Iraq Invasion as a Cause of Islamic State Creation

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The rise of sectarianism in the Arab world is currently evidenced by the existence of organizations that uphold extremism. In particular, as Potter (2014) reveals, sectarianism refers to people’s extreme affiliation to a specific party or sect, especially in the area of religion. Today, extremist groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) pose a significant threat to international peace and security. It is crucial to investigate actors who have led to the current state of sectarianism in the Middle East because the information gathered in this process may go a long way in facilitating the resolution of commotions experienced in many Middle Eastern regions.

This paper presents the invasion of Iraq by the United States (U.S.) and its allies in 2003 as the major trigger of the emergence of sectarian tensions in the Middle East. The United States’ occupation in Iraq led to the establishment of institutions that created ethnic and religious divisions in this country. As a result, a huge sectarian wave emerged, which is experienced up to date, as demonstrated by civil wars witnessed in states such as Syria. As this paper argues, although other countries’ engagements in Iraq may have played a role in facilitating the existence of radical groups, the United States’ invasion of this country in 2003 directly led to the development of sectarianism, which, in turn, resulted in the creation of extremist cohorts such as ISIS.

Reasons for the Invasion of the U.S. and its Allies in Iraq

Activities undertaken by the ISIS in the Middle Eastern region depict the degree to which sectarianism has shaped the political, social, and economic state of the Arab world. Actions of the sectarian terror group have led to the significant loss of lives and displacement of people in the Middle East, as denoted by Syria’s current situation. In 2003, America, along with its allies, including the United Kingdom (UK), Kuwait, Australia, and Japan among others, sought to destabilize the Iraqi state by fighting terrorism (Dieterich, Hummel, & Marschall, 2015).

According to Cramer and Thrall (2011), the United States’ former president, George Bush, saw the need for invading Iraq by terming Saddam Hussein’s administration as a threat to peace and security of the international community. In particular, President Bush’s regime identified weapons of mass destruction established by Saddam’s government as an imminent threat to the well-being of the world’s population. The former U.S. President, Bill Clinton, also led an initiative to disable Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction through Operation Desert Fox (ODF) (Cramer & Thrall, 2011). The belief that Saddam’s regime encouraged the development of weapons of mass extermination prompted Bush, the successor of Clinton, to continue carrying out attacks on Iraq. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider partisanship as a factor that necessitated the raid on Iraq since the two former U.S. Presidents embraced the same policy.

Furthermore, as Fisher (2016) reveals, President Bush regarded Saddam Hussein as a leader of terrorist groups existing in the Middle East, including al-Qaeda. Therefore, President Bush’s administration identified the need for attacking Iraq as justified. He termed this intervention as a strategy for protecting the global community against weapons of mass destruction and terrorism. Before the assault, America had been hit by a dreadful terrorist attack, which saw al-Qaeda bomb the twin towers of the World Trade Center. As a result, the public approved the reasonability of attacking Iraq since Bush’s administration linked Saddam to terrorist organizations such as the al-Qaeda. Nonetheless, the absence of a connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda raises questions regarding the mission of the U.S. in Iraq. In this concern, the intrusion of the U.S. in Iraq may be seen as an overreaction of to the 9-11 attacks.

In addition to justifying the invasion of Iraq as a way of promoting global peace and security, President Bush’s administration considered the need for democratizing Iraq as an important approach towards fostering political stability in the country. Saddam’s regime raised concerns over the realization of equality in Iraq because this government disregarded the interest of groups such as the Shiite among others. As a result, according to Dieterich et al. (2015), the need for alleviating marginalized groups from oppression in Iraq called for the United States’ intervention to bring about democracy in the country. Nonetheless, the U.S. held a naïve perception of democracy in Iraq since it regarded all political systems adopted in the Arab countries as a hindrance to prosperity. As a result, Bush’s administration identified the removal of Saddam from power as the first step towards fostering the adoption of autonomous leadership frameworks in the Middle Eastern region.

Fisher (2016) also emphasizes the need for safeguarding the economic interests of the U.S. as a reason that prompted the implementation of the Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Middle Eastern region is rich in oil. Thus, the U.S. upheld the importance of creating political stability in the region. Saddam’s leadership significantly disrupted political affairs of the Middle East, as denoted by the invasion of various countries. For example, the attack and annexation of Kuwait by Saddam’s forces interrupted the prevailing political stability of the region to the extent of undermining international trade. The stabilization of the political atmosphere in the region was perceived as an important intervention by the U.S. because it could prevent Iraq from conducting similar invasions in the future. As a result, America could streamline the flow of its oil resources in the Middle Eastern region.

