Modern Warfare: America’s Invasion in Iraq

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.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Cheney Energy Policy
Strengthening Israel at the expense of the Arabs
Speed up Military Revolution
Works Cited

Introduction

The outbreak of war in Iraq is something that started out as an impulse. Many people felt that it was short-lived until days and months past. The Iraq war can be examined from many perspectives. To begin with, the invasion kicked off in 2003. It believed that the attack on Iraq was a combined effort from the United States of America’s troops, the UK, along with other several allies (Axelrod 21). It all started when the US and UK declared that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and thus there was a need to prevent it from causing massive destruction. Though the attack on Iraq was a direct infringement of the United Nations’ Charter, the invasion was carried out under the umbrella that there was a need to enhance democracy and freedom in Iraq.

It was a form of attack that was not declared, and hence the government of Iraq was caught unawares. By the end of the year 2012, it was believed that US troops would leave Iraq following an order from President Barrack Obama (Bigger 37). During the invasion, many negative things were witnessed. For example, the state of peace in Iraq deteriorated, and Saddam Hussein’s government toppled. In addition, the war led to the mass destruction of both human life and property.

After the plan to withdraw its troops from Iraq, there were numerous opinions on the subject. According to Katulis (10), the continuous stay of America’s troops in Iraq hampered the country’s efforts to deal with other threats such as in Afghanistan or Iran.

First, all the attention in terms of funds were directed to Iraq. Secondly, America had focused all its security concerns on Iraq. As such, it was maintaining its army in Iraq would economically affect the US following the increasing cost for living as well as the need for the troops to attend to other security concerns. The withdrawal of the US armies from Iraq marked a decade of war and torture in Iraq, with the reasons behind the invasion being highly contested, as well as debated (Katulis 6). Even though there has been a lot of debate about the reasons for Iraq’s invasion by the US troops, no concrete reasons have been set forth up to date.

However, as the country thinks about the reasons for the US invasion of Iraq and the thought of reforming the community’s intelligence, there is a need to remember that bad intelligence was not the cause for Iraq’s war, per se (Daly 64). According to a statement by a former director in Bush’s administration, Iraq’s war was one of choice. According to Bush’s administration, the decision to go on war with Iraq did not come from the intelligence service (Greeley 22).

Instead, it found itself in the mix for a war that had been planned without its consent. There were a number of reasons, that according to George Bush that the US went into war with Iraq. To begin with, the US pointed out that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Secondly, the US felt that Iraq collaborated with Al Qaeda in acts of terrorism. Third, the Bush administration believed that Iraq, through its perceived collaboration with the terrorist group, Al Qaeda, was advancing weapons of mass destruction to them for their terror acts (Simon 64).

Even though the Bush administration insisted on the above reasons, several commissions that were formed to enquire about the reasons for the invasion, it was found out that the first three reasons were made up. The fact that the US and its allies did not plan well for post-war added to the elevation of Iyad Allawi, as well as the insidious corruption that was evident among the contractors employed by the United States and the ones responsible for funding the invasion is responsible for the making up of the cited reasons.

Why then was there a war between the US and Iraq? The evidence that is given does not point to any particular reason. However, considering the broad perspective, one finds that there are several reasons that tend to both converge and interwove (William 24). These included military transformation, Israel, and oil. As evident from the Cheney energy strategy, it is enough proof that the search for oils was one of the reasons that the United States of America and its allies invaded Iraq. In addition, there was a concern by AIPAC, as well as the Christians of weakening the Arabic world as a way through which they could strengthen Israel. On the other hand, other parties had different agendas. For example, Don Rumsfeld aimed at expediting the United States of America’s military transformation.

Cheney Energy Policy

Using two recommendations, one can adequately understand the US’s first rationale following the Iraq invasion. The then vice president suggested these recommendations with the primary focus being on the energy policy. First, there was the call for the president to prioritize energy security as the United States of America’s policy on foreign affairs and trade. Secondly, the NEPD called for oil-producing and exporting countries (UAE, Qatar, Algeria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia), as well as other suppliers, to set rules that allowed foreign investment into their energy areas. However, it should be remembered that the source of the oil used in America does not come from individual countries, but it gets it from the international market.

