement by the U.S. State Department which cautioned against disregarding U.N. and international laws as well as covenants of the Geneva Convention. The U.S. claimed to have possessed ‘clear and compelling evidence,’ that the State of Afghanistan was harboring terrorists, as did Iraq. Yet, if this is true, then why didn’t it divulge this evidence to the Security Council so as to have a legal right to invade? In President Bush’s handling of the war on terror, three facts stand out: Bush launched a sustained military action against an enemy that had not attacked the U.S., the rationale for the invasion of Iraq was not based on fighting terrorism and it has provided fresh examples of U.S. brutality for al-Qaeda recruiters.
Effect
The illegal war in Iraq has caused terrorist attacks to increase as well as the loss of many thousands of Iraqi and Allied lives and as a consequence and has cost the U.S. dearly as far as international respect is concerned. Additionally, this ‘war’ has monetary costs reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars which has crippled the U.S. economy and will continue to for many years in the future. It has caused the U.S. national debt to skyrocket to more than eight trillion dollars at present, which will have to be paid instead of spending federal revenues on healthcare, welfare programs, education, defense systems, etc. The U.S. military is crippled as well, both literally and conceptually. It could not respond to a crisis of any size which potentially could result in a disastrous situation. As the war has progressed, the Bush administration has lost much confidence among the American public who now better understand what the rest of the world has known since Iraq was first invaded. Bush’s foreign policy is based on greed, was promoted by lies and has cost the U.S. worldwide respect that may never be recovered.
Works Cited
Ignatieff, Michael. Virtual War: Kosovo and Beyond. New York, N.Y.: Metropolitan Books. (2000).
“Iraq After Saddam: GIs Swoop Down On Tikrit Suspects Iraq.” CBS News. (2004). Web.
The second Iraq war elicits powerful emotions on both sides, justifiably, for it is a war that should never have happened. The Bush administration, an embarrassment to the U.S., piggybacked on the anti-Muslim fervor of 9/11 to forward its agenda against Saddam Hussein, and lied to garner support for an unjust war. The two key falsehoods that formed the basis of the second Iraq invasion were as follows: one, the so-called evidence of the production of weapons of mass destruction, which never materialized; and two, the link between Hussein and Bin Laden, which did not exist. To this day, no conclusive proof has come to light definitively linking Hussein to Al Qaeda1. The second Iraq war defines an unjust war, in that its perpetrators – the second Bush administration – ignored the long-standing and critical distinction between attempts to modify the threatening or deplorable behavior of a foreign government, and attempts to supplant a foreign regime through military action (Statement on Iraq 1).
In his book Just and Unjust Wars, Michael Walzer offers the example of the Second World War as the epitome of a just war, in that the Allied forces came together to resist the aggression demonstrated by Hitler, and to unseat the Nazis from the position of power they built between 1918 and 1939. The Nazis, aside from their then-unknown final solution, actively invaded numerous countries – Poland, France, for example – and possessed a chillingly precise, well-orchestrated, and ambitious plan to remake the world in their own image. The Nazis exhibited ruthless commitment and unabashed entitlement. When the Allies engaged them, lies were unnecessary. The threat was clear and implicit in each one of Hitler’s frantic and terrifying speeches. Even so, in Walzer’s words, “regime change was the consequence, not the cause, of the war fought by the Allies. It wasn’t the aim of the wars declared in 1939 by Poland, France and Britain to transform the German state…their cause was resistance to armed aggression. And according to the just war paradigm, resistance to aggression stops with the military defeat of the aggressor” (Walzer ix). Concerning the second Iraq war, however, no clear threat ever existed, and no military action on the part of Saddam Hussein precipitated the declaration of war by the Bush administration. The connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein remained nebulous. The search for weapons of mass destruction resulted in nothing but supposition and the tragic death of British UN weapons inspector David Kelly. Suspicion and double-speak abounded. Though Saddam Hussein and his regime did cruelly persecute the Iraqi people, unlike the first Iraq war, Saddam Hussein did not invade a foreign country when the Bush administration declared war. As Walzer aptly concludes, “regime change, by itself, can[not] be a just cause of war. When we act in the world, and especially when we act militarily, we must respond to “the evil that men do,” which is best read as “the evil that they are doing,” and not to the evil that they are capable of doing or that they have done in the past” (Walzer xiii). The aggression, in the case of the second Iraq war, came entirely from the United States.
