blamed of supporting terrorist groups, assistant them financially and with arms he was also related to the attacks of 9/11 all these allegations were investigated by writers, journalists and even the F.B.I and this investigations concluded that were not true. “After overthrowing Saddam’s government, no evidence of an Iraq/Al-Qaeda connection ever surfaced, either; Saddam himself, in the FBI interviews, denounced Osama bin- Laden and denied having any dealings with Al- Qaeda. Over time, it was proved that this was accurate and Hussein had nothing to do with the terrorist organization Al Qaeda, and after an extensive search, the inspectors of the Iraq Survey Group did not find WMDs on Iraq” (Polk, 2005).
Another important reason that is attributed
…show more content…
In addition, He criticized the rationale of Weapons of Mass Destruction of George W. Bush to occupy Iraq since the alleged WMD was not found. After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, there was an exhaustive search led by the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) to find the assumed WMD possessed by Iraq. The Iraq Survey Group was organized by The Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and involved 1,400 members from America, Britain, and Australia. ISG replaced the UN inspections teams. They were looking for chemical and biological agents, and any “research programs and infrastructure that could be used to develop WMD” (Jacobson &Colón, 2013). After a meticulous investigation, ISG concluded that Iraq had destroyed all major stockpiles of WMDs and terminated its production in 1991. The truth of theses facts caused a huge controversy within the country and abroad. Most American politicians now, thinks that this military action was not a respectable idea. “Critics of the war claimed that the President of the United States and Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom deliberately manipulated and misused intelligence to push for an invasion, American invaded Iraq because the president Bush administration wanted a war.”(Jacobson and Colon, …show more content…
Bush for the invasion was the largest reserve of oil in Iraq. Critics of the war stated that when Bush indicated that the purpose of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people was a lie.” “The public justifications for the invasion were nothing but pretext, and falsified pretext at that,” Bonds claimed “the United States was interested in taking control of the oil production of Iraq rather than national security” According to the author, Federal Reserve Chairman Allen Greenspan stated that the “Iraq war was largely about oil” and “for economic reasons” (Bonds, 2013). Like Bonds, Polk argues that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a U.S. strategy for its own interest. According to Polk, the U.S. interests to occupy Iraq were to have a “pro-US state”, U.S. military bases in Iraq, and to expand the Iraqi oil economy to other
National security provoked the Iraq invasion, but Bush justified his hawkish foreign policy as promoting freedom and democracy. The threats to national security were Sadaam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction and Hussein’s ties to anti-American terrorist organizations, although no credible evidence proved those allegations. In the March 17, 2003 Address
In 2003, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell launched an invasion of the nation of Iraq. United States Secretary of State Colin Powell outlined the reasons Iraq posed a threat to international security in a speech he gave at the United Nations. Iraq’s nuclear weapons program concerned the Bush administration. Fearing Iraq might use this program to act aggressively in the region, and wanting to secure oil supplies and a friendly regime, the administration pursued a plan of action to remove Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power (FLS 2016, 43). A constant secure supply of oil stood as a cornerstone of the military-industrial complex thriving in the United States and a friendly regime in such an oil rich country remained an important objective of President Bush. This directly conflicted with the desire of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq to remain in power.
Detractors of the war argued that the US intelligence services provided misleading and inaccurate information about WMD. US intelligence services had miscalculated Iraqi WMD development in the 1980s and it was widely argued that they over compensated in the other direction in the 21st century. One potential explanation for such a mistake was that the CIA tended to rely on technological information rather than gather human intelligence - 'humint' - from 'assets' situated in Iraq and the Middle East. Regardless of this
According to Charles Ommanney “Much contention surrounds Bush's reasons for declaring war on Iraq. Many of his supporters believe that despite the false claims regarding weapons of mass destruction, Bush was passionate about bringing democracy to the nation. However, the Iraq war instead brought the country hundreds of thousands of casualties and severely damaged infrastructure. Many believe the war was unsuccessful in its aim to deter terrorist activity. Dissenters believe the Bush administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, intentionally misled the American public in order to secure holdings for the oil industry. An MSNBC analysis of the incident reveals that many believe that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield came to the White House with the desire to start a war in Iraq. While the dispute continues, the fact remains one of Bush's goals in invading Iraq was to depose Saddam Hussein, and he was successful in that mission.”