Consequences of the Iraq Invasion

The violent invasion orchestrated by President Bush led to the collapse of the Iraqi state because the new occupant established a semi-state that turned out to be dysfunctional. The eruption of civil war in Iraq after the removal of Saddam from power is a clear depiction of the detrimental results of the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Results of this American-facilitated invasion and occupation of Iraq range from the emergence of humanitarian crises to political instability.

Burkle and Garfield (2013) reveal the extent of the humanitarian crisis that emerged in Iraq after the 2003 invasion when military strikes dismantled cities such as Fallujah, resulting in mass casualties and the displacement of millions of people. The study by Visser (2007) paints a rather serene environment that characterized Iraq whereby no mass-killings had been reported before the U.S. led attacks in this country. America’s decision to enter Iraq was founded on the need for intervening to save Iraqi citizens and the entire world from killings that may have resulted from Saddam Hussein’s plan of developing nuclear weapons. However, Visser (2007) believes that the United States’ plan was not justified because it led to conflicts.

In particular, the development of sectarian violence after the attack and occupation of Iraq by America worsened the humanitarian crisis experienced in this country. This continued inter-communal violence heightened the number of deaths reported in the region. It had also facilitated the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis by 2006. The study presented by the International Organization for Migration (2007) reveals that roughly 2 million Iraqi citizens leave as internally displaced people (IDPs) in countries such as Syria and Jordan. Furthermore, another 2 million Iraqis have sought refuge in neighboring countries (Russell, 2016). The humanitarian crisis was significantly influenced by the sectarian violence steered by the new Iraqi administration under the watch of the U.S. authorities whereby minority groups were targeted. Efforts of humanitarian organizations to reach vulnerable Iraqis have been disrupted by the sectarian violence witnessed in this country, thereby worsening the state of the prevailing crisis.

The intrusion of the U.S. in Iraq’s political matters resulted in devastating economic conditions that currently account for the rising cases of poverty in the latter nation. As Tyner (2017) reveals, four years after the U.S. occupied Iraq, the invaded country’s economy witnessed a significant decline characterized by high rates of unemployment and rising poverty levels. Russell (2016) argues that the displacement of at least 4 million Iraqi due to the sectarian violence influenced by the U.S. has also contributed to the poor state of the economy of Iraq. Its vulnerable communities continue to languish in poverty due to the lack of jobs. Furthermore, the administration of Bush, through Paul Bremer, initiated the dissolution of multiple factories owned by the Iraqi state, resulting to the massive loss of jobs in the country (Russell, 2016). Furthermore, Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army, which constituted at least 1 million soldiers without issuing pensions or prospects of securing employment. In particular, Tyner (2017) exposes that at least 70% of Sunnis could not secure employment under the new government mainly led by Shiite officials. The state of joblessness further contributed to the rise of poverty in Iraq, thus prompting humanitarian intervention.

American-led airstrikes damaged the infrastructure in Iraq significantly to the extent of undermining economic progress. Such attacks targeted various cities that played a considerable role in sustaining the economy of Iraq. Particularly, the destruction of infrastructure in the city of Fallujah resulted in massive economic adversities whereby people, mostly Sunni Arabs, could not carry on with their economic activities in the ruined city. The displaced population moved to other regions seeking refuge with the hope of securing employment (Tyner, 2017). However, the violence experienced in various Iraqi cities disrupted the economic environment, thereby interfering with the prevailing economic progress. Since most of the property destroyed belonged to the Sunni people, the intention of the new government was to destabilize the economic prosperity of some communities. Byman (2014) argues that the economic segregation further intensified sectarian tensions throughout Iraq where conflicting communities sought to secure their socio-economic and political interests.

The U.S.-led incursion and occupation of Iraq prompted significant political consequences, which are being experienced today. After dismantling the Iraqi state, the U.S. established policies that undermined the essence of regional cooperation in the Middle East. In particular, the administrative regime formed by America in Iraq upheld policies that alienated the country from other states in the region. As such, instead of promoting regional cooperation to facilitate the establishment of a sovereign and secure Iraq, the U.S. influenced the emergence of divisions characterized by sectarianism in (Byman, 2014). For this reason, the disruption of the political climate by the United States has seen the Middle Eastern region experience unceasing conflicts in regions such as Iraq, Iran, and the Israeli-Palestinian clash. In this light, the political instability experienced in the Middle East today is a demonstration of the effects of the U.S.-led intrusion and occupation of Iraq.