During the 1990s rise in demand for oil, there was a decline in oil production among oil-producing and exporting countries. As such, the demand and supply for oil grew extremely tight, which implied the oil producers lack finances as well as the technology to meet the growing demand. This had the implication that unless they allowed foreigners to help them in extracting the oil, prices would continue rising.

During the period of the Cold War, Asia was responsible for the increase in the prices of oil. At the same time, the cost of living was considerably rising following Chinese exports. Such scenarios implied that the cost of energy was likely to rise due to significantly high demand for energy all over the world. The effect was that there was a high possibility of reducing the economic growth of America following its role in offering incentives for alternative sources of energy as well as influencing the Asians politically. Adding OPEC’s quotas worsened the situation. It was nothing new that the United States of America was highly concerned with the supply of the world’s oil. For more than 30 years, the US has been operating on its “Carter Doctrine” that discouraged any other party from controlling the region around the Persian Gulf. According to this doctrine, any party that infringed its terms were regarded as assaulting the United States of America’s interests. The oil fields in Iraq were, thus, an opportunity for the US.

The fact that Iraq had the second-largest oil field added to its inability to exploit them was seen as an advantage for the US to exercise their power. However, the United States of America was sure that they could not succeed with their mission due to the presence of Saddam Hussein. As such, America could only have succeeded if they managed to control the oil fields of Iraq. Although such an objective was not in the list of the goals that the task force wanted to achieve, it was later exposed in a memoir. As such, by the end of 2001, there was a drafted document that outlined the procedure that the US would use to divide the oilfields of Iraq successfully. It is thus evident that even the declaration by the US that China was a potential threat was based on reasons around securing as well as dominating oil fields. However, it was later to be understood that such competition between the US and China was about the control of oilfields of the Persian Gulf.

Strengthening Israel at the expense of the Arabs

There existed a complicated relationship between Israel and the US administration during the leadership of George Bush. This following the fact that the president’s success in the election was large as a result of the Christian conservatives. Controlling the biblical lands was anticipated to be given to the Christian Zionists. In addition, the then president of America had a lot to honor the AIPAC, which was a strong lobby group under the Jewish umbrella. The AIPAC was supporting Ariel Sharon in the rejection of a policy that had existed for a long time regarding the “land-for-peace” policy.

On the other hand, Bush was in a dilemma following the neoconservatives’ view of a Chamberlain-Hitler negotiation in the context of PLO and Arafat’s negotiation. Following such a mix of power interests led the Israelites to draw an alternative policy for the US.

The policy revolved around Israel providing a suitable situation for the US to handle Saddam Hussein if they progressed with their Palestinian issue. In addition, there was the other option provided whereby Israel would deal with Hussein in the hope of a convenient situation of gaining strength against the weakened Arabs. The two options involved the elimination of Saddam and the support that he was giving the Palestinians, chances of reducing the prices of oils as a result of weakness among the OPEC and Saudi Arabia, as well as setting a permanent United States of America’s army base in Iraq (Phillips 23). All these attempts were aimed at giving the US room to control the oil fields of Iraq. With the Arabs weakened, it would be easy for Israel to negotiate easily whenever they wished for any deal.

Speed up Military Revolution

The conservatives were so close to Bush. However, they gained power in the year 2001. This group of people aimed at the general restructuring of the United States of America, with a lot of focus on the establishment of dominating conditions. However, such goals in practice would just mean that they were only extending the demands of the Charter Doctrine, considering that the US economy depends highly on foreign oil sources. As a victim of these three

components, Iraq became a target for the conservatives to achieve their expedition mission (Koga 35). As such, there was the hope that staging war against Iraq was a suitable opportunity for the US to implement the new doctrine of dominance. In the end, such war would destabilize the military structure, thereby creating room for the implementation of the perceived changes. It was thus seen as a project that would result in the fulfillment of the interests of Rumsfeld, New American Century, Wolfowitz, and Cheney. As such, it was highly anticipated that an emergency would be called that would present an opportunity for the implementation of the desired changes.