The Statement on Iraq from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, though by far the gentlest reprimand in the source material, points to the unjust nature of the second war in Iraq on the grounds that the military action occurred without cause. In 2002, the bishops expressed grave concern regarding “recent proposals to expand dramatically traditional limits on the just cause to include preventative uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with weapons of mass destruction” (Statement on Iraq 1). The precedent that the second Iraq war set clearly alarmed the bishops, and eight years later, we now understand the prescient nature of their fears. The bishops took a moral stance towards war, and explained that “just war teaching has evolved…as an effort to prevent war…It does this by establishing a set of rigorous conditions which must be met if the decision to go to war is to be morally permissible” (Statement on Iraq 2). When the Bush administration declared war without just cause, it immediately rendered the notion of just war – not to mention the moral foundation for war – irrelevant and obsolete. Why? By virtue of its power. The United States is the most powerful country on the planet. They have the largest, most well-funded, and well-maintained army in the world. In essence, the second Iraq war told the world in no uncertain terms that if the United States disagrees with the running of a foreign country – and, the cynical amongst us will say, if the United States also maintains “interests” in that country – it will deploy military action to ensure that things run its way, moral permissibility be damned. The second Iraq war shows the world that the United States – at least the United States as managed by the Bush administration – expects obedience, and will exact whatever measures necessary to acquire it.
The documentary No End in Sight offers a disturbing critique of the second Iraq
war and posits that the Bush administration pushed through its war agenda despite overwhelming concerns from senior military advisors and personnel to supplant Saddam Hussein and oversee the regime change and ensuing reconstruction of Iraq would be, in a word, impossible. Director Charles Ferguson uses interviews with senior analysts to paint the Bush administration as naïve and hostile to any facts that countered its rosy belief that Iraq would open its doors to the United States joyfully. Robert Hutchings, chairman of the National Intelligence Council from 2003 to 2005, compiled the first national estimate on the state of the insurgency in Iraq, a document rife with bad news – meaning – the report provided a clear delineation of how difficult to would be to affect regime change in Iraq. According to Hutchings, “the President called it guesswork, and his press spokesperson called it hand wringing and naysaying. What was really revealing to me was that the President hadn’t read it” (Ferguson 2007).
Despite top analysts’ inability to locate any connection whatsoever between Saddam Hussein and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, almost at the moment that the plane hit the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks, senior Bush administration personnel, including Colin Powell, warned of the “sinister nexus” between Iraq and Al Qaeda (Ferguson 2007). The Bush administration jettisoned careful planning and dedicated analysis in favor of a fantasy. The result: an estimated 600,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, three million Iraqis displaced from their homes, and the remaining millions lacking access to drinking water, sewage treatment, and electricity (Ferguson 2007). According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, a just war focused on regime change provides a high “probability of success and proportionality. The use of force must have “serious prospects for success” and “must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated…The use of force might…impose terrible new burdens on an already long-suffering civilian population (Statement on Iraq 1). Again, the bishops appear prophetic. Eight years later, we now know that Bush administration-style regime change rained catastrophe upon the heads of the Iraqi people.
Works Cited
No End in Sight. Dir. Charles Ferguson. Perf. Campbell Scott. Magnolia Pictures, 2007. DVD.
“Statement on Iraq.” Usccb.org. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002.
Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. 4th ed. New York: Basic Books, 2006. Print.
Footnotes
A 2008 a Pentagon-sponsored study of more than 600,000 documents captured in Iraq after the American invasion found nothing to link Saddam Hussein with the Al Qaeda terrorist network, according to the New York Times. Web.
The way the Iraq War ended was not as it was planned by the United States. This is because, initially, the United States government had planned its intervention in Iraq to bring a government with multiple parties that was based on democracy. The government was to be in good terms with the Republic of Israel and it was supposed to be an enemy of Iran.
It was also supposed to be the operational base of the United States in Middle Easy where the United States government would have great influence ensuring that its oil problems are history. As everybody in the United States now knows, among the aforementioned objectives, none was fulfilled and the enemy in the objectives is the one who profited from the intervention of the U.S. in the Iraq war.
Just like in the War in Vietnam, the United States government had not done a good work in the assessment of the situation in Iraq before it got involved in the war. This led to a number of surprise and deadly attacks on United States troops that made them make change substantial changes to their initial plans. This led to a great problem in integrating unpredictable military action with the overall objectives of the intervention of the United States government in Iraq (Senor, 2005, p. 1).
This was one of the reasons why ultimately, the objectives that the United States government had as it intervened in the situation in Iraq were not met. Instead of fighting an objective war, the U.S. military, following an increase in the number of surprise attacks started to fight the kind of fight meant to protect their lives. This led to the wastage of taxpayer money and the sacrifice of numerous lives for nothing.