The adversity of the invasion on the politics of the Middle East has led to the speculation about the possible division of Iraq in the near future. In October 2007, the U.S. Congress upheld a non-binding resolution that proposed the separation of conflicting parties in Iraq (Russell, 2016). According to Potter (2014), this policy affirmed the importance of separating the Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish people of Iraq since it identified these communities as sectarian factions contributing to the civil war experienced in the country. As a result, the administration established in the country overlooked the essence of uniting Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish communities. Instead, it agitated the need for further divisions. This affirmation intensified sectarian tensions in the region due to the absence of a collaborative approach to solving the underlying political challenges experienced in Iraq. Consequently, speculations regarding the possible division of Iraq into various ethnic regions have emerged. Ethnic and religious divisions in present-day Iraq denote the extent to which sectarianism, as propagated by the United States’ occupation of the Middle East state, has undermined political stability in the region.

How the U.S.-led Invasion of Iraq Prompted the Rise of Sectarianism

Policies implemented by the U.S. in Iraq have influenced the political woes witnessed in the latter country and the Middle East as a whole. In this respect, the invasion of Iraq itself may not be seen as a major problem. However, policies adopted by the U.S. have had a significant influence on the state of international relations in the Middle East. As Potter (2014) reveals, various strategies adopted by the U.S. after occupying Iraq have significantly influenced the rise of sectarianism. Specifically, America deployed policies that sought to not only foster the participation of people in democratic processes but also create a separatist Iraq. The adopted policies complicated the security problem in Iraq in an array of ways. In this light, discussing the manner in which the guidelines applied by the U.S. in Iraq led to the rise of sectarianism in the Arab world is in line with the context of this paper.

The need for establishing a democratic political system in Iraq by America contributed significantly to the unprecedented growth of sectarianism in Iraq before spreading to other states in the Middle East. The administration perceived the move to overthrow Saddam’s tyrannical leadership and replacing it with a democratic system that represents various ethnic and religious communities in Iraq as a way of fostering the region’s political stability. However, after Saddam was ousted, sectarian tensions intensified because new administrators encouraged violence against the Sunnis. The sectarian violence in Iraq arising from the establishment of new administrative policies is one of the key factors that fueled the development of ISIS, also known as “Daesh.” In a study by Siniver and Lucas (2016), Daesh is presented as a radical cohort that encourages dissonance, as opposed to coherence among people in the Middle East.

Evidently, as Dieterich et al. (2015) uncover, the establishment of policies that encouraged the Iraqi people to participate in democratic processes after the ousting of Saddam did not necessarily lead to the attainment of a functional democracy. Instead, it resulted in the rise of sectarian politics. The U.S. disregarded the difficulty of establishing a democratic system of governance in Iraq after invading this country. As a result, there was a pathetic transition from the old system to the proposed democracy. This ineffective transition was caused by poor policies such as the abolishment of the Iraqi army and the barring of officials who served in Saddam’s administration to assume senior political roles. Such policies made it difficult for new government officials to smoothly facilitate the transition. As a result, the dysfunctionality of this semi-state provided room for sectarian politics to thrive.

Policies geared toward the dissolution of state-owned industries sent the country into an economic turmoil that influenced the growth of sectarianism in Iraq. In particular, strategies executed by Paul Bremer led to considerable unemployment rates in the country (Potter, 2014). However, most of the Sunni people could not secure employment under the new government, which was mainly comprised of officials from the Shiite community. Americans provided job opportunities to Shiite cliques and their coreligionists in a way that discriminated other tribes, including the Sunnis (Tyner, 2017). Ethnic-based economic disparities bolstered the rise of sectarianism because the U.S. supported a divided approach to the reconstruction of Iraq’s economy. Therefore, separatist economic policies adopted by the makeshift Iraqi government after the United States’ occupation undermined the collaboration of different communities in Iraq and, consequently, the realization of shared economic interests.

Policies adopted by the new government in Iraq disregarded the essence of national reconciliation in the country. Specifically, separatist rules applied by the new administration in Iraq failed to create a sovereign and safe state. Instead, they resulted in communal animosity. The hatred between communities such as the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd has fostered the affiliation of individuals to groups that uphold extremism. Communities in conflict regard extremism as the only way of protecting their interests. According to Gerges (2017), sects, for instance, the Daesh group, continue to undertake extremist activities, including terrorism, as a way of agitating for their interests in the sectarian Arab world. In this respect, it is crucial to discuss the role played by the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq on the creation of extremist groups such as ISIS in the region.

