The Presidency 's Actions Involving Iraq Essay

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.

Following the attacks in America on September 11, 1999, there was a public outcry for justice throughout the country. Even with significant public support to wage war against Iraq, there was not enough reason to persuade congress. Over the course of two years, President George W. Bush proved that there was a purpose in the war, not only seek vengeance against terrorism; but, gift a people freedom from dictatorship. Yet, there were still downsides to war including inevitable loss of American life and damaged reputation for our country. For that reason, the United States of America should not have gone to war with Iraq in 2003 due to the extensive federal funding for undesirable warfare which took away from domestic prosperity, the preventable injury to veterans as well as violence against civilians, and the country’s damaged reputation achieved due to the illegitimacy of the war.

“If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.” These were the first words spoken that would give any inclination towards what was soon to come. In George Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, he referred to the Middle East as an “axis of evil,” a term that would be used for the next ten years, throughout the devastating war with Iraq. Millions of American’s views on Iraq were clouded by the malicious actions of the few nineteen suicide bombers on September 11, 2001, and other preconceptions about the Muslim people. Consequently, today many people think that the U.S.’s involvement in Iraq was successful, removing Hussein’s regime and restoring freedom in Iraq. However, they probably aren’t aware of the massive impacts the war has had on Iraq and less importantly, America. The U.S./Iraq war has had a devastating impact on the social and economic states of Iraq, and has contributed to the U.S. pouring billions of dollars of taxpayer money into the military.

George W Bush’s presidency can be associated with an infamous term that stood out from the State of the Union address, that term being ‘Axis of Evil’. In this context, Bush categorised the countries of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as being ‘evil’ states. This neoconservative comment left little doubt as to what Bush’s foreign policy towards these states was going be (Baxter and Akbarzadeh, 2008). This comment would then define George W Bush’s presidency, due to the controversy over this phrase and the results that it would have on US foreign policy as “rarely had such a rhetorical device had such devastating consequences” (Ansari, 2006:186). This paper will argue how the use of the word ‘evil’, and the categorisation of these ‘evil’ countries, had a large impact on US-Iran relations.

The 2003 Invasion of Iraq not only signalled the beginning of the Iraq War, but also demonstrated the power and unchallenged military dominance of the United States. Unlike the first Gulf War, many of the US public, media and officials criticized the Bush Administration’s decision to invade Iraq by questioning the legality and the evidence used to justify the war. These arguments as to whether the Bush Administration was justified in its use of hard power to invade Iraq are diverse and disputed among many historians. The opinions of several historians including Pollack, Mearsheimer and Siilberman, in conjunction with the primary accounts of US president George W. Bush and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein create a conflicting and questionable

After December 26 1991, when the Soviet Union fell, the bipolarity of the international system was effaced. In the post- Cold War era, the United States faced the problem, without a defined enemy, to adopt a new foreign policy. To begin to analyze the political foreign policy of the United States, one must first understand the international system. According to Political Realism, a theory of international thought, the state is the key unit within the acts within the system. These states act according to their key norms, which are allowed by the system. However, these sates are also affected the domestic and external factors which control how they act. The domestic factors include political culture, their economic system, the leadership

In 2004, the United States armed forces supplanted itself in Iraq under the guise of finding Saddam Hussein’s imaginary weapons of mass destruction, deposing the Iraqi dictator and building stable democratic institutions. Despite never finding any evidence of WMDs, the US remained in Iraq even after the creation of a new, questionably democratic government. Why did the US prolong its stay in the middle east? Regional stability, specifically, economic stability concerning oil exports and prices. Despite its efforts, the US’ quest to stabilize the country and the region remain arguable at best.

“You’re fired,” the first thing an employee hears in his/her job at a real estate company in 2008 without knowing the cause while his/her CEO gets a massive raise. Ever since the subprime mortgage crisis occurred in 2008, which left a multitude of people without a stable, well-paying job, CEOs and other executives in the United States have been making gargantuan amounts of money from their respective companies while laying off workers. For example, according to From Beyond Outrage written by Robert B. Reich, “The chairman of Merck took home $17.9 million in 2010, as Merck laid off sixteen thousand workers and announced layoffs of twenty-eight thousand more.” and that is not just “worrisome, but also outrageous.” However, this paramount issue did not begin in the twenty-first century, but in the late 1980’s. During this time, George H. W. Bush’s Administration had utilized the concept of trickle-down economics that was implemented by the Reagan Administration, and, as a result, helped to create a growing gap in wealth in the U.S. Furthermore, this expanding gap has led to growth in poverty as well as the constant growth of the power of the upper class in which the author Gregory Mantsios, who wrote Class in Americaㅡ2012, wanted to clarify the myths and truths within the United States social hierarchy in order to explain the need to strengthen the middle class.

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

Justification of the War in Iraq Despite contrary belief, the Iraq War can certainly be justified. This war began in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq by U.S troops under the command of former president, George W. Bush. This invasion can be vindicated for several reasons. The greatest is that Iraq was a severe menace to its own people due to a corrupt and distorted government, spearheaded by the dictator, Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, Iraq was a substantial threat to other nations in the world, including the United States of America because of its previous possession of weapons of mass destruction and ties with terrorist groups. It would be misleading to not mention the economic gains that motivated the American government to occupy Iraq.

After years, the US must withdrawal troops from Iraq, but leaving behind is a shattered and exhausted country with no longer a war land but peace has not seen. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein was not only destroyed the regime, but also destroyed the internal security and order. It has been promoted the rise of the forces of al-Qaeda terrorists and the sparking an outbreak of conflict ethnic conflicts, sectarian. The Bush Administration rested its public case for war against Iraq on two putative threats – Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and Iraq’s ties to al-Qaeda. In hindsight, the Bush Administration should have planned much better such as strategy of exiting, released convincing evidences about Iraq’s possession of WMDs, whether Iraq was connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks or maybe, ultimately stayed out of the

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

While the Iran-Iraq War during the 1980's may have permanently altered the course of progress in Iran and Iraq, the war also altered the resulting permanent involvement of the rest of the world in the middle-east. The rich and complicated history in Iraq has established numerous cultural and ethnic traditions that all play a part in where the country is today. The Iran-Iraq War brought into focus some of those traditions and how they conflicted, while also bringing Iraq and its economic situation into the spotlight. Being on top of some of the most mineral rich soil in the world makes Iraq a major contributor to the world's economy through petroleum and crude oil exports. This, among other reasons, ties nations

The war against Iraq began on March 20, 2002, when the U.S lunched “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. This was after President Bush called Iraq part of an “axis of evil”, also calling the country dangerous which is threatening U.S with the world’s most destructive weapons. The major phase of the war began when U.S troops marched within 50 miles of Baghdad with heavy aerial attacks on Baghdad and other cities. After the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon which was believed to be the work of Al Qaeda, U.S was concerned about the security of the Untied States which lead to the war in Iraq. Even though U.S officials felt the war in Iraq is the main priority, but many people in U.S opposes the war which brings up a lot of controversial issues.

What triggered the Iraq War that we are currently still having? During this time in history we were still in the cold war as well Cold War (1945–1991), a lot of events has happened during this time period. I am going to start with the Iran-Iraq war which started in 1980 and ended in 1988. The war began when Iraq invaded Iran, launching a simultaneous invasion by air and land into Iranian territory on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes, and fears of Shia insurgency among Iraq's long-suppressed Shia majority influenced by the Iranian Revolution. (Wikipedia, Iran–Iraq War, 2011). This war had at least a million and half casualties and it severely damaged both their economies, the Iran-Iraq war conflict is often