The plan by the United States to have achieved its objectives by June 2009 was among the things that brought curiosity to U.S citizens about the Iraq issue. Since nothing had been accomplished in the planned time, the United States military started buying time in Iraq long after June 2009.
They were even being forced by Iraq military to leave after the elections but they were still adamant. They eventually left Iraq in a manner that appeared as if they had been forced to leave (Lacey, 2003, p. 1). This is a strong indication that the war was lost and it did not end like it was supposed to. Thus another reason for the turn of events at the end of the war was the lack of a well planned timeline for the operations in Iraq.
It is common knowledge that the involvement of the United States in the Iraq war was a waste of resources, lives, time and reputation. This is because the main objectives set to be achieved at the end of the war were not achieved. The United States government therefore failed to get the influence it desired over the Middle East and the main enemy, Iran benefited from the war (Senor, 2005, p. 1).
The main reason for the stated turn of events was improper planning and poor analysis of the situation in Iraq before involvement of the United States. Due to the many aspects of the Iraq War that are similar to the war in Vietnam, the United States government should ensure that it plans properly before going to war.
The Iran-Iraq War, which took place from 1980 to 1988, is the longest military confrontation between two countries in the 21st century. This war was sparked by border disputes between Iran and Iraq and the main aggressor was Iraq. Part of the reason why the war was able to last for so long was the monetary and material support that both countries received from countries in the international community. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is one of the states that offered support to the warring nations. This paper will argue that the UAE contributed to the lengthy duration of the war due to the monetary support offered to the Iraqis and the Iranians.
Overview of the War
The Iraq-Iran war began on 17 September 1980 when the Iraqi president Saddam Hussein annulled the Algiers Accord with Iran and claimed the Shatt al-Arab waterway as Iraqi territory (Rajayi, 1997). The border clashes that followed this announcement escalated into full-scale war (Takeyh, 2010). While Iraq had hoped for a quick victory in her favor, the war dragged on for the better part of the decade. Involvement by the UAE contributed to the prolonging of the war efforts.
Reasons for UAE Involvement
The UAE emerged as a state in 1971 after seven Emirates joined following their independence from Britain. The geographical proximity of the UAE and historical relationships between the two neighbors meant that the UAE was in a position to influence the war. However, the UAE did not hold a unified stand during the way with Dubai showing some support for Iran while the rest of the Emirates sided with Iraq.
Rationale for Iraqi Support
The relationship between Iran and the UAE had been marred by aggression as Iran sort to reclaim disputed Islands from the UAE. Ibrahim and Hellyer (2001) document that while trade relations between the two countries continued, the UAE remained wary of Iran’s plans for the disputed islands. The UAE also had a vested interest in the quick end of the war out of commercial considerations. The Iraq-Iran War affected the UAE’s ability to trade free. Specifically, the tanker war carried out by both sides impeded its maritime trade (Ibrahim & Hellyer, 2001).
Rationale for Iranian Support
Iran had enjoyed a historical relationship with Dubai and the two were good trading partners. In addition to this, Dubai had a large number of native Iranians within her boundaries at the time of the war. For these reasons, Dubai maintained close ties with Iran and continued to facilitate the entry of weapons into the country even as Abu Dhabi and the other Emirates bankrolled Iraq (Takeyh, 2010).
Outcome of UAE Involvement
UAE involvement assisted Iraqi to put up a fight against the larger Iranian force. At the onset of the war, Iraq was in a weaker position since Iran boasted of a larger population and better equipped army. Rajayi (1997) asserts that without the assistance of the UAE and other foreign nations, Iraq could have been defeated by Iran in the initial stages of the war.
However, UAE aid helped Iraq to acquire modern military machinery and therefore engage Iran for longer. The modern weaponry obtained because of UAE’s involvement helped Baghdad to neutralize Iran’s advantage in manpower.
Adib-Moghaddam (2007) notes that Saddam enjoyed the greatest international support during the war with Iran due to the goodwill spread by Arab states including the UAE. The reputation of Iraq was enhanced even as the country engaged in chemical weapons attacks against Iranian soldiers and civilians. This positive reputation contributed to the diplomatic and material support that most Western nations offered Iraq.
Iraq could not have managed to finance her war efforts without UAE’s involvement In the course of the war, Iran targeted oil infrastructure to destabilize Iraq. Iraq’s dependence on the vulnerable pipelines to export its oil placed it at a marked disadvantage in the war (Takeyh, 2010). UAE lent money to Iraq to help it meet the costs of the war. Furthermore, the Emirates financed the rebuilding of military installations that had been damaged by the war (Rajayi, 1997).