The Influence of U.S.-led Invasion of Iraq on the Rise of Extremist Groups in the Region

The new form of democracy introduced by the U.S. in Iraq was not well received by various communities in this country. This situation prompted the creation of militia groups and terrorist organizations. The Sunnis disregarded the westernized political system that encouraged participating in democratic processes. According to Frankel (2010), the Sunnis refused to take part in the 2005 elections due to the existence of a political system that did not favor their interests. The refusal to take part in elections was met by air strikes in the city of Fallujah, which was the residence of a majority of the Sunni people. As a result, this community relocated to other towns that opposed the democracy propagated by the new government. As oppressed communities relocated, there was the need to advocate for their interests through alternative ways such as extremism. Consequently, the formation of militias and terrorist groups took effect.

In the study by Gerges (2017), the dysfunctional autonomous system deployed by the new administration facilitated the spread of extremist cohorts such as ISIS in the Middle East. Principles of democracy uphold the essence of fairly representing the interests of people in the government. Nonetheless, Americans created a democracy that favored the biased representation of specific communities, especially the Shiite, thereby undermining the autonomous rights of individuals from other ethnic or religious groups. The Shiite society dominated parliamentary seats in the new state since communities such as the Sunnis did not participate in the 2005 general elections following the move by the U.S. to encourage sectarian politics (Byman, 2014). Therefore, the need for securing political interests of communities segregated under the new Iraqi government prompted the emergence of radical cohorts in the Middle East.

The economic slowdown witnessed in Iraq after the dissolution of the corporations owned by this government created an opportunity for extremist groups to emerge in countries, including Syria and other states in the Middle East. Tyner (2017) argues that the urge to secure the economic interests of marginalized communities under the new government prompted the regrouping of idle youths such as unemployed Sunnis to form extremist groups. Sunni Arabs experienced exclusion in the army, which majorly constituted ex-members of Shiite militias. As such, unemployed Sunnis saw the representation of the Iraqi Army by Shiite as a threat to their security, thereby forcing them to regroup to form ISIS. This strategy sought to protect both economic and political interests of the new category of minorities in the Middle East.

The segregation of the Sunnis in the new government paved the way for their protests calling for political reforms in Iraq. They marched in the streets of major cities, including Mosul and Fallujah in 2011. However, the Iraqi Army, which consisted of ex-Shiite militias such as the Badr Corps, managed to repress the Sunnis brutally. As Martin and Solomon (2017) uncover, there was the need for the suppressed Sunnis to regroup and create a strategy that could foster the effectiveness of its insurgency against the new government. As such, the Sunnis went back to the neighboring Syria where they reorganized themselves in a way that enabled them to capture and control provinces, for instance, al-Raqqa, in 2013 and 2014. At this point, the insurgency started taking effect. Sectarian politics propagated by the United States’ occupation of Iraq triggered continued violence. As such, the Daesh alliance incorporated Sunni elites to facilitate the leadership of this group as a way of fostering their re-entry into Iraq.

In June 2014, the Sunnis in Iraq surprised the world when they conducted an insurgency in the city of Mosul. The Mosul civil disobedience reveals the extent to which the Shiite officials in the government failed to uphold a sense of nationalism among the people of Iraq. This situation resulted in the creation of extremist groups such as ISIS. Consequently, local Sunni elites who had gotten tired of the marginalization facilitated by the new government formed an alliance with the Islamic State to change the state of political and social affairs in Iraq. This move reinforced ISIS, which ended up gaining confidence over the need to dismantle the Iraqi government that had embraced the exclusion of various religious groups in the country.

Through the reinforced leadership, the Daesh group easily seized Mosul after the Iraqi Army fled. As such, by 2014, the militant organization managed to destabilize the corrupt Iraqi armed forces in one of the major cities in this country before spreading to other regions. In an article by Mamouri (2014), ISIS is depicted gaining control of more than 33% of Iraq’s land. By so doing, Cheterian (2015) reveals that this group has effectively associated Jihadi philosophies with sectarian divisions. Confirming this finding, Mamouri (2014) argues that ISIS has indeed managed to gain control of all Sunni-dominated regions in Iraq. It is crucial to point out that activities of the militant group may extend to other parts of the Iraqi territory following the observed continuous growth of sectarianism in the Middle Eastern region. Currently, ISIS terrorizes many regions in the Middle East and beyond where it negates any ideologies supported by the western world in the Arab society.