Bush, asserted that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), multiple Iraqi human rights violations stemming from the WMDs, and the suspected Iraqi support for al-Qa’ida, who had been previously chased out of Afghanistan. After the initial invasion, however, U.S.-led Coalition Forces were unable to locate any significant evidence of WMDs. Back in the U.S., investigative committees subsequently concluded that Iraq possessed no WMDs and did not harbor any connections to terrorist organizations. Moreover, Hussein had been successful at evading capture despite an intensive manhunt, and U.S. forces seemingly were unable to play a domestic security role, further leading to the dissolution of Iraqi security services and ushering in widespread looting and disorder. This highlighted that the invasion of Iraq was not be an easy victory as originally surmised. Since that time, many scholars have focused on the effects of the Iraq War, speculating on the Bush Administration’s motives for the decision. While some within scholarly circles have attributed the invasion of Iraq to groupthink, a theory that has recently become a staple in understanding foreign policy disasters, there is little literature that has been applied to the rationality of the decision to invade and whether groupthink influenced the decision-making process. Therefore, this paper will seek to examine the decision to launch the invasion of Iraq and the clearly failed planning for the occupation of the
What motivated the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2003 despite strong opposition from the international community? On one side, the administration maintains that the invasion was necessary to prevent Iraq from developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). In his memoir “Decision Points”, Bush argued that Saddam posed too much of a threat–he brutalized his own people, violated international demands, and sponsored terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. On the opposing side, critics of the war argue that the Bush administration used the 9/11 terrorist attack and the threat of WMDs to justify waging an illegal war against Iraq in order to extract Iraqi oil to fund the military-industrial complex, to secure Israel, and to “finish the job” of deposing Saddam. While these explanations for the invasion have some merit, they are problematic because they fail to capture the extent of the administration’s actual ambitions. An analysis of how individuals on Bush’s administration, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Condoleezza Rice, viewed the world reveals that the invasion of Iraq was intended to demonstrate the effectiveness of and necessity for preemptive action, overthrow Saddam, and transform the Middle East. However, what was perceived to be a quick and easy operation to stabilize the Middle East and secure America’s interest backfired and turned Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists.
Zunes, Stephen. "A U.S. Invasion of Iraq Is Not Justified." The Nation 275 (30 Sept. 2002): 11. Rpt. in Is Military Action Justified Against Nations Thought to Support Terrorism? Ed. James D. Torr. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2003. At Issue. Gale Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. Document
President George W. bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq just months after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. There is evidence that shows Bush was after Saddam Hussain from day one of his presidency. Paul O’Neill claims that Bush started constructing arrangements for the invasion of Iraq within days of Bush’s inauguration. Bush denied these claims and discredited O’Neill by declaring he was a dissatisfied employee who was dismissed by the White House and that O’Neill had no reliable comprehension of U.S. foreign policy. The Iraqi National Congress argues that soon after Bush’s inauguration, Bush contacted them to discuss how to remove Hussein from power, which confirms O’Neill’s allegations
The reasons given for the original invasion of Iraq (Bush, 2003) mainly surrounded that there was supposedly "irrefutable" evidence that Iraq had, and was prepared to use, Weapons of Mass Destruction. The
The United States has been at war since its creation in 1776. Notably, one of the most crucial wars was the War on Terror. Beginning in March of 2003, this war initially served the purpose of getting rid of the country 's leader Saddam Hussein to prevent his use of suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Hussein was best-known as a Middle Eastern ruler with a violent regime. He governed Iraq from 1979 until his capture in 2003when President Bush presumed he was harboring chemical weapons such as synthetic warheads, shells, or aviation bombs. While politics justified invading Iraq, the conflict between the U.S. and Iraq began long before the war. In the post-election leading up to the war, political officials such as George Bush attested repeatedly that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and posed a danger to the U.S. and other targets. Bush sold the war to Americans by attesting these cases of threat to Americans openly with supreme certainty. The United States of America should not have invaded Iraq as it allowed the establishment of government power and democracy without evidence under prior resolutions, increased violence, and forced American citizens to inquire significant debt including the injuries and hardships sustained by U.S. soldiers.
