Entrenched Sectarianism Limits Optimism, Impacts Views Of Democracy

Nevertheless, the Kurds believe that the threat of intolerant Shiite Arabs coming into power requires a formidable response to ensure their security (Source C). Even though the foreign affairs pose a threat to the Kurds,

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

The Sunni and Shia conflict is currently the longest running feud in the world. Both groups possess an extreme hatred for one another. Over the years, these two groups have openly expressed their hatred with one another through violent killings. This split between the Shia and Sunni originates all the way back in the 7th century. Their difference was based on political differences. As a part of my essay I will explain the difference and origins of the split between the Shi’a and Sunni and also cover the current issues between them.

This paper will look at and discuss the presidency’s actions involving Iraq from Reagan to Obama. Each and every president during this time has used different strategies and formats to get their agenda across, to not only convince the public, but the international community as well. We will show how Iraq has gone from an ally to overthrowing the government, to the ensuing turmoil that this created for everyone involved, from ours and their citizenship, governing bodies, and other world leaders. With over 35 years of intervention, we will determine if there has been a consensus of actions among our presidents, and see if there is a cohesive US strategy and long term goals that have been reached for all our effort and actions to all of this.

Iraq and Iran have been subjected to a civil war since the seventh century (Murphy 1). This existing problem began because of political and theological divergence, but with the help of outside forces such as Britain, Russia, and North America, it developed into a more complex crisis.

I am writing to you today as a student at the College of William and Mary. I am in an International Security class and recently we studied the events occurring in Syria. As you are well aware, the situation in Syria has been dramatically deteriorating in recent months with the rise of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and the recent entrance of Russia into the conflict. Syria, meanwhile, has been in the midst of a ravaging civil war since the early spring of 2011. Currently, the government of Syria is led by President Bashar al-Assad, a member of the Syrian Ba’ath Party, a branch of the same Ba’ath Party that Saddam Hussein was also a member of. This similarity may lead some to think that Syria will end up like Iraq, with a

The US sponsored research conducted by the Political Instability Task Force identified key factors responsible increasing the political instability of states. These factors include: bad neighborhood, state discrimination and anocratic regimes. ( USAID, 2012 ). These are clear characteristics of Syria.The Syrian constitution for example does not address sexual orientation, the Alawite community ( from which Asad is a member ) dominate the entire government and according to Human Rights Watch, the government detains protesters and subject them to atrocities. Political parties are also harassed. (United States Department of State, 2014). Terrorists prey on domestic political instability to advance international terrorism because unstable states offers them the military and organizational skills. ( Campos & Gassebner, 2009).

When one thinks of Iraq war, the two key players are perceived to be George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein. As leaders of the opposing sides, they are also perceived as the decision makers. In the individual and sub group levels of analysis, toppling of the Hussein’s regime in Iraq was a success. This success

Did Bush Democratize the Middle East? The Effects of External-Internal Linkages. Political Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell), 128(4), 653-685. doi:10.1002/polq.12141

Polarization, populism, and erosion of democracy are all occurring. It Is important then to look at the relationship between these three things, and their potential to cause further issues. As I hope I made clear in my discussion of polarization there is a real threat to democracy that exists when people are not able to be held accountable. Polarization on its own caused the issues of gerrymandering and voter id laws that were discussed above, but more important than that is the relationship between polarization within government and populism. According to Liebermann “hyperpolarization magnifies tendencies for the partisan capture of institutions that are supposed to exercise checks and balances, but may instead be translated into unaccountable

In this day and age, we find ourselves at odds with our “identity” as we find that not only are we representing ourselves, but we also have ties to religion, sect, tribe, and family (Angrist). This shows that despite the cohesiveness and threads that attach us, it has the power to pull people, families, and in some cases countries apart. This conflict comes to a head when religion and ethnicity are interwoven. Hence when divisions occur, this can lead to violent wars that destroy trust between individuals. This can ingrain a sense of uneasiness and distrust that plagues people’s ideas and leaves a country divided. This is particularly evident in Lebanon. Ethnic and religious division led to the festering of feelings of marginalization and discrimination, which boiled over into the Lebanese civil war, a war that claimed the lives of 150,000 people (Szekely). The anger and frustration birthed from this to chaos, and conflict has in turn increased the division between ethnic and religious factions and led to the crumbling of Lebanese nationalism. This essay is specifically aimed at assessing the relationships between ethnic and religious divisions in Lebanon and explores how it contributed to the civil war. This is done by identifying and analyzing the main actors and makes an explanation of the historical divisions stemming from the National Pact, branching out to include the consequences of the civil war on the political structures and the identities of the

Iraq has been involved with civil unrest and war for decades. I believe that the physical, economical, political, social and psychological effects of this ongoing conflict have perpetuated a cycle of conflict through insurgency groups such as ISIS. The citizens of Iraq grew up in an era of conflict, I believe that as a result of this, they have been desensitized to war and conflict, and instead of a rare occurrence, they view it as a necessary means for survival, a way of life.

Following the events of September 11th, President Bush was looked to as a leader to lead the country out of chaos. “In the weeks after the attack, Bush’s approval rating rose to 90 percent—the highest recorded job-approval rating in U.S. presidential history” ( millercenter). Nowadays however, Bush is often criticized for the actions he took during the invasions. “The Bush administration’s strategy had been to reduce the U.S. military presence as Iraq’s stability improved. Yet the goal proved unattainable, owing in part to the power vacuum left by the dismantling of the Iraqi army and the rise of sectarian violence within the two dominant strains of Islam in Iraq” (millercenter). Of course hindsight is always 20/20, but many blame the Bush Administration for the power vacuum created in the Middle East. Bush’s foreign policy typically surrounded a strong use of force and led to increase in terrorism surveillance creating a discussion that is hotly debated today Following the end of Bush’s second term, Barack Obama had won the presidency and the work in the Middle East was far from over. Obama proved to have a different ideology from Bush, wanting to remove troops from the Middle East, something he

In order to fully interpret the nation of Iraq’s holistic condition during and after the Saddam Era, Social, Political, and Economic factors must be weighed accordingly and in contrast to each other. In order to do this, the span of years leading up to 1989, and

We want the Arabs, Shiites and Kurds all minorities dealing Iraq. We want to cancel this parliament and local councils, which proved its failure? We want to establish civilian State without parties, without false under name of Islam.