Moreover, in line with Byman’s (2014) argument, the sectarian favoritism form of governance upheld by Bush in Iraq facilitated the growth of extremism in this region. Based on Byman’s (2014) perspectives, Bush’s administration should have concentrated on its “war on terror” in the Middle East. Adopting this move would have limited it to the al-Qaeda group. However, the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 encouraged America to favor one community over others, thereby creating a degree of hostility, thanks to the prevailing sectarianism. Bush’s regime emphasized the need for destabilizing Saddam’s government since it thought he had ties with terrorist organizations such as the al-Qaeda.

In a report by Quivooij (2015), dissenting youths aged between 18 to 29 years who mainly consisted of the Sunnis saw the opportunity to organize themselves into militias that would stage constant uprisings against the discriminative and corrupt Iraqi government. Consequently, ISIS was created. It is alarming that this radical group continues to engage in violent confrontations with parties against its ideologies. The sectarian practices in the Middle East continue to pose a considerable threat to peace and security in the international community. In this regard, organizations such as the UN need to establish measures that can facilitate the creation of a cooperative approach toward the attainment of shared interests in the Middle Eastern region. As a result, a sense of nationalism may emerge, thus marking the beginning of the process of eradicating sectarian tensions experienced in this region.

Conclusion

The rise of sectarianism in the Middle East is attributed to the U.S.-led offensive and occupation of Iraq in2003. President Bush’s administration saw the need for dismantling the tyrannical government of Saddam Hussein since it was associated with terrorism and poor democratic practices. It was also a hindrance to the economic prosperity of the Middle East. As revealed this paper, many attacks linked to Saddam Hussein’s regime claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in his country. This situation created a major humanitarian crisis. Political consequences of these assaults have worsened the security status of the Middle Eastern region due to the growth of sectarianism. In particular, the invasion of Iraq saw the U.S. employ sectarian favoritism when it offered the Shiite people key leadership positions in the new government. As a result, the Sunnis regrouped in Syria to form a radical group, namely, ISIS, before returning to Iraq to carry out an insurgency against the corrupt Iraqi administration. This paper has revealed that extremism still exists in the Middle East because the U.S. promoted sectarianism over nationalism when it invaded and occupied Iraq.

References

Burkle, F., & Garfield, R. (2013). Civilian mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Lancet, 381(9870), 877-879.

Byman, D. (2014). Sectarianism afflicts the new Middle East. Survival, 56(1), 79-100.

Cheterian, V. (2015). ISIS and the killing fields of the Middle East. Survival, 57(2), 105-118.

Cramer, J. K., & Thrall, A. T. (Eds.). (2011). Why did the United States invade Iraq? Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Dieterich, S., Hummel, H., & Marschall, S. (2015). Bringing democracy back in: The democratic peace, parliamentary war powers and European participation in the 2003 Iraq War. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 87-106.

Fisher, M. (2016). America’s unlearned lesson: The forgotten truth about why we invaded Iraq. Web.

Frankel, M. (2010). Threaten but participate: Why election boycotts are a bad idea. Web.

Gerges, F. A. (2017). Isis: A history. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press.

International Organization for Migration. (2007).Iraq displacement 2007 year in review.Web.

Mamouri, A. (2014). How has Iraq lost a third of its territory to ISIS in three days?The Conversation. Web.

Martin, M., & Solomon, H. (2017). Islamic State: Understanding the nature of the beast and its funding. Contemporary Review of the Middle East, 4(1), 18-49.

Potter, L. G. (Ed.). (2014). Sectarian politics in the Persian Gulf. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Quivooij, R. (2015). The Islamic State.Web.

Russell, J. A. (2016). Charting US security strategy in the Persian Gulf. In M. Kaim (Ed.), Great powers and regional orders: The United States and the Persian Gulf. (pp. 35-52). Abington, UK: Routledge.

Siniver, A., & Lucas, S. (2016). The Islamic State lexical battleground: US foreign policy and the abstraction of threat. International Affairs, 92(1),63-79.

Tyner, J. A. (2017). The business of war: Workers, warriors and hostages in occupied Iraq. Abington, UK: Taylor & Francis Group.

Visser, B. (2007). Can the US-led invasion of Iraq be justified as a humanitarian intervention? Social Alternatives. First Quarter, 26(1), 53-58.

Click Here To Order Now!