Dubai’s assistance helped Iran counter the growing military superiority of Iraq. The difficulty in obtaining arms and spare parts was one of the major problems faced by Iran. Since the international community regarded Iran as the aggressor, arms embargoes were placed and few nations were willing to supply Iran with the necessary military equipment. Dubai helped to alleviate this problem by acting as a conduit for illegal arms and materials (Rajayi, 1997).
Conclusion
This paper has argued that financial support by the various Emirates making up the UAE contributed to the prolonged duration of the war. The paper began by providing a brief overview of the war and discussed the reasons why the UAE involved itself in the war. The paper has demonstrated that UAE support was driven by self-interest and trading relationships with the warring parties. Because of this UAE involvement in the war, both sides were able to engage each other in a military confrontation for 8 years.
References
Adib-Moghaddam, A. (2007). Inventions of the Iran–Iraq War. Critical Middle Eastern Studies, 16 (1), 63-83.
Ibrahim, A., & Hellyer, P. (2001). The Evolution of UAE Foreign Policy. Toronto: Trident Press Ltd.
Rajayi, F. (1997). Iranian Pers. on Iran-Iraq War. Florida. University Press of Florida.
Takeyh, R. (2010). The Iran-Iraq War: A Reassessment. Middle East Journal, 64 (2), 365-383
The genesis of the Iraq war can be traced back to the cold war period. The term ‘cold war’ refers to the persistent military and political anxiety that was experienced by countries in the Eastern Bloc, including Russia and Warsaw pact allies and the Western Bloc countries such as the United States (US), Japan, and NATO member states.
The cold war temporarily divided the Second World War alliances against Germany, leaving the US and Russia as the world’s superpowers. The two (US and Russia) held different views about capitalism, communism, liberal democracy, and totalitarianism. Many historical scholars disagree on the exact period when the cold war started and ended. However, the most commonly cited period is between 1946 and 1991.
During the cold war, the entire Middle East was affiliated to the Eastern Bloc. After the end of the cold war, the US continued its presence in the Middle East and has been intensively involved in the conflict between Israel and Palestine where it has been supporting Israel.
The fallout between the US and Iraq was initiated by the invasion of Iran by Iraq in 1990. After the end of the gulf war, President George H. Bush made a resolution to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which was an escalation of the gulf war and as a result, he chose to support Israel to reward it for its support in stopping the invasion of Iran by Iraq.
Using the United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR), George H. Bush outlined a framework for peace which culminated into the launching of the Oslo peace treaty in 1991 (Migdalovitz 218). The Oslo peace treaty continued under President Clinton who emphasized the need for regional leaders to make peace instead of war (Migdalovitz 219).
After the Hebron protocol of 1997, the US became an indispensable and respected agent in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Edwin and shaul 237). President Clinton mediated the 1998 negotiations at Camp David, where the two countries (Israel and Palestine) failed to reach a peace deal.
When he assumed power in 2001, President George W. Bush played a less prominent role by limiting the involvement of the US in the peace efforts because he believed that a lasting peace deal was only possible if the two countries were committed. After the September 11 terrorism attacks, George W. Bush focused on the peace process from the perspective of war on terrorism (Copson 54).
The ‘what’ of the Iraq war
After the end of the gulf war, the relationship between the US and Iraq was characterized by conflict which culminated into the invasion of Iraq by the US and its allies namely the United Kingdom, Australia, and Poland. The war lasted between March and May 2003. As a result of the war, there were massive violations of human rights especially the killing of innocent Iraqi women, children, and the elderly.
The invasion also exposed many Iraq citizens to various hardships such as lack of food, shelter, healthcare, and education. Freedoms of worship and movement were also curtailed by the war. The war also culminated into the hanging of the former Iraq President Saddam Hussein. Many human rights activists have argued that Saddam Hussein was not accorded a fair trial. In total, 170 US soldiers were killed and over 7000 Iraq citizens killed.
The Iraq war also had serious economic implications on both countries. For instance, the US spent a tune of $ 1.7 trillion to sustain its military in Iraq for a couple of years. It also spent heavily in the reconstruction of Iraq by ensuring that there was a democratically elected government to replace the dictatorial government which had been in place for decades.
The cost of the war is projected to escalate to $ 6 trillion in a couple of years to come especially due to expenses of maintaining victims of the war and their families. Iraq’s economic infrastructure was completely destroyed.The destruction had serious implications, the major one being increased levels of poverty. Economic analysts have argued that it may take decades to rebuild the Iraq economy to the levels before the invasion by the US.
