United States Policy Towards The Iraq War

“Because his American-supplied army and his American-trained secret police kept the shah in power, his opponents hated the United States almost as much as they hated their autocratic ruler. The shah’s rule was not one of constant decency” (Carnes and Garraty). From 1977 to 1979, Iran grew more and more unstable, as the Iranian people’s hatred of the shah further intensified. 1977 saw numerous riots, along with both the wounding and even killing of large numbers of the Iranian people. The Iranian people finally rose up against the shah in 1978, by January of the next year the shah was forced to flee. “A revolutionary government headed by a religious leader, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, assumed power. He that freedom was an enemy of Islam, as well as that Islam condoned terror. Khomeini denounced the United States as the “Great Satan” whose support of the shah, he said, had caused the Iranian people untold suffering” (Carnes and Garraty). Upon his exile, the shah was dying of cancer, after seeking refuge in numerous countries he was finally given refuge in the United States. The Iranian people wouldn’t have it, and began protesting outside the U.S. Embassy demanding the shah be returned, tried, and hanged. The Iranian Hostage Crisis was quickly approaching.

“ The Islamic Revolution of 1979: The Downfall of American- Iranian Relations” analyzes American- Iranian diplomacy from 1953- 1979. It is an explanation of the causes and developments of the Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini’s rise to power and

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.

The oil abundant Middle East country Iran was about to be turned into a communist country due to the Iranian President Mosadegh who supported communism. U.S. helped anti-communism parties by supporting them with finances and eventually exiled President Mosadegh. United States aided the Middle East countries with weapons to oppose against Soviet Union, so that the United States would have access to oil rich Middle East

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.

From World War II till his overthrow the Shah of Iran was a close ally with the United States and was one of the bases from

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.

The U.S. foreign policy has always been linked to the domestic policy since the U.S. never feared of expanding its national interests over the national boarders. Isolation for the U.S. usually implied slow economic growth and the large number of destructive conflicts within, while impudent foreign policy always guaranteed an abrupt economic growth for the U.S. economy. After the U.S. intervened in the WWI and the WWII, the U.S. economy witnessed a tremendous economic growth, nearly elimination of the unemployment, rapid urbanization and overall growth of the standards of living across the country. Decisive foreign policy has always been providing the U.S. economy with the sustainable and rapid economic growth, unlike the policy aimed at isolation of the U.S.

As was laid out in the previous section, the United-States always had a ‘hegemonic presumption’, the conception that Latin America was inferior, a supposition that gave the right to Washington to intervene in the region’s political and economic affairs (LeoGrande, 2007:384). This second chapter will explore how the U.S. intervened in Latin America, more specifically after the World War II. Indeed, the U.S. benefitted greatly from the aftermath of the war. A subsection will be dedicated to the Pink Tide in Latin America, with a focus on the U.S. foreign policy under President GW Bush and President Obama. The overthrown Presidents of Honduras and Paraguay were part of this movement and their outset signals a reversal in the region.

In 2003 America engaged in a war with Iraq because we suspected that Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction. The American Federal Government did not want there to be a chance that terrorist groups could gain access to these weapons and then use them against us or some other unprepared country so President George Bush waged a war against them which was very different from our stance in World War II. During that time, we tried almost everything we could to avoid joining in the war. But after we were violently attacked by Japan in Pearl Harbor, we figured there was no way to avoid going into war now. We had just cause and the necessary military forces to fight back, so we did. We joined the

Between 1918 and 1953 there was a major change regarding the foreign policy of the United States. At the end of the First World War, we practiced a foreign policy that was first established by George Washington in his Farewell Address back in 1796, which set a precedent of isolationism that was adopted until the beginning of World War II. Following Washington 's Neutrality Proclamation, the US did not engage in many global affairs such as the French Revolution and remained neutral through all foreign affairs. At the end of World War I, we continued to practice isolationism by not engaging in foreign affairs and limiting military spending believing that by pursuing this policy we could maintain peace and avoid war. Unfortunately, this

The Bush administration's National Security Strategy was a product of America’s belief in American interventionism and exceptionalism, and marked a dramatic shift in the United State's foreign policy. In addition, it showcased the Bush administration’s push to find answers to 9/11. In the few years after the tragedy, the US would seek to strike a blow in the war on terror in Iraq, where Saddam Hussein and his Ba’athist regime had supposed ties to terror groups such as Al-Qaeda. The nation quickly moved to war, and invaded Iraq in the spring of 2003. However, even though the war was quickly declared over, the continued deaths of American troops in Iraq gave rise to powerful protests. Artist Joe Wezoreck’s collage War President, critiques the continued stay of American troops in Iraq. Once Iraqi accounts of the war, such as Wendell Steveanson’s collection of stories “Dispatches from Iraq” surfaced, the American public truly began to question the real purpose behind the Iraq war. These sources initiated the changing perception of the American identity as a bastion of freedom and democracy as a result of the Iraq war. In the end, the Iraq war ultimately failed to provide answers to a post 9/11 nation, and instead revealed the flaws of interventionism and muddled American foreign policy to the disillusioned American

Invading Iraq was—and remains—a highly debated and controversial decision within both world politics and the academic disciplines of politics and international relations. With a growing number of deaths, rising tensions in the Middle East, and a failure to find any weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the voices condemning the Bush administration have been increasing ever since the decision to go to war was announced. While many scholars have traditionally argued against the war, this paper will argue that the Iraq War can be justified.

“One of the good things about the way the Gulf War ended in 1991 is, you 'd see the Vietnam veterans marching with the Gulf War veterans” (George H. W. Bush). President Bush stated that the Persian Gulf War was not fully supported by the soldiers who fought in the war. Gulf War veterans marched like Vietnam veterans because they also viewed the war as unjustified. Persian Gulf War veterans would say, “American soldiers lost their lives’ for oil.” The first Persian Gulf War started from August 2, 1990 and ended on February 28, 1991. This war began by the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. During this invasion some of the oil fields of Kuwait were set on fire and some of the oil spilled to the Persian Gulf. The Persian Gulf was the oil supplier for western countries. So anything happened to the Persian Gulf, the western countries will naturally react. The factors that led to The United States’ involvement in the first Persian Gulf War included Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, his control over a sizable share of the world’s oil reserves and his power over the economies of the world. Many Americans believe that the first Persian Gulf War was not necessary for the United States.

Our initial response to the 2011 revolution was appropriate. You suggested Mubarak to resign and declared U.S. support for the revolutionists. The decision reversed our long-time Middle East policy favoring stability over democracy, but it served our national interest. It forestalled a Syria-style civil war as we dissuaded the Egyptian Army from suppression. Such a war can jeopardize our use of the Suez Canal as a crucial route to deploy our naval forces.