From the foregoing, one would be tempted to question why it was necessary for the Bush administration to deceive the public. America had been addicted to oils and its control, and thus, there was a need for the US to control necessity was evident. Just the administration offered justification for the Gulf War, so did they look for reasons to justify their presence and actions in Iraq. A unique opportunity was available for the US invasion in September 2001. This followed the surge of patriotism as well as the trust that was gained following the Washington and New York attacks. Such a scenario seemed to make a comparison between the Soviet Union and the Al Qaeda. As such, Bush saw it as a suitable opportunity to offer cover for his intention and goals in Iraq. For this reason, the Bush administration could go on with its activities without undergoing any political resistance.

The invasion of Iraq led to serious effects, such as the elimination of Saddam Hussein. This was one of America’s strategic goals as they invade Iraq. In spite of what happened during and after the invasion of Iraq, it left many different opinions and evidence that the invasion was on a self-interest basis as opposed to a democracy mission.

First, the current situation in Iraq, both politically and economically, is worse than it was during the time of Saddam. It is factual that Iraq has suffered a hard period during the invasion. In spite of this, and the US’s insistence that they were working towards a secure nation, the future of this country is far from being secure. As such, from the current situation of continual tension and attacks, it is evident that the invasion of Iraq was not aimed at ensuring better living standards for the Iraqis, but is focused on making sure that the America and its allies were safe.

Secondly, it is likely that wars to impose democracy would invariably lead to failure. Whether such a scenario was true, it seemed irrelevant for Iraq. The justification that Bush and its allies had for the invasion was that they were trying to create democracy. However, such arguments did not seem to play any measurable role in their activities that were aimed at ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. In addition, it was expected that the representative government would replace the Ba’ath party. However, this did not happen, which explained that the invasion was not aimed at bringing democracy to the country.

Thirdly, the concept of the presence of WMD in Iraq was a lie. However, there had been a shared belief that Iraq possessed numerous chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein had declared that the country had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction following the United Nation’s sanctions.

Considering the event that unfolded during and after the invasion of Iraq, it is evident that the role of the US in this invasion was way past the destruction of the WMD. The invasion was thus, centered on other interests of both the US and its allies. As such, it suffices to conclude that the intervention of the United States of America was highly aggressive. In addition, it is evident that Iran has grown highly powerful presently than during the time of Saddam.

Works Cited

Axelrod, Alan. Political History of America’s Wars. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007. Print.

Bigger, Nigel. ‘The Invasion Of Iraq: What Are The Morals Of The Story?’. International Affairs 87.1 (2011): 29-37. Web.

Daly, Erin. ‘Transitional Justice in Iraq: Learning the Hard Way’. Isr. law rev. 47.01 (2014): 63-83. Web.

Greeley, Andrew. A Stupid, Unjust, and Criminal War. Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2007. Print.

Katulis, Brian. “The United States Must Leave Iraq.” Opposing Viewpoints: National Security. 34.4 (2007): 6-10. Print

Koga, Yosseh.Why America Went To War In The Gulf’. Choice Reviews Online 39.06 (2002): 35-39. Web.

Phillips, James. “Winning the Iraq War Will Decrease Terrorism.” Opposing Viewpoints: Terrorism. 45.3 (2009): 23-24. Print

Simon, Steven. ‘America And Iraq: The Case For Disengagement’. Survival 49.1 (2007): 61-84. Web.

William E. Odom. “Withdrawing the Military from Iraq Would Improve U.S. Credibility.” Opposing Viewpoints: America’s Global Influence. 40.3 (2007). 22-24. Print

Click Here To Order Now!