The ‘why’ of the Iraq war
Initially, the invasion of Iraq by the US was on the basis of eradication of weapons of mass destruction. But when it turned out that there were no such weapons, the US and its allies termed the invasion as being aimed at freeing the Iraq citizens from the leadership of Saddam Hussein, who they termed as a dictator.
After the September 11 terrorism attacks, Iraq was included in the list of countries which were termed by President George W. Bush as ‘the axis of evil’ in that they were not only perceived as supporting terrorism but also perpetuating other criminal activities like manufacturing weapons of mass destruction.
Many political analysts have differed on what exactly made the US and its allies to invade Iraq. However, there has been a general agreement among them that the Iraq war had more to do with economic sabotage and aggression by the US. When Saddam Husein took power, Iraq witnessed high rates of economic growth especially due to its oil deposits.
The growing popularity of Iraq in the Middle East was perceived by the US as a potential threat to the influence of the US in the Middle East. As a result, the US took the advantage of fighting terrorism to sabotage the economy of Iraq and tame its growing popularity in the Middle East.
The sabotage of Iraq’s economy by the US and its allies may be described using the international relation theory of realism. The theory looks at states as the key actors in international politics. It is based on the works of historical writers such Rousseau, Machiavelli, and Thucydides.
The main argument of realism is that international relations are characterized by anarchy, in which nations interact for their selfish interests. Realism therefore negates the mutual understanding of nations in their relations and puts more emphasis on the struggle of nations to amass as much resources as possible in order to advance their own interests. With realism therefore, economic success is the guiding principle in international relations.
There have been serious allegations that the US was involved in massive siphoning of oil from Iraq during the war. Political analysts argue that when the military operations were underway, some troops from the US were involved in siphoning of oil due to absence of law and order in Iraq. Critics of the US have described its supremacy as not genuine by arguing that the supremacy is based on the exploitation of resources of other countries.
After the Iraq war, the US was actively involved in establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. This involvement of the US in internal affairs of Iraq has been described as an act of aggression. As if that was not enough, the US went ahead and filed serious charges against Saddam Hussein which resulted to a death sentence against him. The US was involved in the capturing of Saddam Hussein from his hideout and his subsequent hanging in December 2006.
The invasion of Iraq by the US can be described using idealism, which is a political philosophy that entails the advancement of a particular ideology (political, social or economic) both at home and abroad, with the aim of promoting and safeguarding the interests of citizens of the home country and those of citizens of other countries. A good example is the establishment of a democratically elected government in Iraq by the US.
The Obama administration has prioritized the stabilization of Iraq by withdrawing its troops and promoting democratic governance in Iraq so that it may recover from the 2003 invasion. It has also been working towards the stabilization of Afghanistan by ensuring that there is reconciliation between Karzai’s government and the Taliban, promoting political reforms, and seeking regional diplomacy between Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan.
According to international law, no sovereign country has the right to intervene in the matters of another sovereign country. While the US is very notorious for meddling with other countries’ internal affairs, it has refused to compromise its sovereignty. For instance, even though it played a significant role in the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it has tirelessly fought to ensure that it is not subjected to the jurisdictions of the court.
It has also refused to be prosecuted for any violations of international law which occur as it pursues its economic and political interests abroad. The US has relentlessly taken measures to ensure that the court’s jurisdictions do not apply to citizens of the US who commit crimes against humanity by arguing that the US has the capacity to prosecute such citizens.
The link between the Iraq war and the ‘Arab spring’ uprisings
Many political analysts have argued that the ‘Arab spring’ uprisings witnessed in the Middle East were a manifestation of the resistance of aggression of the US. Even though the US did not invade any of the affected countries, there were indications that it had vested economic and political interests. The reason is that it was perceived to support the interests of the ousted leaders except in Libya and Syria where it supported the rebels (Copson 56).
The difference between the involvement of the US in the Iraq war and the uprisings is that in the case of the uprisings, the US did not act directly but through proxies to push its interests. Since all the affected countries had many oil reserves, the presence of oil was a key factor of interest to the US.
There have been allegations that the US was actively involved in instigating the violence to create conflict and get an opportunity to siphon oil from those countries. The US also sent troops to some of the affected countries just the way it did in Iraq. It did so to pretend that it was against the violence but in real sense, it was in support of the violence.
Works Cited
Copson, R. The Iraq War: Background and Issues, New York: Novinka Books, 2003. Print.
Edwin, C, and G. Shaul. The Search for Israeli-Arab Peace: Learning From the Past and Building Trust, Durham, NC: Sussex Academic Press, 2007. Print.
Migdalovitz, C. Israeli-Arab Negotiations: Background, Conflicts, and U. S. Policy, Petersburg, FL: DIANE Publishing, 2009. Print.