World War I acted as a ripple effect rooted from conflicts between the five major powers and surrounding areas, each dispute within Europe during the 18th century formed alliances and created jealousy amongst the countries. The quote “World War I was not inevitable, as many historians say. It could have been avoided, and it was a diplomatically botched negotiation” is disagreeable as many factors contributed to the war. Each nation had a desire for dominance and control, a resilient confidence in their own nationalities, and wanted to create stronger armies and navies, making this war inevitable and non-negotiable. The five major powers during this time had a strong sense of nationalism, in which they wanted to expand their territory, and conquer lands in Africa, the Balkan Peninsula, and overseas, for more power, trade, and resources, and overall create the most powerful and influential country in Europe.
On September 20, 2002, the Bush administration published a national security manifesto titled "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"; sometimes called “the Bush Doctrine”, which is a justification for easy recourse to war whenever and wherever an American president chooses. The United States wanted more control over the Middle East and the oil that could be obtained there; all they needed was an excuse to go to war and in turn be able to obtain resources. After 9/11 Bush had his excuse; Al Qaeda. Weaving a trail of propaganda and fear through the media with false information, Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq in pursuit of his form of hegemonic internationalism. The reasons broadcasted by the White House claimed that Saddam Hussein (President of Iraq in 2002) was building weapons of mass destruction and promoting/supporting terrorism which made him a grave threat to the western world. The real reason behind invading Iraq was to secure American access to vital resources, being oil. Iraq had been attacking Iran who was dangerously close to Saudi Arabia which is a huge supplier of oil to the United States. Once the United States had control of Iraq they installed a sympathetic “democratic” government which had eliminated the Iraqi threat to Saudi oil. Through the pursuit of hegemonic internationalism the United States had achieved one of its national interests, obtaining vital resources, but at a huge cost. Over 1 million
The first step in establishing an Iraqi threat was to demonstrate that Iraq possessed WMD, meaning chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver these weapons. The possession of these weapons would be in direct violation of U.N. resolutions put into effect after the Gulf War and hopefully justify any use of force under international law. Time and time again the Bush administration put forth statements that, “Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving even closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” In February of 2003, one month before the U.S. waged war on Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell brought the administration’s case for war before the United Nations Security Council in an effort to garner U.N. support for an effort to disarm Iraq. By one count, “Powell made twenty-nine claims about Iraqi weapons, programs, behaviors,
The main reason for invading Iraq was because America is concerned about the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons Saddam Hussein might have. Intelligence indicated Saddam was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and maintained links to al Qaeda affiliates to whom it might give such weapons to use against the United States. After two years of examining Iraq, the weapon search group failed to find weapon of mass destruction stockpiles or any program to produce them. The Bush administration has expressed disappointment that no weapons or started programs to produce weapons were found, but the White House had been reluctant to call off the search, holding out the possibility that weapons were moved out of Iraq before the war or are hidden somewhere inside the country. But the intelligence official said that possibility is very small. It is very likely if Iraq was holding any kind of weapons that America is concerned about, they would have used it to keep U.S soldiers out of Iraq.
The following is a true story about my maternal grandfather Ferenc Papp, who fought in the Second World War which was the largest military conflict in human history, claiming the highest number of casualties of all previous wars worldwide. The war started on September 1st 1939 and ended September 2nd 1945 with the surrender of Japan. During World War II Hungary was in alliance with the Axis power. This cooperation was in part free willed but also in part coerced. Given the fact that the small country with its ten million inhabitants is sitting in the dead smack center of Europe, it has always been a desirable spot for military strategic location purposes and because of that it has suffered its share of stormy times during history.